Theory Into Practice

ISSN: 0040-5841 (Print) 1543-0421 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Argumentation in History Classrooms: A Key Path

to Understanding the Discipline and Preparing
Citizens

Chauncey Monte-Sano

To cite this article: Chauncey Monte-Sano (2016) Argumentation in History Classrooms: A Key
Path to Understanding the Discipline and Preparing Citizens, Theory Into Practice, 55:4, 311-319,
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1208068

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208068

Accepted author version posted online: 05

Aug 2016.
Published online: 17 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 359

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=htip20
Theory Into Practice, 55:311–319, 2016
Copyright q The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1208068
Chauncey Monte-Sano
Argumentation in History
Classrooms: A Key Path to
Understanding the Discipline and
Preparing Citizens
Different kinds of arguments typically include
claims, warrants, and evidence. However, the very
nature of claims, warrants, and evidence are
discipline specific. A student’s essay, for example,
may exhibit features of argumentation while
revealing fundamental flaws in historical thinking.
Stronger historical arguments exhibit historical
thinking in their construction of claims and in their
selection, integration, and explanation of evidence.
Historical arguments begin with questions and
H ISTORICAL ARGUMENTATION holds a pro-
minent place in current policy thinking.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and
the C3 Framework for Social Studies State
Standards (C3) both call for argumentation in
this domain. One of four dimensions of the C3
Chauncey Monte-Sano is at the University of
Michigan.
Correspondence should be addressed to Chauncey
Monte-Sano, 610 East University Ave., University of
Michigan School of Education, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-
1259. E-mail: cmontesa@umich.edu.
sources and require an understanding of
the original meanings of those sources, rather
than using sources to support a predetermined
point. I share data from different research projects
with adolescents and historians to illustrate key
aspects of historical argumentation such as noting
author credibility or situating evidence in its
historical context. Then, I show how teachers have
supported students’ growth in making historical
arguments and why such efforts matter.
Framework highlights argumentation in social
studies—particularly the development of claims
and counterclaims in the process of analyzing and
evaluating evidence from multiple sources—and
another dimension emphasizes communicating
those conclusions. A third dimension that high-
lights disciplinary ways of thinking within social
studies also outlines the role of argumentation
in history, specifically (National Council for the
Social Studies, 2013. pp. 49 & 55). The CCSS
complements the C3, calling for argumentation
when writing in history/social studies, science,
and technical subjects (National Governors
311
Argumentation and Education in Democratic Society
Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2010. p. 64). The
CCSS also emphasizes the construction of claims
and counterclaims using reasoning and evidence
as well as language, style, and structure.
For a sense of how groundbreaking these policy
documents are, consider another recent bill
amendment approved by the Florida house in 2006:
American history shall be viewed as factual, not
as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable,
teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as
the creation of a new nation based largely on the
universal principles stated in the Declaration of
Independence. (as cited in Craig, 2006)
Framing history as facts has not always been
quite so explicit, but can often be a default stance
in history classrooms. The emphasis on factual
recall in history education is partly an artifact of
psychometric decisions made in the early 1900s
during initial attempts to assess history learning.
Those decisions were largely based on what
forms of measurement were simplest and could
most easily attain reliability, not on validity
(Wineburg, 2004). The following assessment
item about Native American removal represents a
factual recall orientation to history:
The Indian Removal Act (1830) relocated
thousands of Cherokees from Georgia to
Indian Territory for the purpose of
A. making the land available for white
miners and farmers,
B. allowing the Cherokee their freedom
from US control,
C. obeying the Supreme Court’s order to
move the Cherokee, and
D. creating a wilderness area for use by
White fur trappers.1
Even though assessments and related stan-
dards have traditionally emphasized factual
recall, argumentation has long been a keystone
of the discipline from the perspective of
historians and history educators. Yet that stance
has not always been accepted in the political
arena (Nash, Crabtree, & Dunn, 1997).2 Whether
312
or not to integrate argumentation in history
classrooms shouldn’t be a political football; it is a
foundation for learning history.
But what does it mean to ask students to
construct arguments in the context of history
classrooms? How can teachers support students
as they learn to make historical arguments? In
light of recent calls for argumentation, I examine
what historical argumentation involves, the
relationship between argumentation and inquiry-
based pedagogy, what such teaching entails, and
why an emphasis on argumentation in history
classrooms matters.
What is the Nature of Historical Argument?
The study of history is rooted in critiquing and
constructing interpretations (or, arguments)
about events, people, ideas, and issues in the
past based on analysis and questioning of
historical sources. I use Toulmin’s (1958) classic
framework of claim, evidence, and warrant to
highlight the structure and basic characteristics
of historical argument. Yet, I also extend that
framework, identifying the role of historical
thinking in the construction of claims and the
selection, integration, and explanation of evi-
dence (Monte-Sano, 2010).
In contrast to how history is often framed,
historical argumentation is not about getting the
right answer, but about asking questions and
weighing evidence to draw the most sound
conclusion possible, given the limits of the
evidentiary base and one’s ability to imagine
another time. Claims begin with historical
sources and questions people bring to those
sources. Arguing about history is a way of
thinking that permeates the construction or
critique of an evidence-based interpretation.
Questioning Sources to Generate Claims
Claims are grounded in the available evidence,
which is incomplete. Historical evidence comes
from another time and place that cannot be fully
recreated. The inability to reexperience past
events means that the process of historical
Monte-Sano
argumentation involves reconstructing the past.
And which sources people use, as well as how
they interpret those sources and piece them
together, are central aspects of historical argu-
ment. It is difficult to fully know what happened
or why, for whom it mattered and how, because
the evidentiary base is fragmentary and historical
arguments are made about a time and place that’s
different than today. Therein lies the space for
interpretation and argument.
Therefore, one fundamental type of historical
claim focuses on interpretation of sources and
what sources can tell about people, events, or
ideas in another time and place. Historical claims
largely focus on causes and consequences of
historical events (e.g., weighing the role of
different causes or consequences against one
another), significance (e.g., what should we
remember or commemorate today), change and
continuity (e.g., where do we see progress or
decline over time), and historical perspectives
(e.g., why did people act as they did, what were
the settings that influenced people’s lives).
Historical arguments are not necessarily only
about the past; indeed, they can also involve
claims about how the present is shaped by
the past or how the past is used in the present
(Monte-Sano, 2015).
Historical claims are typically situated in
response to others’ interpretations (i.e., how have
others viewed this topic) and could involve an
argument for an interpretation, against an interpret-
ation, or some discussion of multiple interpretations
with eventual rebuttals in favor of one interpret-
ation (Coffin, 2006). Recognizing the ongoing
conversation about a topic by other historians and
situating one’s argument amongst those competing
arguments is a hallmark of historical argument
(Monte-Sano, 2015). This aspect of historical
argumentation reflects Walton and Godden’s
articulation of argument as dialogic (2007).
Evidence
Evidence is at the root of historical argu-
ment—historians construct claims through con-
sideration of evidence. Historians analyze
evidence in the process of constructing claims
Argumentation in History Classrooms
by sourcing (attending to possible influence of the
creator and time/place of creation on a source),
contextualization (considering what else was
going on at the time of the document’s
construction), and corroboration (comparing
documents to identify agreements and disagree-
ments; Wineburg, 1991).
Because the evidentiary record comes from
another time and place, those who make
historical arguments must first understand the
original meaning of a source to understand what
it might be evidence of. For example, Robert
Lindneux’s famous 1942 painting of the Trail
of Tears3 is not a good source of evidence if a
student wants to understand why the Trail of
Tears happened in 1837. Because the source was
created 105 years after the event, it cannot
provide first-hand insight into potential causes.
However, if a student wants to understand how
people in the 20th century perceived the Trail of
Tears, Lindneux’s painting is a useful source that
could be used as evidence.
Perspective matters, too. For example, one
learns different things about the Trail of Tears
experience from a memoir by Private John Burnett,
one of many soldiers who forced the Cherokee to
move, and an interview with Elizabeth Watts, a
Cherokee descendent whose grandparents told her
of their experiences on the Trail of Tears. Authors’
positions and affiliations, as well as their purposes
in creating an artifact, shape the fragments of
history left behind. The selection of good evidence
in the construction of claims is crucial, and sourcing
that evidence is key to making such choices.
Historical argument relies on using credible,
reliable evidence that’s historically significant to
the question being asked.
Historians alter their questions and claims
based on what the sources can tell them, rather
than marching forward with a predetermined
question or answer (Monte-Sano, 2015).
If students want to argue that President Jackson’s
Native American policy marked a major depar-
ture from earlier federal policy, they would need
to contextualize Jackson’s policies by situating
them in the context of prior president’s policies or
contiguous events (e.g., gold was discovered in
Georgia in 1828). Such events can help explain
313
Argumentation and Education in Democratic Society
why removal took place during Jackson’s
presidency.
Students of history would also corroborate by
comparing Jackson’s speeches to Congress with
those of prior presidents on the topic (e.g.,
Jefferson). They might also need to revise their
claims somewhat by acknowledging that removal
had long been considered an option by other
presidents. To be sure, historians bring their
hypotheses to sources, but good historical
argumentation involves revising questions and
claims based on the evidence, not forcing a piece
of evidence to fit into a much-loved argument.
Historians are expected to suspend judgment in
analyzing sources and constructing claims. Even
though values and frames of reference play some
role in shaping historians’ conclusions, the goal
of objectivity has endured (Novick, 1988).
Warrants
In addition to selecting good evidence,
historians must explain its role in the argument
and why or how that data supports the argument.
Warrants often focus on key aspects of historical
thinking or draw relationships among historical
events in arguments of cause and consequence,
significance, change and continuity, or
perspective.
If teachers ask students which sources are
most helpful in explaining why the Trail of Tears
happened, the teachers want to avoid having
students select evidence because they like it;
instead, they want students to select and use
evidence because it is significant to the time
period and issue under study. Where, when, and
whom an artifact comes from is, therefore, just as
important as what the artifact literally says.
In developing arguments about which path
offered the best chance of survival for the
Cherokee Nation in Georgia in the early 1830s,4
three 8th-grade students in a previous study I
conducted with colleagues (De La Paz et al., 2016)
exemplify key aspects of historical argumenta-
tion. Alicia argued that the 1832 advice to move
west given by Elias Boudinot, a member of the
Cherokee Nation, was particularly trustworthy.
She reasoned that Boudinot was in a better
314
position to consider the removal question than the
authors of another source she analyzed because of
when he wrote and what else was going on at the
time each source was written. Alicia reasoned that
Boudinot “had the latest information”—specifi-
cally, he formed and communicated his position
that the Cherokee should move west after the US
Congress ignored the latest Cherokee petition
(the other source students analyzed) and passed
the Indian Removal Act, authorizing Jackson to
negotiate removal treaties with Native American
nations. Situating sources in their historical
context guided Alicia’s argument.
Another student, Nestor, saw it differently.
Nestor highlighted that Boudinot was an outcast
of the Cherokee Nation in Georgia, calling the
author’s judgment into question. Nestor said
Boudinot was less believable because “[Bou-
dinot] was fired from his job and he just probly
[sic] want to move and start a new life.” Nestor’s
reasoning highlights the author’s social situation
and possible intentions as the student considered
different arguments and the credibility of
evidence for them. In fact, Chief John Ross
fired Boudinot from his post as editor of the
Cherokee newspaper because the chief disagreed
with his views on removal. In contrast, selected
representatives of the Cherokee wrote another
source and could have been more faithful to
the majority of the Nation’s views. A different
student, Carlos, compared sources in his evalu-
ation—“[Boudinot] might not be speaking for the
Cherokee and know how the people feel”—to
argue that the Cherokee should have stayed
because the Cherokee representatives’ petition is
more reliable in investigating how the Cherokee
Nation might have considered removal in the
early 1830s.
Evidence-based argumentation in history is
not just about the literal text, and it’s not a matter
of simply inserting a quotation from the sources
to show that there’s evidence to support a claim.
In addition to these foundational aspects of
argument, historical argument leads students to
consider the credibility, relevance, and signifi-
cance of the evidence in developing and
convincing others of a claim.
Monte-Sano
Teaching Practices That Support
Historical Argument
In a recent classroom visit for a current
project, a teacher investigated the causes of the
Trail of Tears with 8th-grade students. After
examining the textbook’s interpretation, they
found that the authors reported the event as a
given, without explaining why the Trail of Tears
happened. Students then explored causes of the
Trail of Tears by examining a range of sources
on federal Native American policy, conflicts
between the state of Georgia and Cherokee
sovereignty, people’s views of Native Americans
in the early 1800s, economic issues, and divisions
within the Cherokee Nation. After deliberating
about the evidence, students wrote a letter to the
textbook editors critiquing the textbook report of
the Trail of Tears and arguing the key causes of
the event. An inquiry approach to teaching that
begins with questions and data—as opposed to
taking claims as given, as often happens—is
crucial to historically sound arguments.
To engage in argumentation may require
significant instructional shifts, as it puts students
in a position to generate ideas, question and
critique evidence, and develop their conclusions.
To learn historical argumentation, students must
have a voice. If students perceive that there is
one right answer, there is little to argue about.
Specific instructional practices support this shift.
Central Questions
Instruction that supports historical argumenta-
tion begins with posing a central question that has
more than one plausible response (i.e., “Why did
the Trail of Tears happen?;” Reisman, 2012).
Historical questions can focus on cause and
consequence, perspective, change and continuity,
significance, or how to interpret the meaning of a
source or set of sources. In the case of causation,
students’ job is not simply to list all of the causes
they find, but to develop an understanding of
the different factors that contribute to an event
and make a case for which causes were most
consequential (Lee, 2005). Central questions that
encourage argument are open-ended rather than
Argumentation in History Classrooms
closed; they call for interpretation. Pedagogically
speaking, good central questions pose dilemmas,
challenge assumptions, spark more questions, and
highlight key content or concepts.
Historical Artifacts
To investigate and respond to the central
question, students must draw on data. In history,
data takes the form of artifacts that give insight
into the time, place, and people contemporary
to the event. As in the Trail of Tears example,
sources that represent multiple perspectives
on the question (e.g., federal Native American
policy, conflicts between the state of Georgia and
Cherokee sovereignty, etc.) push students to
grapple with conflicting ideas and see that there’s
not necessarily one right answer (Monte-Sano,
De La Paz, & Felton, 2014; Young & Leinhardt,
1998). In contrast, pairing a central question with
a textbook excerpt typically results in a report of
what the textbook says. In presenting a single,
fixed story, the textbook models summary writing
and negates argument. Doing archival research
or selecting from a set of sources more closely
approximates the thinking process of historians
when constructing arguments and gives students
a chance to grapple with complexity.
Reading Supports
Students typically need support in reading and
analyzing sources to engage in such deliberation.
Reading support is partly about comprehension
of the literal text, and also involves teaching
students to source, contextualize, and corroborate
(Wineburg, 1991) in order to understand subtext.
In addition, students must learn to make
inferences and do the interpretive work of more
advanced historical reading comprehension—as
some students in the observed class reported, the
documents didn’t answer the question about why
removal happened. The questions asked today are
not necessarily the questions that authors (writing
from their perspective in the 1830s) wrote about.
Instead, historical sources are clues that must be
understood and connected to the event under
315
Argumentation and Education in Democratic Society
scrutiny through questioning and analysis (e.g.,
Monte-Sano et al., 2014; Reisman, 2012).
Discussion
Key to the reading and analysis process is
dialogue among students and discussion of the
sources and the central question (Monte-Sano,
2008, 2011; Reisman, 2012). Through discussion,
students not only make sense of the sources
and central question, but also begin to evaluate
sources and construct arguments. Discussion does
not mean debate—debate begins with preformed
claims and then proceeds to convince others.
Instead, historical discussion is more akin to
seminar or deliberation, in which students
consider the sources and construct claims (Parker,
2003). Claims are an end-product of discussion
developed through honest consideration of
sources. Students often also need support in
identifying and using academic language to
engage in discussion (Zwiers, 2006).
Historical Argument Prompts
Historical arguments are most often conveyed
through writing. Yet, the prompts students are
asked to respond to do not always explicitly call
for argumentation: “List and explain the causes of
the Trail of Tears” or “Discuss and analyze the
issue of US expansion in the 1830s, 1840s, and
1850s.” Such prompts do not clearly call for
argument, especially for novices. One student,
Kim, faced the US expansionism prompt along-
side a textbook passage and her teacher’s lecture
about the topic (Monte-Sano, 2008). In this
context, and without instruction in how to make
an argument, Kim summarized a series of events
that showed US expansionism in that time period,
explaining how the United States acquired the
Oregon territory from the British and then Texas
via the Mexican-American War. She did not have
a claim, but a list of events. Instead, prompts that
ask a direct question, call for interpretation, and
have multiple plausible responses give students a
clearer task and room to make an argument.
Historical writing in schools also often takes
the form of five-paragraph essays for the teacher—
316
not particularly motivating. Instead, prompts that
call for students to write to a real audience and
with real purpose are potentially more motivating
(Duke, Caughlan, Juzwik, & Martin, 2012) and
may help students integrate historical thinking
into their arguments, thereby strengthening their
claims, evidence, and warrants. The Trail of Tears
lessons described here offer an alternative:
Writing a letter to the textbook editors with a
critique of their treatment of the causes of the Trail
of Tears and an argument about key causes of the
event that the editors should include in their next
revision. Such a prompt more clearly calls for
argument, is more authentic to the discipline, and
provides a real audience and purpose.
Why Historical Argumentation Matters
On one level, learning to construct and critique
historical arguments brings students to the heart
of the discipline—the questioning and analysis
of sources; the consideration of causation,
change, perspective, or significance; the con-
struction of claims through corroboration of
evidence—thereby opening up the possibility for
learning history. In this conception of history, the
subject matter is as much about the literacy and
disciplinary practices involved in constructing
interpretations as the interpretations themselves
(the products of the interpretive process that we
most often see in textbooks).
Beyond subject matter understanding, students
learn important citizenship skills when focused
on argumentation. Whether citizens construct
arguments or consider the arguments of others,
attending to evidence that supports an argument
is key to understanding public issues and making
good decisions (e.g., Banks, 2006). Especially
important is the practice of recognizing where
evidence challenges an argument and revising
arguments based on challenging evidence. Put-
ting one’s biases aside and appreciating the
meaning of data or what data can say about an
alternative perspective before turning it into
evidence to advance one’s position is another
key civic practice. Inherent in this approach to
evidence is the consideration of multiple
Monte-Sano
perspectives. Finally, thinking about the credi-
bility of evidence and where evidence comes
from can help citizens make stronger arguments
or hold others accountable for making reasonable
arguments based on reliable evidence. The
decisions people make today about how to handle
public issues must rely on sound argument and
credible evidence; otherwise, they may make
mistakes with far-reaching consequences.
The arguments people make about the past don’t
simply gather dust on library bookshelves; indeed,
people use history regularly in making arguments
about a host of topics. In a quick search of Twitter,
I found the Trail of Tears hashtag used to express
concern about anything from rental cars agencies
and early morning exercise routines to the losses
of favorite sports teams. In August 2014, some
Oklahoma State University students went so far
as to create a sign that said “Send ‘Em Home
#Trail_of_Tears #GoPokes” when they played
Florida State’s football team. Perhaps analogizing
the forced removal of Native Americans to
experiences in one’s everyday life is simply
ludicrous and reckless. But these examples serve
as reminders that historical argument matters in the
everyday life of citizens; the arguments people make
about the past are used in the present day, whether
intentionally or not. Being aware of, and challen-
ging, such uses of the past is part of being a citizen.
Historical argumentation not only calls for
the display of evidence for others to consider,
but also attends to the credibility of the evidence
and revision of the claim to reflect the evidence.
Asking students to make arguments about the
past positions them to critique the interpretations
they consume—whether from their textbooks,
media, or politicians and leaders. Such learning
prepares students for college, career, and civic
life, as called for in the latest standards
documents, and goes beyond what a multiple-
choice test can assess.
Notes
1. This assessment item comes from California State
Tests, 2009, 6 th-8 th #89 http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/
tg/sr/documents/cstrtqhss8.pdf.
Argumentation in History Classrooms
2. For an example of standards that historians
supported see the 1996 National History Standards
by the National Center for History in the Schools:
http://www.nchs.ucla.edu/history-standards/
historical-thinking-standards.
3. This painting can be seen at http://www.pbs.org/
wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html.
4. These students considered a policy question from
the standpoint of the Cherokee in the 1830s. Putting
students in the shoes of historical actors can
increase motivation, but it also presents challenges
to contextualized thinking. Asking a yes or no
question (stay or remove) can make it easier for
students to make a claim, but can oversimplify the
issue under examination. “Why did the Trail of
Tears happen?” is a more authentic historical
question, but also a more difficult question.
References
Banks, J. (2006). Decision-making: The heart of the
social studies. In J. Banks (Ed.), Race, education,
and culture (pp. 81 – 92). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language
of time, cause, and evaluation. New York, NY:
Continuum.
Craig, B. (2006). History defined in Florida legislature.
Perspectives on History. Retrieved July 17, 2015
from https://www.historians.org/publications-and-
directories/perspectives-on-history/september-
2006/history-defined-in-florida-legislature.
De La Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger,
R., Jackson, C., & Piantedosi, K. W. (2016).
Historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents:
Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, doi:10.
1002/rrq.147.
Duke, N., Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M., & Martin, N.
(2012). Reading and writing: Genre with purpose in
K– 8 classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Lee, P. (2005). Putting principles into practice:
Understanding history. In M. S. Donovan &
J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History
in the classroom (pp. 31 –74). Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of historical writing
instruction: A comparative case study of two
teachers’ practices. American Educational
Research Journal, 45, 1045– 1079.
317
Argumentation and Education in Democratic Society
Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in
history: An exploration of the historical nature of
adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 19, 539–568.
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehen-
sion and summary: Learning to read and write in
history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and
interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41, 212– 249.
Monte-Sano, C. (2015, March). “It’s not that simple”:
The historical writing project. Talk presented to
historians, learning scientists, and teacher educators
at the University of Illinois-Chicago; hosted by the
UIC History Department and the UIC Learning
Science Research Institute. Chicago, Illinois.
Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014).
Reading, thinking, and writing about history:
Teaching argument writing to diverse learners in
the Common Core classroom, Grades 6 – 12. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Nash, G., Crabtree, C., & Dunn, R. (1997). History on
trial: Culture wars and the teaching of the past.
New York, NY: A.A. Knopf.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2013).
College, career & civic life (C3) framework for
social studies state standards: Guidance for
enhancing the rigor of K – 12 civics, economics,
geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2010). Common core state standards for English
language arts. Washington, DC: Author.
Additional Resources
1. Structured Academic Controversy, Teaching
History web site. http://teachinghistory.org/
teaching-materials/teaching-guides/21731.
This article, written for teachers, offers a
description of a model for discussion that
supports evidence-based argument and delib-
eration in history and social studies classrooms.
The article includes links to instructional
materials that support teachers in facilitating
Structured Academic Controversy discussions.
2. Historical Thinking Matters web site. http://
historicalthinkingmatters.org.
This web site offers four in-depth investi-
gations of historical topics and accompanying
instructional materials that support evidence-
318
Novick, P. (1998). That noble dream: The ‘objectivity
question’ and the American historical profession.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, W. (2003). Learning to lead discussions.
Teaching Democracy: Unity and diversity in public
life. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Reisman, A. (2012). The “document-based lesson”:
Bringing disciplinary inquiry into high school
history classrooms with adolescent struggling
readers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44,
233– 264.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., & Godden, D. M. (2007). Informal logic and
the dialectical approach to argument. In H. V. Hansen
& R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed (pp. 3–17).
Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving:
A study of the cognitive processes used in the
evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73 – 87.
Wineburg, S. (2004). Crazy for history. Journal of
American History, 90, 1401– 1414.
Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from
primary documents: A way of knowing in history.
Written Communication, 15, 25 – 68.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language:
Essential practices for content classrooms, grades
5 – 12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
based argument and deliberation in the class-
room. Materials include introductory film
clips, historical document sets, central ques-
tions, scaffolding tools to support reading and
analysis, and documents modified for different
reading levels with some materials translated
into Spanish. Materials developed in a partner-
ship between the Roy Rosenzweig Center
for History and New Media at George
Mason University and Sam Wineburg’s
Stanford History Education Group at Stanford
University.
3. Reading Like a Historian curriculum available
at the Stanford History Education Group web
site (https://sheg.stanford.edu/rlh) as well as in
elaborated book form: Wineburg, Martin, &
Monte-Sano (2011). Reading Like a Historian:
Monte-Sano
Teaching Literacy in Middle and High School
Classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
The Reading Like a Historian curriculum
materials provide middle and high school
teachers of US and world history with lesson
materials to teach historical interpretation and
evidence-based reasoning. The web site offers
75 US history lessons and an ever-growing
number of world history lessons along with
scaffolding tools to support students’ work. The
book offers eight in-depth US history lessons
with scaffolding tools, as well as an in-depth
explanation of how and why to teach historical
inquiry and reading, and background essays
on the eight topics of investigation. Materials
developed by members of the Stanford History
Education Group, led by Sam Wineburg.
Argumentation in History Classrooms
4. Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M.
(2014). Reading, thinking, and writing about
history: Teaching argument writing to diverse
learners in the Common Core classroom,
Grades 6 – 12. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
In this book, Monte-Sano, De La Paz, and
Felton explain how to teach historical argument
writing and present curriculum materials for six
investigations of US history topics that have
been shown to improve middle school students’
historical thinking and argument writing.
Materials include background essays on the
topics of investigation, primary document
source sets adapted for struggling readers, and
scaffolding tools to support students’ reading,
analysis, and writing.
319