Teaching "Average" Students to Make Historical Arguments

Author(s): Ray W. Karras

Source: OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 11, No. 1, Business History (Fall, 1996), pp. 34-36
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Organization of American Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163118
Accessed: 15-07-2016 05:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press, Organization of American Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to OAH Magazine of History

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:37:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 On Teaching

Teaching "Average" Students to Make

Historical Arguments

It usedcapable
to be assumed
of usingthat onlyorder
higher the most able students
thinking skills to were
make
The 50% of average ability historical arguments; for "average" students rote memorization of
facts and dates would have to do. Now, happily, this seems to be
are the concern of this article: changing. The recendy published National Standards for Teaching
United States and World History repeatedly urges that all students

how can the skill of historical be taught to "[ejvaluate major debates among historians" to "con
struct a historical argument," and "to hold interpretations of history
as tentative, subject to change as new information is uncovered, new
argument best be introducedvoices are heard, and new interpretations broached" (1). Recently
published textbooks seem to ask for similar performances from
to these students! average students.
This change is significant. If we accept the statistics that about
half of all students fall into the average ability range, with about 25%
above and below average, then we are considering higher order
Ray W. Karras thinking skill instruction for at least 75% of all history students (2).
The 50% of average ability are the concern of this article: how can the
skill of historical argument best be introduced to these students?
Looking at a textbook such students might use can be instructive.

Picking an Argument with a Textbook

other about historical interpretations, sometimes in heated disputes?
Ray W. Karras, a frequent contributer to tfteMagazine of History,
is an educational consultant based in Nashua, New Hampshire.
For their invaluable advice on ability teaching, the author thanks Joy
Gilbert, Pamela Healey, Marge Mechem, and Cynthia Calvin of
Lexington High School, Lexington, Mass.
In their World History: People and Nations, Anatole G. Mazour
and John M. Peoples invite students to "identify" an argument:
When we hear the word argument, we often think of a
disagreement or dispute. However, when historians use the
word argument, they are speaking of a thesis or main point
supported by reasons and examples (3).
Can this be so? Do not historians typically disagree with each
If so, they must present not only their own reasons and examples, but
those of their opposition as well. As the British historian Paul
Johnson puts it, "[o]nce you have satisfied yourself that a certain
interpretation of history is correct," you must "systematically... grub
around for evidence to refute it" (4). Contrary to Mazour and
Peoples' advice, historical argument thrives on disagreement and
dispute, just as the National Standards guidelines suggest.

34 OAH Magazine of History Fall 1996

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:37:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Karras /Teaching "Average" Students

The subject Mazour and Peoples wish students to argue about is chapter, here is a sample of which might be learned:
contained in their twenty-three page chapter on the Cold War in 1. Supporting facts and analysis. The textbook says that between
Europe (5). In a page on "Building Study Skills. . . Identifying an 1946 and 1948, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia
Argument," the authors present an excerpt from a full-length history became Soviet satellites in which the Communist Party alone ruled.
of the Cold War and tell us that In February 1948 the Czechs elected leaders from several parties, as
The author's argument is based upon his thesis that both did the Western democracies. Very soon, however, the Communists
powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, share wrote a new Czech constitution, held a new election, and installed
responsibility for the development of the Cold War (6). a one-party Communist government. Thus, the Central European
Probably few could disagree with this. For it is no argument at country with the longest and strongest tradition of democracy fell
all, but merely a plain idea about the subject. Nor do the surrounding behind what Winston Churchill called "the Iron Curtain."
twenty-three pages present arguments; the chapter itself, called 2. Opposing facts and analysis. The Yalta and Potsdam
"Challenges Faced Europe and North America in the Postwar Years," agreements of 1945 did not forbid Communist governments.
is a well-made, straightforward chronological account, and no more Indeed, they could not do so because these agreements were signed
than that. by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as well as by the Western allies. If
Non-controversial textbook material like this, however, can be a the Czechs wanted a one-party Communist state, that was their right.
As U.S. President Harry S Truman said when he introduced the
rich source of real historical argument. To show how argument can
Greek-Turkish aid program in 1947 (the Truman Plan), the U.S.
be built even from limited materials, we shall deploy only what is
found in Mazour and Peoples' chapter, presumably the kind of opposed no country whose people chose Communism of their own
reading average students might be expected to do. free will.
First, we need controversy. Let us revise the "argument" Furthermore, even though the Soviet Army occupied Eastern
suggested in the textbook?that "both powers, the United States and Austria at the end of the War, the Soviets did not try to impose
the Soviet Union share responsibility for the development of the Communism on that country to make it a Soviet satellite. In 1955
Cold War." Instead, let us claim: both the Soviets and the western nations withdrew their occupation
Between 1945 and 1968, the Soviet Union was more respon troops from Austria and agreed to leave it as an independent and
sible than the United States for the development of the Cold neutral state. Austria was not the only such country. Though Albania
War. and Yugoslavia were Communist states, they were not Soviet
Unlike the textbook example, this is surely a controversial claim satellites, nor did they belong to the Cominform, Moscow's agency
for, as we shall see, there is evidence that the United States bore for international influence and control. All this suggests that the
heavier responsibility than the Soviet Union for the development of Soviets did not intend to expand their power into Western Europe.
the Cold War; indeed, students might be assigned to argue it either Finally, the Soviet satellite countries posed no military threat to
way. For demonstration here, I shall hold that the Soviet Union bore Western Europe. The textbook says that the Soviets justified their
the greater responsibility. Having offered a controversial claim, the satellites as a "badly needed buffer zone against the possibility of
teacher's next task is to guide students through an argument future German expansion." There seemed litde danger that Western
supporting it. Europe would fall behind the Iron Curtain.
The key to effective argument is structure. If argument is more 3. Rebuttal to restore original claim. The Soviets posed an
than merely giving "reasons and examples," it is also very different indirect but real threat to the West. Through the Cominform,
from random clashes of personal opinions. Argument is a process Moscow's propaganda urged the "unity" of all Communist parties,
with distinct steps and operations which must be taught and including those in Italy, France, and other Western European
practiced. We cannot assume that students somehow know how to countries whose resistance to Communist take-overs was weakened
structure this process unless we show them how and coach them in by the devastating effects of World War II?especially in the early
doing it for themselves. postwar years. Behind the Iron Curtain, Soviet repression of its
The teacher might lead students through these four steps of satellite countries presented further dangers to the West. Uprisings
argument: 1) Support the claim with facts and analyze how they against Soviet Communist control in East Germany in 1953, in
give that support. Mazour and Peoples suggested this first step. Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 were harshly
2) Oppose the claim with additional facts and analysis. 3) Rebut beaten down by Soviet tanks and soldiers, thus bringing Soviet
the opposing claim with still more facts and analysis. This is military might closer to the West. This repression caused hundreds
necessary to restore the original claim. If the opposition cannot of thousands of refugees from the satellite countries to stream into
be rebutted, then the student must either change his mind or seek Western Europe, where they begged the Western powers?especially
additional information. 4) Ask for new unknown factual informa the United States?to help them against their Soviet overlords. A
tion which, by inference, would test the claim. Argument can western response might have started World War III, so the United
make students feel the need to ask for more than their textbooks States and its allies had to watch helplessly the plight of millions of
tell them. I shall call these Inferential Questions. their neighbors to the East. To the West, these Soviet actions seemed
If these steps are applied to Mazour and Peoples' Cold War to violate the purposes for which the Allies had fought World War

OAH Magazine of History Fall 1996 35

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:37:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Karras/Teaching "Average" Students
II, and for which they had entered the Yalta and Potsdam agreements.
The Soviets deserve no thanks for leaving Austria, Albania, and
Yugoslavia independent, for this is what they should have done
anyway. Certainly the western democracies were free and indepen
dent nations. France, for example, gave only limited support to the Western Europe, for these did not seem directly relevant to the lines
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the defensive Western alliance
established in 1949. Austria was the exception to Soviet practice, for gets learned; it has to be known before the decision to reject it can
it was the only country from which Soviet occupation forces were
voluntarily withdrawn.
Renewed German aggression against the Soviet Union seemed
unlikely. As provided in the 1945 Yalta and Potsdam agreements,
U.S., British, French, and Soviet armies occupied Germany in four
zones. Here they oversaw the dismanding of all German armed
forces and punished former Nazi leaders in, for example, the
Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46. Devastated, divided, and controlled
by its conquerors, Germany threatened no one in 1946-48, the very
moment when the Soviets claimed that they needed buffer zone
protection. The so-called German threat was only a Soviet excuse for
its expansion through its satellites.
4. But the textbook does not tell enough! The argument invites
the student to ask inferential questions. For example:
The textbook tells about elections in Czechoslovakia result
ing in a Communist take-over. But how did Communists come to
power in Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland? What elections were held
in these countries, if any?
What, if anything, did the Yalta and Potsdam agreements
say about Soviet spheres of influence in Eastern Europe? By
inference, an answer would test whether the Soviet Union violated
its earlier pledges.
What did Soviet leaders say to explain their agreement to an
independent Austria in 1955? By inference, the answer would help
test claims about Soviet intentions.
In fact, what did Soviet leaders and their allies tell each other
about their intentions regarding a wide range of global issues during
the Cold War? The recent opening of many Soviet archives is now
revealing a wealth of new information described in Melvyn P. Leffler,
"Inside Enemy Archives: the Cold War Reopened," Foreign Affairs
(July-August 1996). This sixteen-page article would be an admirable
accompanying source to any textbook treatment of the causes and
conduct of the Cold War. Leffler's article goes beyond the textbook
account, is far more interesting?and yet seems written at a "reading
level" accessible to "average" students.
We should not fault Mazour and Peoples for not answering all
these questions. No matter how much factual information is offered,
arguers always need to know more, and the process of argument
shows them how to ask for it specifically and efficiently. Argument
can also teach the lesson that historical interpretations are, as
National Standards suggests, tentative and always subject to revision
in the light of new evidence.
If they use the four-step structure suggested above, it is very likely
that many students and teachers who read Mazour and Peoples'
chapter on the Cold War will make different and perhaps better
36 OAH Magazine of History Fall 1996
This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:37:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
arguments than I have. I used by no means all of the information
in that chapter. For example, I did not use the text's detailed
descriptions of the organization of the United Nations, nor did I draw
on its helpful account of postwar economic growth in Eastern and
o{ argument I chose. Notice, however, that even unused evidence
be made. (Here, by the way, is a useful definition of what teachers
might mean when they ask students to "know the relevant facts":
relevant facts are those, and only those, that support or oppose
controversial claims in an argument) The point is, if you apply
appropriate structure to it, almost any textbook can provide grist for
the mill of argument.
Students may express historical arguments in a variety of ways.
Essays, for example, may develop only one claim, as demonstrated in
this paper, or they may present a hierarchy of several claims logically
supporting an overarching controversial hypothesis (7). Another
possibility is group work, in which students make charts of the steps
of argument by working on blackboards or even on networked
computers (8). There are also ways to write multiple-choice questions
that test the ways claims and evidence play against each other (9).
Classroom debating is, of course, an obvious expression.
In all these expressions the key to success is the orderly structure
of point-by-point argument. Only the teacher can show students how
this structure works and coach them in using it?an especially
compelling task with students of average ability who may never before
have been asked to argue about history. Indeed, teaching this
structure may be at least as important a task as conveying the bare
historical facts.
Endnotes
1. National Center for History in the Schools, National Standards
for World History and National Standards for United States
History (Los Angeles: University of California, 1994), 27, 112,
passim.
2. David Wechsler, WISC HI: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children?Third Edition; Manual (San Antonio: The Psycho
logical Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991), 32.
3. Anatole G. Mazour and John M. Peoples, World History: People
and Nations (Austin, Tex.: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1993),
760.
4. Paul Johnson, "Why All of Us Should Observe the Eleventh
Commandment of Karl Popper," The Spectator (24 September
1994), 27.
5. Mazour and Peoples, 750-773
6. Ibid., 760.
7. cf. Ray W. Karras, "Writing Essays that Make Historical
Arguments," OAH Magazine of History (Summer 1994): 54-7.
8. cf. Ray W. Karras, "Teaching History through Argumenta
tion," The History Teacher 26 (August 1993): 419-38.
9. cf. Ray W. Karras, "Let's Improve Multiple Choice Tests,"
OAH Magazine of History (Summer 1991): 8-9, 43.