The Social Studies (2010) 101, 5459 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0037-7996 print

DOI: 10.1080/00377990903283924

So What? Students Articulation of Civic Themes in Middle-School Historical Account Projects

THOMAS HAMMOND
College of Education, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA

Two middle-school teachers incorporated student creation of historical accounts into their history instruction. During these projects, the teachers instructed their students to (1) summarize information presented during classroom instruction on a topic (e.g., the Great Migration) and (2) explain the signicance of that topic to the present day. This second component of the task addressed a curricular standard regarding historical thinking, but students responses referenced themes from citizenship education (e.g., cultural pluralism, social criticism, and national identication). More than eighty student projects were analyzed and coded for themes. This study presents a portrait of ambitious history teaching and suggests a tactic for a civics-infused history education course. Keywords: history education, civics education, digital education

Although history educators and social studies educators nd much to disagree about regarding the K-12 curriculum (Bradley Commission on History in the Schools 1988; Vinson 2001; Watras 2004; Whelan 2001), both sides view citizenship preparation as a central goal of their practice (Thornton 2004). In this purported common ground, however, the exact scope, location, and even terrain are unclear. Civics education is a contested territory (Blades and Richardson 2006; Tupper 2006); the term itself encompasses a broad array of curricula, from those that emphasize personal responsibility and character education to those that emphasize civic participation or explore social justice (Westheimer and Kahne 2004). Radical critics challenge civic educations universalist emphasis and inattention to the different experiences and aspirations of subgroups (Blades and Richardson 2006), while conservative critics have long lamented declines in civics knowledge, patriotism, student responsibilities, and appreciation for American icons (Brown 1977; Cheney 2001; Paige 2003). Research on social studies teachers indicates a broadand sometimes conictingspectrum of views on citizenship (Anderson et al. 1997). Within the context of these challenges and uncertainties, the history classroom has the potential to make valuable contributions to citizenship preparationbut only if

Address correspondence to Thomas Hammond, College of Education, Lehigh University, Iacocca Hall, A119, 111 Research Drive, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA. E-mail: hammond@lehigh. edu

done consciously. History educators Sarah Drake Brown and Frederick Brown assert that civics must be central to history courses (2006, 13), and indeed, history education shares many overlapping goals with civics education, such as understanding the structure of the American government or knowing key gures, documents, and events (Center for Civic Education 1994; National Council for the Social Studies 1994). Civics themes typically appear in history courses (National Council for the Social Studies 1994, 30), and analyses of American history textbooks reveal attention to key concepts from civics education, such as the Constitution, federalism, separation of powers, and the three branches of government (Hahn 1999). This focus on the information required for citizenship is helpful (Galston 2001), but it does not address the knottier themes of civics, such as the challenges of civic life or the role of the citizen in a democracy (Center for Civic Education 1994). If civics-infused history education is to add value, it must address current shortcomings in civics education. For example, traditional civics courses may present the concept of citizenship in a vacuum, in which rights are equal and symmetrical (Blades and Richardson 2006, 1). This view ignores the fact that democracy and diversity within the United States have existed in tension and contradiction since the nations founding (Banks 2003, xi). In a history classroom that includes a focus on civic education, students will be made aware of the debates and struggles over the shifting franchise, interpretations of civil liberties and equal rights, and the evolving concept of America. Attentive, civics-infused history education provides an opportunity to support citizenship preparation as students

Students Articulation of Civic Themes

study the ongoing invention of democracy (Parker 2005, 68) and connect it to their own growing understandings as democratic citizens. But how are history teachers to include ambitious civics content in their classes? The history classroom is already a crowded stage. History teachers are harried by the demands of an expansive curriculum (Barton and Levstik 2004; Grant 2003; Nash, Crabtree, and Dunn 1997). In many states, those curricular imperatives are enforced by a high-stakes testing regimen, adding to the pressures on history instructors (van Hover 2006). Any additional attention to civics content must therefore make limited demands on instructional time and build on the practices and materials already in use in the history classroom. A strategy for civics-infused history education presented itself during a history education study in a public middle school. Over the course of a year, the author observed two history teachers instruction, focusing on their use of end-of-unit projects in which students constructed historical accounts in the form of digital documentaries. In these projects, students wrote a script, composed an image sequence drawn from archival photographs, and recorded a voice-over narration. The assignment included a stipulation that students explain the signicance of their topic: Why should this topic be remembered or studied in the present day? When reviewing responses to this prompt, referred to as the So what? prompt, the researcher observed that some students incorporated themes associated with civics education into their discussion of historical signicance. For example, one project describing the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II concluded that the experience affected us because it taught us not to imprison our own citizens. It also affected us by realizing that what were we ghting for but freedom (student product ID #262). This statement demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between citizens and governments, asserts a knowledge of the national ideal or purpose of freedom, and exhibits national identication. These concepts easily t within the mainstream civics curriculum, particularly the knowledge-values-skills approach (Butts 1980). In contrast, other students responses indicated a critical stance that challenges the status quo, as advocated by Westheimer and Kahne (2004). For example, one group writing about cultural conicts on the Great Plains pointed out the historical and ongoing injustices of the reservation system imposed on Native Americans: [W]e pushed the Indians from their land. . . . If we give the Indians their lands back, we can make peace with them. However, we wont give them their land back. They are stuck on their reservations (student product ID #5028). The history teachers practice of requiring students to construct their own determination of the signicance of historical information provides an opening for civics-infused history education. To explore the possibilities of this technique, the following questions were addressed:

55
1. What beliefs about history education and its connection with civics do these teachers hold? 2. What observed classroom practices by these teachers revealed or obscured these beliefs? 3. What themes from civics education are present in students nal responses to the So what? prompt?

Participants and Context

The research was conducted in a middle school in a midsized urban community in central Virginia. The participating teachers are members of the same team of history instructors. Both are second-career teachers, enrolling in teacher education programs after working in the service industry. The team leader is white, female, and had more than fteen years of experience teaching elementary and middle-level students. The other teacher is white, male, and in his second year as an instructor. Each teacher worked with six classes of students per day, with a total of approximately eighty-ve students per teacher. The classes were tracked into low-, middle-, and high-achievement groups based on reading level. Approximately half of the students were African American and the other half white, with a small minority identied as Hispanic, Asian, or other. Several classes included ESL studentsapproximately 5 percent of the totalwho often were recent immigrants. The school serves predominantly middle- and lower-income students, and more than half the student body is eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The curriculum covered U.S. history from 1877 to the present (Virginia Department of Education 2001). The digital documentary projects were completed over the course of four different units of instruction: post-Reconstruction America, the early twentieth century, World War II, and the civil rights era. Each unit employed the digital documentary assignment as a culminating project to review a specic topic within the unit. As an example, the project topics for the World War II unit included the Holocaust, the Manhattan Project, Japanese American internment, D-day, the Tuskegee Airmen, life on the home front, and so forth. For each topic, the teacher compiled a set of images and documents from online archives. Students working on the topic of Japanese American internment, for example, had access to selections from Ansel Adamss famous series of photographs (available in the Library of Congresss American Memory exhibit at www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/109 anse.html) taken at the Manzanar relocation camp in 1942. Each image was accompanied by contextual information (titles, dates, captions, etc.). Working in small groups of two or three (or, in some cases, individually), students used these images and their class notes to compose a brief digital documentary running between one and three minutes in length. Each documentary went through two or more drafts as students revised their script and image sequence. Between drafts,

56
the teachers reviewed students work and commented on their progress. Each round of projects took approximately ve forty-ve-minute class periods to complete. No group of students made a digital documentary more than once during the four units; because of the design of the history education research, only three class sections worked on a digital documentary at any one time while the other sections completed PowerPoint presentations as their culminating project.

Hammond
most uniqueprovided the basis for the ndings. These ndings were then interrogated for disconrming evidence and alternative explanations.

Findings
The analysis of the data provided four ndings. The rst nding addresses the rst two research questions, observing a divergence between teachers beliefs and practices. The last three ndings address the third research question, exploring themes presented in students nal digital documentaries. Finding regarding teachers beliefs and practices: The teachers viewed citizenship preparation as a goal of their history instruction, but this goal was not explicitly practiced during classroom instruction During the interviews, the teachers expressed a desire to help students connect the present with historical events and become morally conscious citizens, not only just in the United States but in the world (interview, January 25, 2007). However, during the observed classroom instruction and in the teacher-prepared materials used during classroom instruction, these goals were not visible. Instead, the emphasis was on knowledge of historical content: What happened on December 7, 1941? (classroom observation, March 29, 2006). This emphasis on historical information and fact-recall was attributed to the curriculum framework and testing regimen (Virginia Department of Education 2001 and 2002). Indeed, the curriculum framework has received high marks from the Fordham Foundation for its focus on factual knowledge (Stern 2003, 81), and the endof-year high-stakes test is predominantly a fact-recall assessment (van Hover 2006). The curriculum framework for the course contains the word citizen exactly once, in the context of the civil rights movement (Virginia Department of Education 2001, 185). The testing blueprint for the endof-year assessment identies ve civics and economics standards; of the ve, four focus on economics (Virginia Department of Education 2002, 4). It is unsurprising, therefore, that the teachers classroom instructional patterns did not actively address citizenship preparation but, instead, focused on building students content knowledge. The teachers inclusion of the So what? prompt during the end-of-unit project invitedbut did not requirea civic perspective from their students. The prompt also broke away from the focus on factual knowledge and introduced critical thinking, specically students ability to make connections between past and present (Virginia Department of Education 2001, 154). In examining the teacher feedback provided to the students during the project, however, the same focus on historical content emerged: the vast majority of teacher comments addressed students historical information rather than their responses to the So what?

Data Collection and Analysis

To answer the research questions, the researcher reviewed eld notes from observations of more than one hundred class sessions, as well as the documents and assessments used in the classes, transcriptions of four hours of interviews with the teachers, and the eighty-four historical accounts produced by the students over the course of the year. Because these historical accounts were produced using an online digital documentary tool, PrimaryAccess (see Ferster, Hammond, and Bull 2006), the researcher was able to review multiple drafts of the students work as well as formative feedback from the teachers. The rst step was to separate out nonresponses; twenty-two of the eighty-four projects (approximately 25 percent) did not address the So what? prompt and were therefore excluded from the analysis. The PowerPoint-based projects were also excluded; the assignment had included the So what? prompt, but almost all of the presentations either ignored the question or else restated itWhat did we learn? Why is it important? [student product ID ppt6.7]without providing an answer. No single existing framework for citizenship education or history education provided a suitable theory to guide the analysis, so the researcher followed grounded theory as the appropriate vehicle to build rather than test theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 13) regarding civics in the history classroom. The researcher conducted a line-by-line coding of the eld notes, documents, interview transcripts, and student-generated historical accounts following the constant-comparative method. Although the coding process was informed primarily by the research context (i.e., the curriculum framework, classroom observations, and teacher interviews), the researcher also drew on the literature base for citizenship education (Anderson et al. 1997; Butts 1980; Center for Civic Education 1994; Parker 2005; Westheimer and Kahne 2004) as well as research on history education (Barton and Levstik 2004; Lee 2005; Seixas 1994; Sterns, Seixas, and Wineburg 2000; Wineburg 2001). Following the initial analysis, the researcher grouped related codes to produce categories and, when necessary, subcategories. For example, many students accounts mentioned equality, but some used the term in the context of equality among groups (e.g., racial or gender equality) whereas others addressed individual equality before the law. The most prominent categorieswhether the most frequent or the

Students Articulation of Civic Themes

prompt and emphasized historical understanding rather than civic awareness. For example, in a project about life on the home front during World War II, the students chose to focus on how the war broke down racial and gender barriers. The teachers formative feedback sought to rene their scripts historical accuracy, for example: African Americans were always ABLE to be hired . . . the problem was they werent always hired . . . typically white workers were given rst choice (student product ID #316). A more civics-oriented response would, perhaps, have directed the students to consider the impact of economic changes on the civic community. The teachers desire to address civic competence accords with the broad aims of social studies educators (National Council for the Social Studies 1994; Parker 2005) and some history educators (Barton and Levstik 2004), but their enacted classroom curriculum reected the content knowledge emphasis of the local history curriculum (Virginia Department of Education 2001). Student nding 1: Despite the curricular focus on history, students assertions of signicance went beyond strictly historical explanations Even though the textbook, curriculum framework, and classroom instruction emphasized a narrative view of history, not all students framed their responses to the So what? prompt within this paradigm. Some students did stay within the conventions of history as narrativethe statement Pearl Harbor changed America by leading it into World War 2 (student product ID #362) places the events signicance squarely within the larger structure of the military-political narrative. In contrast, other students statements went beyond the nation-story: We all should remember this gruesome battle [D-day] so that no one has to live through such a disturbing event. To prevent something like this from ever happening again, the United Nations was formed, and it is critical that it is fully-functional to prevent battles on such a scale (student product ID #363). These students are asserting signicance based on an empathetic response (Seixas 1994; Barton and Levstik 2004), introducing the formation of an international cooperative association (the United Nations), and describing its purpose and function. A minority of students who answered the So what? prompt limited themselves to strictly historical explanations; the vast majority (more than 90 percent) referenced concepts appropriate for civics education. Student nding 2: In students explanations of signicance, themes from citizenship education were present, although not as prominent as themes from history education Themes from both citizenship education and history education were visible in students responses to the So what? prompt. However, references to citizenship themes, such as attention to cultural pluralism or social justice, were less prominent. Of the eighty-four projects, sixteen made state-

57
ments of values or beliefs (e.g., You should know how brave your country is, Student product ID #270); fteen mentioned racial or gender equality and thirteen discussed problem-solving strategies (such as the formation of the United Nations). One note of interest is that not all civil rights projects touched on citizenship themes! For example, one groups project on Rosa Parks concluded, If Rosa Parks had not refused to get off the bus then Martin Luther King Jr. wouldnt have existed to us. He would have been any other old minister trying to ght discrimination (student product ID #1012). In this instance, the students place Parkss signicance in terms of what she did in raising the prole of King, elevating the young preacher above the status of any other old minister. What was a mass struggle for racial equality has been transmuted into a narrative of famous individuals. Research on historical understandings has identied common patterns, such as the conception of history as progress (Barton and Levstik 2004; Loewen 1995), the personalization of historical events (Barton 1997), and a decit model of the past (Lee 2005). All eighty-four nal products produced codes that connected to history education research, with the most prominent being national progress (appearing in twenty projects). Other themes included national identication (twelve projects), learning lessons from history (ten projects), and the personalization of historical events (nine projects). Some statements appeared to be a very natural outgrowth of specic topics. For example, in a middle school students discussion of Rosa Parks, a statement that Rosa Parks changed the way people were treated and have equal rights because she dident [SIC] give up her seat for a white man (student product ID #937) is not unexpected. The assertion exemplies Bartons nding that students look solely to individual actions and intentions to explain what happened in the past (1997, 311), but this personalization is a natural response when prompted to explain, Why should this topic [Rosa Parks] be remembered or studied in the present day? Student nding 3: Within students references to citizenship themes, some understandings were more prominent than others When students citizenship themes were unpacked and scrutinized, differences emerged. For example, fteen projects referenced equality, but the concept was placed in the context of groups (i.e., equal rights) far more frequently than individuals rights (equality before the law). Furthermore, the concept of equality between groups was applied to race far more frequently than to gender, and never to class or sexual orientation. These differences correspond to the emphases in instruction: across the four units studied, a variety of topics addressed African Americans struggle for equality (e.g., Jim Crow laws, Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois, the Tuskegee airmen, the civil rights movement) whereas womens rights were addressed only twice,

58
once directly (in projects on the Equal Rights Amendment and the National Organization for Women) and once indirectly (life on the home front during World War II).

Hammond
examples of personal connections are not readily afforded by master narratives of political and military events, but they emerged as a result of the So what? prompt during the digital documentary project. Based on the ndings described above, teachers and teacher educators should consider integrating the So what? prompt (and similar exercises) into classroom discussion and student writing. In this study, the use of the prompt did not detract from the pursuit of the history curriculum and required minimal time and attention from the teacher. However, the instructional payoffsin students articulation of civic themes, connections between past and present, personal engagement with the past, consideration of others perspectives, and so forthwere signicant for both the purposes of history education and citizenship preparation. With more sustained attention (e.g., repeated use of the prompt throughout the school year) and the targeting of specic themes (democratic practices, equality among groups, equality before the law), students can experience a more fully formed combination of civics and history instruction (Brown and Brown 2006). The tactic of the So what? prompt is not without its limitations in its ability to integrate citizenship themes into history education. First, some topics within the curriculum may more readily lend themselves to the tactic than othersstudents can more clearly discern a So what? about the Holocaust than about the Spanish American War, for example. Second, some students responded to the prompt more enthusiastically than others, as displayed by the contrast between students who imaginatively entered the past (e.g., the quotation considering womens lives during World War II, above) and those who remained within a narrative of events and individuals. Finally, different teachers will have varying levels of success with the prompt as well. Of the twenty-two nonresponses to the So what? prompt, eighteen were from one teachers students and only four from the other teachers. Given that the students in both teachers classrooms were roughly equivalent (i.e., similar demographic distribution, class sizes, and track levels), the disparity in the response rate may stem from the teacher, and not the students or the topics.

Discussion and Limitations

The teachers use of the digital documentary project and the So what? prompt changed the instructional landscape of the history classroom for both the teachers and the students. For the teachers, despite their context of a history-as-facts (Wineburg 2001) curriculum and assessment paradigm (Virginia Department of Education 2001, 2002, and 2006), the prompt allowed them to introduce a form of historical thinking into their practice, connecting both past and present. For students, the prompt acted as an invitation to move beyond the curricular objectives of historical content knowledge and to apply a civic lens to the discussion of the past. Students answers to the prompt provided a unique window into their ideas and values, and peering through this window provided a very different impression of their understandings. The students formulation of historical events and their signicance could be startling, as in the student who placed Rosa Parkss signicance in the context of the rise of Martin Luther King Jr. The statement reduces the civil rights movement to key events and gures and fails to articulate any of the larger ideas addressed during classroom instruction, such as collective action and civil disobedience. In contrast, a student writing about Adolf Hitler drew parallels with Saddam Hussein, bringing in current events. These understandings rarely surface in class discussionor at least not in such a nuanced formand are certainly not visible in students responses on the endof-unit multiple choice test. The prompt also allowed students to enter into a much more personal relationship with the content. When writing about the civil rights movement, one student observed that
If everything was still segregated like it was in the 1950s and 60s then I probably wouldnt have even been born because i have a white mom and a black dad. Even if I had been born my life would be completely different. I would go to a school with all black students and have to walk to school or take a city bus which would still be segregated. . . . Most of the people in my generation lives would be changed. (student product ID 954)

Conclusion
History teachers and social studies teacher educators should consider the opportunities presented by the So what? prompt, whether in the context of a digital documentary project or in another format, such as a dramatic reenactment or poster activity. The prompt can encourage history teachers to engage students in the big ideas of history and civics, and the responses can provide teachers with a more complete understanding of their students perceptions and associations. Finally, given forethought, teachers can engage students in a rich discussion of civic ideals and

This answer not only connects the past with the present as called for by the curriculum frameworkbut connects the past with the students personal life. Other students entered into others lives, expressing sympathy with interned Japanese Americans or vividly describing the challenges facing women during World War II: Not knowing if your husband or son is still alive and then having to work twice as hard because all the men have gone to war. What would you do if this was your life? (student product ID 365). These

Students Articulation of Civic Themes

the forging of a democratic identity within the context of history instruction. This study presents only a limited exploration of the concept of the civics-infused history education. The students experienced, at most, an incidental contact with conscious, intentional civics education within the history classroom. The teachers did not employ the So what? prompt throughout the year, but only during project work. Students responses to the prompts were not used as the basis for further instruction or as starting points for class discussion. Further study, observing a more sustained, intentional use of the technique, is necessary to more fully explore its value for a civics-infused history course.

59
Loewen, J. 1995. Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: New Press. Nash, G., C. Crabtree, and R. Dunn. 1997. History on trial: Culture wars and the teaching of the past. New York: Vintage Books. National Center for History in the Schools. 1996. National standards for history. Basic ed. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for History in the Schools. National Council for the Social Studies. 1992. A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social studies: Building social understanding and civic efcacy. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. National Council for the Social Studies. 1994. Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Paige, R. 2003. Civics education in America. Phi Delta Kappan 85 (1): 59. Parker, W. 2005. Social Studies in elementary education. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Seixas, P. 1994. Students understanding of historical signicance. Theory and Research in Social Education 22 (3): 281304. Stern, S. M. 2003. Effective state standards for U.S. History: A 2003 report card. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Stearns, P., P. Seixas, and S. Wineburg, eds. 2000. Knowing, teaching, and learning history. New York: New York University Press. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thornton, S. 2004. Citizenship education and social studies curriculum change after 9/11. In Social education in the twentieth century: Curriculum and context for citizenship, ed. C. Woyshner, J. Watras, and M. Crocco, 210220. New York: Peter Lang. Tupper, J. 2006. Education and the (im)possibilities of citizenship. In Troubling the canon of citizenship education, ed. G. Richardson and D. Blades, 4554. New York: Peter Lang. van Hover, S. 2006. Teaching history in the Old Dominion: The impact of Virginias accountability reform on seven secondary beginning history teachers. In Measuring History: Cases of state-level testing across the United States, ed. S. G. Grant, 195219. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Vinson, K. 2001. Oppression, anti-oppression, and citizenship education. In The social studies curriculum, ed. E.W. Ross, 5785. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Virginia Department of Education. 2001. History and Social Science Standards of Learning curriculum framework: Essential knowledge, skills, and understandings. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education. http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/ History/histframework2001.pdf (accessed July 30, 2006). . 2002. Virginia Standards of Learning assessments for the 2001 history and social science Standards of Learning. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education. http://www.pen.k12.va.us/ VDOE/Assessment/HistoryBlueprints03/2002Blueprint 4USII.p df (accessed July 30, 2006). . 2006. State report card. https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/ (accessed July 30, 2006). Watras, J. 2004. Historians and social studies educators, 18931998. In Social education in the twentieth century: Curriculum and context for citizenship, ed. C. Woyshner, J. Watras, and M. Crocco, 192209. New York: Peter Lang. Westheimer, J., and J. Kahne. 2004. What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal 41 (2): 237269. Whelan, M. 2001. Why the study of history should be the core of social studies education. In The social studies curriculum, ed. E. W. Ross, 4356. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wineburg, S. 2001. Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

References
Anderson, C., Avery, P. Pederson, E. Smith, and J. Sullivan. 1997. Divergent perspectives on citizenship education: A Q-method study and survey of social studies teachers. American Educational Research Journal 34 (2): 333364. Banks, J. 2003. Foreword to Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life, by W. Parker. New York: Teachers College Press. Barton, K. 1997. Bossed around by the Queen: Elementary students understanding of individuals and institutions in history. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 12: 290314. Barton, K., and L. Levstik. 2004. Teaching history for the common good. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blades, D., and G. Richardson. 2006. Introduction: Troubling the canon of citizenship education. In Troubling the canon of citizenship education, ed. G. Richardson and D. Blades, 19. New York: Peter Lang. Bradley Commission on History in the Schools. 1988. Building a history curriculum: Guidelines for teaching history in schools. Westlake, OH: National Council for History Education. Brown, B. F. 1977. Introduction: The case for citizenship education. In Education for responsible citizenship: The report of the National Task Force on Citizenship Education, ed. B. F. Brown, 17. New York: McGraw-Hill. Brown, S. D., and F. Brown. 2006. History in education for citizenship in a democracy. International Journal of Social Education 20 (2): 1334. Butts, R. F. 1980. The revival of civic learning. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Center for Civic Education. 1994. National standards for civics and government. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education. Cheney, L. 2001. Remarks made at the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, Dallas, TX, Oct. 5. Ferster, B., T. Hammond, and G. Bull. 2006. PrimaryAccess: Creating digital documentaries in the social studies classroom. Social Education 70 (3): 147150. Galston, W. 2001. Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 217234. Grant, S. G. 2003. History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S. high school classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hahn, C. 1999. Challenges to civic education in the United States. In Civic education across countries: Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project, ed. J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille, and J. Amadeo, 583607. Amsterdam, Neth.: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Lee, P. 2005. Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom, ed. M. Donovan and J. Bransford, 3177. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Copyright of Social Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.