Evaluation of didactic units on historical thinking and active methods

The article studies whether implementing eight didactic units (DUs) designed around historical thinking and active, inquiry-based methods produces significant changes in secondary students’ perceptions of history teaching. The context is the shift in history education from transmission of first-order (substantive) content toward explicit teaching of second-order (strategic) concepts—historical thinking skills such as sourcing, evidence use, empathy, multi-causality, and perspective taking. Prior research shows these skills do not develop naturally and require explicit instruction, as well as a methodological change from lecture-based teaching to learner-centered, inquiry approaches. The study’s main objective is to detect significant pre–post changes in students’ perceptions of methodology, motivation, satisfaction, and learning effectiveness/transfer after implementing the DUs within a teacher-training programme.

The paper situates historical thinking as encompassing second-order concepts central to historians’ work (sourcing, evidence analysis, empathy, multi-causality, perspective), citing foundational projects and scholarship in the UK (Project CHATA), USA (Wineburg; cognitive psychology of experts/novices), Canada, and elsewhere (Netherlands, Chile). It contrasts traditional expository teaching with learner-centered, inquiry-based approaches (Trigwell & Prosser; ATI), noting a hierarchy of teaching approaches and the need for cooperative, interactive strategies and continuous assessment. Evaluative studies in history education are increasing, with work in the Netherlands on practice-focused evaluation, research on historical empathy, and implemented training units showing gains in motivation and perceived learning. In Spain and other contexts, traditional models persist with overreliance on textbooks and lectures, but there is momentum toward competence-based, student-centered models employing heritage, primary sources, and digital tools, as well as strategies like project-based learning, gamification, and flipped classroom. The study aims to add rigorous mixed-methods evidence on the effects of DUs targeting historical thinking.

Design: Mixed-methods, evaluative study with a quasi-experimental A–B (pretest–posttest) design. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated to address four specific objectives (perceived methodology, motivation, satisfaction, and learning effectiveness/transfer).

Sampling and participants: Non-probabilistic convenience sample. Quantitative sample: 114 secondary students aged 12–20 (M=15.63, SD=1.54); pretest 51 males (44%), 65 females (56%); posttest 50 males (44%), 64 females (56%). Distribution across Spanish secondary levels (ESO 2–4) and Baccalaureate (1st–2nd). Qualitative participants: focus group of 6 Master’s in Teaching students (2 men, 4 women; 22–45 years) who implemented the DUs; interviews with 3 secondary teachers (2 men, 1 woman; 40–60 years) and 3 students (13–17 years).

Intervention: Eight didactic units (DUs) focused on historical thinking and active methods were designed and implemented by trainee teachers during school placements. Selection of the eight DUs was random among those tutored by the research team.

Instruments (quantitative): Two Likert-type (1–5) student questionnaires: (1) Assessment of Secondary School pupils on the teaching of History (pretest), and (2) Opinion of Secondary School pupils on the implementation of the History unit (posttest). Each included 37 items across four categories aligned with the objectives: (a) DU’s impact on teaching/learning process (methodology), (b) motivation in an innovative DU, (c) satisfaction with an innovative DU, and (d) perceived learning/effectiveness and transfer.

Instruments (qualitative): Focus group (9 questions) with trainee teachers; interviews (16 questions) with classroom tutors and students. Qualitative prompts were aligned to the four objectives to complement quantitative findings.

Procedure and training: Four phases: classroom observation (Dec 2022–Feb 2023); design of DUs (Mar–Apr 2023); implementation (May–Jul 2023); evaluation (Sep 2023–Jul 2024). A university training programme (Jan 10–Mar 17, 2023; 18 face-to-face hours) for Master’s students in Geography, History and Art History covered historical thinking concepts, active teaching methods and assessment, quantitative/qualitative research, and thesis guidelines. DUs were implemented during the placement period.

Data analysis: Quantitative analyses performed in R (repeated-measures mixed factorial ANOVAs): within-subjects factor time (pre, post) and between-subjects factor gender (male, female). Dependent variables: subscale scores (methodology, motivation, satisfaction, perceived learning). Normality was approximately satisfied. Where applicable, paired t-tests and Hedges’ g were reported. Qualitative data were descriptively coded in Atlas.ti 23; codes were open and non-exclusive. ChatGPT was used to refine coding accuracy, organize themes, and compute word occurrence percentages. Instrument validation: peer review and pilot testing ensured clarity and relevance.

Ethics: Approved by the Ethics Research Committee of the University of Murcia (08/03/2021). Informed consent obtained (Apr–May 2023).

Quantitative results (pre–post changes):

• O1 Methodology: Significant main effect of phase (Pre vs Post): F(1,108)=91.88, p<0.01, partial η²=0.26 (large). No significant gender differences at pre or post and no interaction. Means (pre vs post): males 35.92±5.60 to 43.32±6.91; females 36.43±5.83 to 44.53±7.58.
• O2 Motivation: Significant phase effect: F(1,108)=48.83, p<0.01, η²≈0.144 (large). Small gender effect with higher posttest scores for females; no interaction. Means: males 22.45±4.86 to 25.94±5.85; females 23.33±5.40 to 28.33±5.27. Paired tests indicated significant gains for both genders (approx. Hedges’ g ≈0.52 men; ≈0.73 women).
• O3 Satisfaction: Significant phase effect: F(1,108)=51.6, p<0.01, η²≈0.13 (medium). Small posttest gender difference favoring females; no interaction (p=0.08). Means: males 21.98±3.72 to 23.94±3.95; females 22.13±3.43 to 25.75±3.24. Paired gains significant in both genders (g≈0.45 men; ≈0.94 women).
• O4 Perceived learning/effectiveness and transfer: Significant phase effect: F(1,108)=52.71, p<0.01, η²≈0.12 (medium). No significant gender differences and no interaction. Means: males 40.27±5.40 to 43.94±6.32; females 40.67±5.14 to 45.39±6.38. Paired gains significant (g≈0.62 men; ≈0.73 women).

Qualitative results:

• Trainee teachers reported increased student motivation and satisfaction; valued interactive, participatory methods and the teacher’s pivotal role. Challenges included student resistance to participatory work, technology/logistics issues, workload, time constraints, and the need to adapt content and methods to each group.
• Secondary students appreciated more dynamic, visual, and interactive approaches (slides, short videos, discussions) and the link between past and present. Some variability in preferences remained; concerns included dense language and memorization without understanding.
• Teachers acknowledged benefits (greater engagement, participation) but noted barriers to wider adoption: limited training, resources, time, institutional inertia, and diverse learner needs. They emphasized assessment alignment and collaboration for sustained change.

Overall: The intervention significantly improved students’ perceptions across all four domains, with the largest effects in perceived methodology change and motivation; females showed slightly higher posttest motivation and satisfaction.

The study demonstrates that explicitly designed DUs oriented to historical thinking and active methods can shift students’ perceptions toward more learner-centered, inquiry-based history learning. Large pre–post gains in perceived methodology reflect movement away from lecture/textbook dominance, aligning with calls in the literature for explicit instruction in second-order historical concepts. Motivation and satisfaction gains, particularly among females, suggest that interactive resources, discussion, and multimodal materials help engage diverse learners. Medium-sized gains in perceived learning indicate that students recognized effectiveness and transfer, consistent with prior evaluations of similar programmes. Qualitative data highlight both enthusiasm and practical challenges: variability in student preferences, resistance to interactive tasks, and constraints related to time, technology, and teacher preparation. These findings support the importance of sustained professional development, resource provision, and assessment practices that value historical thinking to consolidate change at scale. The persistence of traditional models in pretest perceptions and teacher interviews underscores systemic inertia and the need for institutional support to mainstream active, competency-based approaches.

Implementing eight didactic units on historical thinking within a teacher-training framework led to significant improvements in secondary students’ perceptions of teaching methodology, motivation, satisfaction, and perceived learning. The largest gains were in methodology and motivation, indicating meaningful movement toward active, inquiry-based history education. Qualitative evidence from trainee teachers, students, and teachers corroborated these improvements while identifying practical challenges (e.g., technological barriers, student resistance, workload, and time). The study contributes mixed-methods evidence that targeted, well-supported DUs can enhance historical thinking-oriented teaching and learner engagement. Future work should expand samples, strengthen longitudinal follow-up, refine assessment alignment with historical competencies, and bolster teacher professional development and institutional supports to address implementation barriers.

Study limitations include: (1) relatively small quantitative and qualitative samples; (2) convenience sampling; (3) limited availability reduced planned participation in interviews and focus groups (e.g., parental consent required for minors, voluntary participation); (4) short implementation window during placements; and (5) reliance on self-report perception measures rather than direct assessments of historical thinking performance. Implementation challenges reported by participants (workload, time constraints, resource and technology limitations, varying student buy-in) may also constrain generalizability and fidelity.