Evaluation of didactic units on historical thinking and active methods

Research in history didactics distinguishes between substantive (first-order) content (concepts, principles, specific events) and strategic (second-order) content (historian's skills, source analysis, empathy, perspective). This study focuses on the latter, aiming to develop students' abilities to analyze and use historical strategies to understand the past more comprehensively. Since the late 1980s, research in the UK, USA, Canada, and other countries has explored the concepts and skills students need to acquire for effective historical thinking. This includes work on understanding historical sources, empathy, and the historian's methodology. The importance of explicit teaching in developing historical thinking is widely acknowledged. To foster these skills, a shift from expository teaching to inquiry-based methods is needed. Existing research identifies various teaching models, ranging from teacher-centered transmission of knowledge to learner-centered approaches that emphasize active learning, collaboration, and continuous assessment. This study contributes to the growing body of evaluative research in history education, focusing on changing the conceptual model of history teaching and evaluating the impact of active methods on student outcomes.

The study draws upon a significant body of literature examining historical thinking and teaching methodologies. Key researchers and projects cited include the Concepts of History and Teaching Approaches project (Lee et al., 1996), Wineburg's work on cognitive psychology and historical expertise (Wineburg, 2001), and research by Seixas and Morton (2013), VanSledright (2014), Chapman (2011), and Cooper and Chapman (2009). The authors also reference Trigwell and Prosser's (2004) work on teaching models, contrasting teacher-centered transmission with learner-centered approaches. Recent evaluative studies of formative processes in history education are discussed, emphasizing the shift towards active learning and competence-based approaches (Carrero et al., 2017; Metzger and Harris, 2018; De Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2018; Van Straten et al., 2018; Tirado-Olivares et al., 2024; Bartelt et al., 2020; Gómez et al., 2021a, 2021b; Rodríguez et al., 2020).

This mixed-methods study employed a quasi-experimental A-B design. Quantitative data were gathered using a Likert-type pre-/post-test questionnaire (37 items across four categories: methodology, motivation, satisfaction, learning). Qualitative data were collected through a focus group with six master's students and interviews with three teachers and three secondary students. The quantitative data were analyzed using repeated measures mixed factorial ANOVA (within-subjects factor: time; between-subjects factor: gender). Qualitative data were analyzed descriptively using Atlas.ti 23 software and ChatGPT for code refinement and analysis. Participants included 114 secondary/high school students (aged 12-20), six master's students, three teachers, and three secondary students. The eight DUs were implemented within a teacher training program and evaluated over four phases: classroom observation, DU design, implementation, and results evaluation. The questionnaires were validated through peer review and pilot testing. The focus group was conducted via Zoom and transcribed using AI. Interviews were conducted in person and answered in writing.

Quantitative results showed significant differences (large effect size) between pre- and post-intervention scores for methodology and motivation. Medium effect sizes were observed for satisfaction and learning. Women demonstrated slightly higher motivation and satisfaction than men (small effect size). Qualitative data supported these findings. Master's students emphasized the importance of interactive methods and the teacher's role, while noting student resistance to active learning. Secondary school students valued visual resources and the connection between past and present. Teachers highlighted the positive impact of the DUs on motivation and engagement, while acknowledging challenges such as workload, resource limitations, and the need for ongoing training in active learning methodologies. The study suggests that the traditional teaching model in history, characterized by the absence of active methods and historical thinking skills, was significantly improved by the implemented DUs.

The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating active learning and historical thinking into secondary history education. The significant improvements in student methodology, motivation, satisfaction, and learning support the shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches. The qualitative data provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of implementing these methods, highlighting the importance of teacher training, resource provision, and addressing student resistance. The observed gender differences in motivation and satisfaction warrant further investigation. The study's results contribute to the ongoing debate about improving history teaching and promoting critical thinking skills. The findings suggest the need for sustained support for teacher development and resources to facilitate the widespread adoption of active learning and historical thinking methodologies.

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a teacher training program incorporating didactic units focused on active learning and historical thinking skills. Significant improvements were found across multiple student outcomes, particularly in methodology and motivation. While challenges remain in implementation, the results strongly support the integration of active and inquiry-based methods into history classrooms. Future research could focus on exploring the long-term impacts of these DUs, investigating methods to overcome student resistance to active participation, and examining the specific pedagogical approaches most effective in diverse classroom settings.

The study's limitations include the relatively small sample size, particularly for the qualitative data. The convenience sampling method may limit the generalizability of the findings. Further research with larger and more diverse samples is needed to validate these results more broadly. The reliance on self-reported data through questionnaires may also introduce bias. Finally, the limited duration of the intervention may not fully capture the long-term effects of the DUs on student learning and development.