Traditional history teaching, heavily reliant on lectures and rote memorization, is deemed ineffective in the modern information age. This approach fosters passive learning and often leads to negative student perceptions of the subject. Contemporary pedagogical trends emphasize active methodologies, with a focus on developing critical thinking and disciplinary skills. Historical thinking, which involves simulating the work of historians through source analysis and interpretation, is a key competency that needs to be developed. Error-based learning (EBL), an active methodology where students learn by identifying, correcting, and reflecting on deliberate errors, has shown promise in other fields. This study explores the potential of EBL, combined with learning analytics (LA) for formative assessment, to enhance historical thinking in pre-service primary teachers. LA, enabled by technology, allows for continuous assessment and provides valuable insights into students' learning processes, surpassing the limitations of traditional summative evaluations such as exams. The integration of technology is also crucial in addressing the prevalence of misinformation and developing students' critical digital literacy.

The literature review highlights the limitations of traditional, lecture-based history teaching, emphasizing its passive nature and negative impact on student engagement and understanding. It contrasts this with the benefits of active learning methodologies that promote higher-order thinking skills like critical analysis and interpretation. The concept of historical thinking is discussed, emphasizing its importance in developing skills such as source interpretation, evidence-based argumentation, and critical reflection. Several studies showcasing successful implementations of various active learning methodologies in history education are mentioned, including gamification, problem-based learning, and flipped classrooms. The literature then moves to examine the role of EBL, presenting arguments for viewing errors not as failures, but as opportunities for learning and cognitive growth. Existing research on EBL's success in science and mathematics is highlighted, but a gap in its application to history education is identified. Finally, the review emphasizes the potential of LA and Student Response Systems (SRS) in providing formative assessment, offering continuous feedback and enabling efficient data collection on student progress and understanding.

This study employed a quantitative quasi-experimental design. 107 pre-service primary education teachers from a Spanish university participated, randomly divided into an intervention group (IG, n=66) and a control group (CG, n=41). Both groups underwent six 60-minute sessions. The IG worked with historical sources containing deliberately introduced, controlled errors, while the CG worked with the same sources without errors. Each session focused on a central theme, utilizing diverse source materials (maps, texts, reports) spanning different historical periods. Students answered open-ended questions related to the six dimensions of historical thinking (cause and consequence, relevance, change and continuity, ethical dimension, historical perspective, and sources). The Quizizz platform was used for interactive multiple-choice activities at the end of each session. These activities assessed the students' ability to identify and correct errors and also evaluated their understanding across the six dimensions of historical thinking. The study used a pre-test and post-test to evaluate students' knowledge before and after the intervention. Open-ended questions in the tests were assessed using a validated scale. Data were analyzed using SPSS and R software. ANCOVA was used to compare post-test scores between groups, controlling for pre-test scores. Multiple linear regression analyzed the predictive power of LA data (SRS scores) on post-test scores, considering methodology as a predictor. Cohen's f² was calculated to determine effect sizes.

Descriptive statistics revealed similar low baseline knowledge in both groups before the intervention. However, after the intervention, the IG (EBL group) demonstrated significantly higher post-test scores (M = 6.03, SD = 1.11) compared to the CG (M = 5.27, SD = 0.99). ANCOVA results, controlling for pre-test scores, confirmed a statistically significant difference between groups, F(1, 100) = 13.80; p < 0.001, with a medium-large effect size (η²=0.12). Multiple linear regression revealed a significant model predicting post-test scores based on methodology and LA scores, F(1, 101) = 4.72; p = 0.03; with a small-medium effect size (f² = 0.12). Methodology (EBL) had a large effect size (f² = 0.31), and LA scores had a medium-high effect size (f²=0.22) on predicting post-test scores. The regression equation indicated that students in the EBL group scored 0.63 points higher than the CG, while every point increase in LA scores was associated with a 0.22 point increase in post-test scores.

The findings support the effectiveness of EBL in improving pre-service teachers' historical thinking skills. The significant difference in post-test scores between the IG and CG, even after controlling for pre-test scores, demonstrates the positive impact of engaging with sources containing deliberate errors. This aligns with the constructivist view of errors as opportunities for learning and reinforces the findings of previous research on EBL in other fields. The study's success in incorporating LA also underscores its potential as a formative assessment tool. The predictive validity of LA data highlights its value in monitoring student learning and providing timely feedback. The combination of EBL and LA is shown as a powerful approach, enabling continuous assessment of historical thinking skills, addressing the limitations of traditional summative evaluations. These results contribute to a growing body of research advocating for active learning methodologies in history education and demonstrating the practical application of LA in enhancing teaching and learning.

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of EBL, combined with LA, in enhancing pre-service primary teachers’ historical thinking. The results showed a significant improvement in historical thinking for the EBL group, and the LA data effectively predicted later test performance. This research advocates for the adoption of active methodologies and technology-enhanced formative assessment strategies in history teacher training. Future research could explore student motivation and engagement, investigate the impact of gender, and replicate this study with larger samples or at different educational levels.

The study's limitations include its quasi-experimental design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships definitively. The sample, though substantial, was drawn from a single university in Spain, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Further research with more diverse samples and different contexts would strengthen the findings and enhance the generalizability of these results. Additionally, while the study demonstrated the effectiveness of the combined EBL and LA approach, a more in-depth qualitative analysis exploring students' perceptions and experiences with this approach would add further insights.