STUDENTS’ INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORICAL EMPATHY

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Three research questions emerged from my analysis of the literature. These were:
1. How do students interpret historical empathy?
2. How do students develop/become more sophisticated in their ability to empathise historically?
3. What influence, if any, does the sequence of affective and cognitive learning tasks in teaching history have on students’ development of historical empathy?
These questions drove the investigation reported in this thesis. In thinking about how to approach these questions I began with Maxwell and Loomis’ (2003) interactive model of research design, which is made up of five components: research questions; purposes;conceptual framework; methods; and, validity. In my qualitative comparative case study I have used the phrase ‘trustworthiness’ instead of ‘validity’ as the latter tends to be associated with studies that are more positivist in outlook (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). While any one of these components can influence another, the research questions are placed foremost because
they “function as the hub or heart of the design … [and therefore] form the component that is most directly linked to the other four” (2003, p. 246). Maxwell and Loomis have also included within their model a number of different environmental factors, of which I have included case study and ethics.In this chapter I explain my research design and explore the issues that arose as I made each
methodological decision. I begin at the heart of the model, with my research questions and then discuss in order: purposes; conceptual framework; case study; methods; trustworthiness;and, ethics.

Research Questions

My research questions emerged from reading the literature about historical empathy and, with the exception of the third question, from my teaching practice. The first and third research questions reflected areas of debate within the literature, namely the contested meaning of historical empathy (Davis, 2001; Yilmaz, 2008; Brooks, 2009) and uncertainty about how to interpret the interplay between historical empathy’s affective and cognitive dimensions and their sequencing (Bardige, 1988; Schweber, 2004, 2006). The second research question addressed the gap in the literature of studies which trace the development of historical empathy in students (Barton, 2008a).The first research question: ‘how do students interpret historical empathy’, was derived from the contested meaning of historical empathy within the literature, as referred to above. It also emanated from my uncertainty as a classroom teacher, trying to define the concept. Having made a preliminary reading of the literature I therefore sought to clarify my interpretation of historical empathy by identifying those elements which appeared significant within this literature. These included three affective elements: using imagination to recognise appropriate feelings; listening to and entertaining other points of view; and, caring about and being sensitive and tolerant towards people, and an equal number of cognitive elements:
building historical contextual knowledge; being aware of the past as different from the present; and, tying everything to evidence (see Table 4). I believed that my understanding of historical empathy however, was still relatively weak and that further exploration of its meaning would lead me to the deeper understanding required by a teacher of history and help me to relate the students’ interpretations of the concept to the wider literature. The second research question: ‘how do students develop/become more sophisticated in their ability to empathise historically’, also emerged from my practice and from the literature. It was about trying to make sense of what is happening as students develop historical empathy. In my practice, I was uncertain whether my attempts to foster historical empathy, through classroom learning tasks, were building progression. Within the literature I had identified a discussion about student progression (Lee & Shemilt, 2004) and the learning of history but I agreed with Barton’s (2008a) claim that there was a gap in the literature around the need for research to explore the students journey as they made progress learning history. This would involve gauging, over time, the influence of my instructional intervention on the students in Class A/C and Class C/A. The third research question: ‘what influence, if any, does the sequence of affective and cognitive learning tasks in teaching history have on students’ development of historical empathy’, was about exploring the theory that it matters which sequence historical empathy’s affective and cognitive dimensions are taught. This theory had emerged from my reading rather than from my practice. It involved comparing what happened when one group of students was taught by me in an affective then cognitive sequence and another group of students was taught, again by me, in a cognitive then affective sequence. This comparative approach would allow me to judge the influence of each sequence of learning tasks on the students, at regular intervals. Together, these three research questions reflected what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) have called the intersection between practice and theory. It is the place where my everyday experiences as a history teacher are challenged by my reading of the history education literature and by interacting with the ideas of academics and other doctoral students. It is also a place where I have carried out my research and where my practice was shaped and improved by my research study (Stenhouse, 1975; Grundy, 1987).

READ Fundamental mechanisms of photon and electron-induced desorption

Purposes

My study had two purposes, which may appear different from each other, because they emanate from a practical and a theoretical way of looking at the world. One focuses on the particularity of my professional setting and the other reaches out into the public field and theoretical debates of history education research. My first purpose as a teacher researching what happens within my classroom at Eastside School was for the students to develop a sophisticated grasp of historical empathy and for my teaching of historical empathy to improve. This intention corresponds with the idea that knowledge generated through teacher research “is intended primarily for application and use within the local context in which it is developed” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 42). My second purpose was to test the trustworthiness of what I had theorised in Table 4 (the affective and cognitive dimensions of historical empathy) by exploring how students interpreted and developed historical empathy. This would also include investigating whether or not it mattered if the teaching of the affective and cognitive dimensions of historical empathy was carried out in a particular sequence, i.e. the affective first followed by the cognitive or the reverse; that is, the cognitive first followed by the affective. In this regard, I hoped to make a contribution to the field of historical empathy research. While this was not a typical goal of teacher research, there were other examples within the teacher research field, such as Grant & Gradwell’s (2010), research on teaching with big ideas that tested theories in similar ways.

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Overview
Teacher-Researcher
Preliminary Reading of the Literature: Areas of Debate
Purpose, Research Questions and Design
My Justification for Undertaking this Study
The Structure of My Study and Summary of Principal Findings
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
Now is an Exciting Time to be Teaching History in New Zealand
Historical Empathy: Realising its Potential
Too Many Problems to Handle and What to Put First?
Climbing the Ladder of Historical Empathy?
The New Zealand Curriculum, NCEA and Progression
History Education Research Models of Historical Empathy and Progression
The Affective Dimension of Historical Empathy
The Cognitive Dimension of Historical Empathy
Deciding What These Dimensions Might Look Like
Summary
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Research Questions
Purposes
Conceptual Framework
Historical Empathy
Sequencing the Affective and Cognitive Dimensions of Historical Empathy.
Teacher-Researcher
Setting out my Ground as a Teacher-Researcher: Ethical Inquiry as insider and outsider
Qualitative Comparative Case Study
Context
Participant selection
Instructional Intervention
Methods
Interviews
Visual Materials
Documents
Entry, mid, Exit and Post Tasks (Assessment Tasks)
Student Feedback Survey
Classroom Response System – Engagement Ratings
Trustworthiness
Triangulation
Member Checking
Researcher Bias and Peer Collaboration
Transferability
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS: STUDENTS’ INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORICAL EMPATHY
Overview
Findings: Students Talking About How They Interpret Historical Empathy
Feeling Care
Evidence
Imagination
Multiple Perspectives
Contextual Knowledge
Open-Mindedness
It is Difficult to Do Well
Findings: Students Visual Interpretations of Historical Empathy
Class A/C’s Drawings of Historical Empathy
Class C/A’s Drawings of Historical Empathy
Discussion
Feeling Care
Evidence
Imagination
Multiple Perspectives
Contextual Knowledge
Open-Mindedness
It is Difficult to Do Well
Making Judgements
Historical Empathy Pathway
Summary
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS: DEVELOPING SOPHISTICATED HISTORICAL EMPATHY
Overview
Findings Based on Lucy and Claire’s Workbooks
Affective Learning Tasks
Cognitive Learning Tasks
Findings Based on Lucy and Claire’s Assessment Tasks
Lucy’s Essay
Findings Based on Lucy and Claire’s Essays about Gallipoli
Claire’s Essay
Comparing Lucy and Claire’s essays’
Findings Based on the Assessment Tasks for Class A/C and Class C/A and the Student
Feedback Survey
Discussion
Progression and My Instructional Intervention
Progression and the New Zealand Curriculum
Progression and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement
Progression and History Education Research
Progression and Gender
Summary
CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS: SEQUENCING AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Overview
Findings Based on the Interview Transcripts
Findings Based on the Student Feedback Survey Data
Findings Based on the Classroom Response System
Findings Based on Completion of Affective and Cognitive Learning Tasks
Discussion
Summary.
CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Overview
Three assertions
Limitations of the Study
Affective and Cognitive Sequencing
Methodological Choices
Pathways, Typologies and Models
Historical Content
Summary
The Contribution of this Study to My Practice
The Contribution of this Study Beyond Eastside School
Implications for Further Research
APPENDICES
REFERENCES