Upload
xxxxdadad
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
1/21
Society for History Education
Teaching History through ArgumentationAuthor(s): Ray W. KarrasSource: The History Teacher, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Aug., 1993), pp. 419-438Published by: Society for History EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/494466
Accessed: 06/05/2009 17:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=history.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Society for History Educationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
History Teacher.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/494466?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=historyhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=historyhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/494466?origin=JSTOR-pdf7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
2/21
TeachingHistory throughArgumentation
Ray
W. Karras
Educational Consultant
HISTORY TEACHERSoften urge their studentsto make arguments.
"Reports,"
ummaries
nd other
productions
f
rote
memorization
re
pre-
sumably
ess welcome.
These
teachers
may
agree
with John StuartMill's
argument
or
argumentation:
So essential
s
this
discipline
o
a
real
under-
standing
of
moral,
and
human
subjects,
hat
if
opponents
of
all
important
truths
do not
exist,
it is
indispensable
o
imagine
hem,
and
to
supply
them
with the
strongest
arguments
which
the most skillful
devil's advocate
can
conjure
up."'
We
might,
then,
expect
that teachers
of
history
would teach
theirstudents
how to construct
rguments
bout
"human
ubjects."
However,it seems that teachersseldom do this.Educational esearcher
David
N.
Perkins finds
that students
rom
high
school
throughgraduate
school
and
beyondtypically
fail
to
use
informal
easoning
n
what
he calls
"other-side"
rguments.
According
o
Perkins,
his failure
depends
ess on
the students'
ntelligence
than
on
their
instruction.
"Professors,"
e
says,
"rarely rovide
xplicit
guidance
n
how to
develop
and
argue
a
viewpoint."2
Perkins'
findings
strikingly
underline
Mill's
warning
more than a
century
ago
that
"...until
people
are
again
systematically
rained o it
[argument],
there
will be
few
great
hinkers,
and a low
generalaverage
of
intellect...."3
Thispaperaddresses hisfindingand thiswarningby offeringa model for
teaching
history hrough
rgumentation
hichwas
developed
during wenty
years
of classroom
practice.
The model includes
a
teaching
methodandthe
The
History
Teacher Volume
26 Number
4
August
1993
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
3/21
Ray
W.
Karras
underlying
rationale
necessary
to make
that method work.
I
shall first
exemplify
he method
n a
classroom xercise
I call
charting;
his is whatan
observer
might
see in a
history
esson
taught
hrough
rgumentation.
henI
shall
present
what an observer
might
not
see,
the
"Rationale."
oth
method
and rationalediffer from those
that
regard
history
as
primarily
narrative
account o
be learned
hrough
otememorization.
Charting
an Historical
Argument
Charting
s one
of
a
variety
of classroom activities that an
observer
might
see
in
one or two
meetings
of a
history
course
taught
through
argumentation.
The chart on
pages
422 and 423 and its
accompanying
scenario constitute
a
composite
of
many
actual American
history
class
chartings.
In this
example
we are to
suppose
that our
class
is
about half
way through
he school
year
and has been
chartingarguments
or
several
months on various
historical
episodes.
We are
also
to
suppose
that
the
students
have been
previouslyassigned
a text book
chapter
which
I
shall
call
"The
Coming
of the Civil
War."
Our
observer irst sees
eight
column
headings
or cues
displayed
across the
top
of
the
blackboard,
as
they
appear
n the
printed
charton
pages
422
and 423.
At
the
blackboard,
he
teacher or an experiencedstudent acts as recorderfor the rest of the
class.4
The chart
printed
here
would,
of
course,
be handwrittenn
chalk in
the actual classroom.
RECORDER:
Let's
start
oday
with
facts.
Tell me
any
facts
you
remember
from the
assignment.
Any
facts will do to
get
us started.
The recorder
makes these entries
in
the FACTS column shown as "I.
FACTS"
n
the
printed
chart.
A STUDENT: There's the Missouri Compromise.It was in 1820, and
Missouri came
in
as a slave
state,
but
Maine came in
free,
and....
RECORDER:
Would a
map help
us
here? I think
there's one
in
your
text
book.
The
recorder
ketches
in
the
map
shown as fact
1,
following
the
specific
instructions
f severalstudents.Here and
throughout
he
exercise students
refer
to their notes and text book.
Though
it
is
unlikely
at this
first
"reading"
f the
Civil War
history
that
any
single
student
will
know all
the facts listed, the contributionsof several students make them the
possession
of all.
A
STUDENT:
Here's
another
act. There
was
the
Compromise
of
1850. It
let California
n as a free
state. And
they
also
passed
a
fugitive
slave law.
420
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
4/21
TeachingHistory hroughArgumentation
The recorder
enters
fact 2 in
abbreviated
form
as shown
in
the
printed
chart.
Given the limitations
of blackboard
space,
human
handwriting,
and
class
time,
fuller entries are not
possible.
Nor
are
they necessary,
for
everyone
in
the
class
has before
him or
her
the
complete
assigned reading
source of the
facts entered.
The same
process
follows for all entries in
the FACT column.
Like fact
2,
facts
3, 5,
and 8
describe events. Entries
4,
6 and 7
quote primary
sources drawn
from more
complete
citations in the
reading.
A
STUDENT:
One fact we
ought
to have is the
biggest
one
of all
-
the
Civil War
itself.
RECORDER:Wait a moment.Let's thinkaboutthat.
ANOTHER STUDENT
(after
a
pause
for
reflection):
Is
the
Civil
War
actually
a
fact?
I
mean,
you
can't see or touch it. You can
only
observe
the
things
that
happened
n
it.
The
class
decides
not to
enter
"The Civil War" in the
FACTS column for
reasons
that will be
more
fully explained
in the
"rationale"
that
follows
this scenario.
The
charting
exercise
invites students to make
mistakes
with
safety; they
can correct themselves and each other
to,
as it
were,
get
mistakes
out
of their
systems.
Mistakes
actually
entered should
be
left
for
eventual
correction
by
students
or
by
the teacher.
It is
as valuable
to
make
correctable
mistakes as it
is to
get everything right
the first time.
At this
point,
eight
facts have filled the FACTS
column;
there is no
blackboard
room
for
more. The
observer
may
wonder
if
eight
facts are
enough,
and
has seen
that
they
were
thrown
up
at random when
the
teacher
asked
for
"any"
facts. These features
will also be
explained
in
the
"rationale."
The class now
proceeds
to deal with
concepts
in
the
"II.
CONCEPTS"
column.
RECORDER:
Now what are these facts
all about?What
concepts classify
them?
A STUDENT:
I
guess they're
all about
what the text book
said
-
the
coming
of
the Civil
War. That should be our
main
concept.
RECORDER:
All
right.
What
concepts
can
you
tell
that are
parts
of this
big
one?
The recorder
enters
"Coming
of the
Civil War"
in the CONCEPT
column.
A STUDENT:
If
you put
together
facts
4,
5 and
6,
they
are all
about
abolitionism.
Let'
s use
the
concept
"abolitionism"
o
classify
facts
4,
5
and6.
421
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
5/21
Ray
W. Karras
CHARTING
AN
HISTORICAL ARGUMENT
I
Facts
1. Mo.
Comp.,
1820
II
Concepts
eominig
of CW
Abolitionism as
Cause of CW
Maine entered
as
free state
2.
Comp.
1850:
CA free.
Fug.
Slave Law
3.
Kansas-Nebraska
Act 1854.
S.
Douglas
urged "Popular
Sovereignty"
Abolitionism
4,5,6
Compromise
1,2,3,8
Westness
1? 2? 3? 5?
4.
W.L. Garrision:
Const.
a "covenant
with
death
and an
agreement
with
hell." About
1830
I.
Compromise
failed due to
conflict
over
abolitionism
II.
Conflict
over
abolitionism n
the
Westward
Movement
cause
War
I.
Compromise
succeeded
because
Northern
leadership
accepted
t
to
save Union
7
II.
Conflict due
mainlyto
Easternslave
states
5. John
Brown raids
in
"Bleeding
Kansas" 1856
6. Calhoun:
Slavery
a
"positive
good."
1837
7.
Lincoln 1862:
"If
I
could save
the
Union..."
letter
to
Greeley
8. Crittenden
Compromise
at-
tempt
1861:
ex-
tend 36030'
line.
Lincoln
rejected
III
Supporting
Claims
IV
Opposing
Claims
422
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
6/21
Teaching History throughArgumentation
CHARTING
AN
HISTORICAL
ARGUMENT
V
Rebuttal
of
Opposing
Claims
VI
Hypothesis
VII
Historical
Question
VIII
Inferential
Questions
Conflict over aboli-
tionism was the
main cause of the
Civil War What was the main
cause
of
the Civil
War?
I. Lincoln
was
uncompromising
8
(With
claimed
reason
I)
What did Lincoln
say
in
December
1859 aboutJohn
Brown's
hanging?
II.
Republicans
accepted
slavery
in East slave
states
and caused
conflict
by
rejecting
t
in
West.
99?
?
. .
423
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
7/21
Ray
W. Karras
As
the
printed
chart
shows,
the recorder
enters "Abolitionism" as classi-
fying
facts
4,
5 and
6. The
process
continues
with other
concepts.
A
STUDENT:
Look at
facts
1, 2,
3 and
8.
They
are all about
compromise.
"Compromise"
hould
be
a
concept.
A STUDENT:
But
if
you
look at
it another
way,
most
of the
facts have
something
to do
with
the
West
-
in
Missouri,
California,
Kansas and the
36030'
line
in
the Crittenden
Compromise.
A STUDENT:
Let's
put
in
a
concept
of the West. Call it
"Westness."
A STUDENT:
I
think
this is all aboutabolitionism. t's not
just
the
coming
of the Civil
War,
it's aboutabolitionism
n the
coming
of theWar.
A STUDENT:
Maybe
we've
got
a
hypothesis:
Abolitionism caused the
Civil War.
A STUDENT:
Wait
a minute.
If
it's all
aboutabolitionismand
the
cause
of
the
War,
then that
"Coming
of the Civil
War"has to
go.
We're not
talking
about
everything
that
ed
up
to the Civil
War,
ust
abolitionism....
A
STUDENT:
If we make
the
hypothesis
that abolitionism
caused
the
Civil
War,
then
we're
saying
it
caused
everything
else,
aren't
we?
A STUDENT:
Do
we
mean
that abolitionism
caused the
Civil War all
by
itself?
A
STUDENT:
We'd better
say
thatabolitionismwas
the main cause
of
the
Civil
War.
A STUDENT:But it wasn'tjust abolitionism.I mean,if nobody got mad
about
abolitionism,
there
wouldn't have
been
any
War.
A STUDENT:
Yes,
it was
the
getting
mad about
t that caused the War.
It
was
the conflict
over
it.
Why
don't we
make the
hypothesis
"The conflict
over
abolitionism
was
the main cause
of the Civil
War.?
A STUDENT:
So
our
historical
question
is,
"Whatwas
the main cause
of
the
Civil
War?"
A
STUDENT:
Or
we could ask
"Was abolitionism
he
main cause of the
Civil
War?
A STUDENT:
Yes,
but
I like
"what
was
the
main cause"
better
because
it
leaves
us
more room.
Some other
hypotheses
might
turn
up.
424
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
8/21
Teaching History throughArgumentation
During
this
exchange
the recorder has made
several
chart
entries. The
overall
concept "Coming
of CW"
has
been crossed
out
or erased and
"Abolitionism
as cause
of CW"
substituted.
In
column "VI.
HYPOTH-
ESIS,"
"Conflict
over
abolitionism
was the main cause of
the Civil
War,"
and in column
"VII.
HISTORICAL
QUESTION"
"What
was the
main
cause of the
Civil War?" have
been
entered.
Things happened
swiftly during
this
exchange.
Students
moved
inductively
across
the
chart
from
facts to
concepts
to
the
hypothesis
and the
main
historical
question.
Charting
cues
these
orderly
leaps
by
providing
places
for
everything
to be fixed
in
writing.
As we shall see
in the
"rationale,"
this
inductive
movement
is not the
only
movement
possible
in
a
charting
exercise.
The class
seems
to have the
centerpiece
of an
argument,
its
hypothesis.
However....
A STUDENT:
How
about a different
hypothesis?
Look
at all those com-
promise
attempts
on
the fact list.
They
didn't
seem to do
much
good.
Why
don't
we make the
hypothesis
thatthe
main cause of the
Civil War
was the
failure
of
compromise?
A STUDENT:
Or
maybe compromises
were successful.
They
held
off the
war between- let's see - 1820 and 1861, didn'tthey?
A
STUDENT:
Or look
at that other
concept,
the "Westness."
Maybe
we
could
say
that the
main cause
of the
war was what was
happening
n the
West
-
like
in the
WestwardMovement
we studied
a
couple
of weeks
ago.
See
how all
those
compromises
were about the
westward
expansion
of
slavery,
and Lincoln
said....
THE
TEACHER:
Hold on
I
like
everything
you say.
But
just
now we
can
deal
with
only
one
hypothesis
at a
time,
and
only partly
with that one.
Let's go with the abolitionismhypothesis for now. Maybe we can work
on
the
others
later.
In
fact,
here's
your
assignment
for our next class
meeting:
see
how far
you
can
get
in
homework
to chart
either the West or
the
compromise hypothesis.
Your
assignment
sheet
also
has a
couple
of
documents
for next time.
See if
you
can use facts
from
them in
your
charts.
The
teacher
finds
an
open
space
on
the board
to write
"Chart West
or
chart
Compromise.
Use
new documents."
Now
the students
move deduc-
tively
back
from
their
hypothesis
to find
reasons
for
believing
it,
for
opposing
it,
and
for
rebutting
that
opposition.
RECORDER:
Now
why
should
we
believe
this
hypothesis?
We need
to
claim
reasons,
and
see
if our facts
support
hem.
425
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
9/21
Ray
W. Karras
A
STUDENT:
Well,
we can take the abolitionism
concept
and
put
it with
the
compromiseconcept.
We said that our
hypothesis
means that
aboli-
tionism caused
everything
else,
so we can claim that t caused the failureof
compromise.
Why
don't we claim that
compromise
failed
due
to the
conflict over
abolitionism?
The recorder
enters reasons
I and
II,
as
well as their
opposing
claims and
rebuttals as
they
occur
in
this
exchange
in their
appropriate places
in
columns
III,
IV and
V
on
the chart.
A STUDENT:
And we can combine abolitionism with
the
"Westness"
concept, so we get "Conflictover abolitionism n the West caused War."
A
STUDENT:
How about
making
that "WestwardMovement?"
A
STUDENT:
I
don't
know aboutthat.Those facts
happened
n
the
West,
alright,
but did
they
happen
n the WestwardMovement?
A
STUDENT:
I'm not sure. But let's
try
"WestwardMovement"
anyway
because we've
already
studied
something
about t. We can
always change
it
if it doesn't work.
A STUDENT: We'd better
put question
marks after those facts under
"Westness."
'm not sure
they
support
a
Westward
Movementclaim.
A STUDENT:
Now
we need an
opposing
claim.
If I
don't
agree
with that
compromise
failure
claim,
I
might
just
claim that it didn't
fail
at all. It
succeeded.
A STUDENT:
In
fact,
we
might already
have a fact to
support
that
opposing
claim.
In
7,
Lincoln
practically
aid to
Greeley
that he would do
anything
to save the
Union,
whether it meant
freeing
the slaves or not.
Why don'twe make theopposingclaim "Compromise ucceeded because
Northern
eadershipaccepted
t to save the Union?"
A
STUDENT:
But
if
Lincoln
was so
willing
to
compromise,
why
did he
reject
the Crittenden
Compromise
hat we have
in
fact 8?
A STUDENT:
Let's
put
that
in
the rebuttal olumn:
"Lincoln
rejected
the
Crittenden
Compromise."
A
STUDENT:
That sounds
ike a fact. We need a rebuttal laim before
we
can give facts to support t.
A
STUDENT:
Let's
say
that Lincoln
was
uncompromising,
hat he re-
jected compromise.
That
goes right against
the first
opposing
claim,
doesn't
it?
426
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
10/21
Teaching History throughArgumentation
Students have now
developed
a line
of
argument
for
their first
supporting
reason.
The
second
supporting
reason
about the Westward
Movement
will
clearly
need
more factual information in
order to be carried
through
opposing
and rebuttal claims.
Students
can
either
now
search their
notes
and
reading
assignment
for
more
facts,
or
they
can
follow Mill's advice
to
"imagine" opposition
to
reason II.
They
elect to
imagine,
and
enter the
opposing
and rebuttal
claims for
reason
II in
columns
IV
and
V
on the
chart. Aware of
their need for
more factual
information,
students now
begin
asking
for
it.
A
STUDENT:
In reason
I
we make
claims
about Lincoln and
Northern
leadership
and whether
they
rejected
or
accepted
compromise
on aboli-
tionism,
and
probably
on other
things,
too.
I
wonderwhat Lincoln
thought
about abolitionists.
A
STUDENT:
Like
John
Brown,
for instance.
A STUDENT:
We
can'tjust
ask "what
did
Lincoln think?"We need to
ask
an
inferential
question
that will
ask for
a fact.
A
STUDENT
(consulting reading assignment):
It
says
here that
Brown
was hangedin 1859. I wonder....
A STUDENT:
Yes,
what did
Lincoln
say
about
Brown's
hanging?
That's
not
in the
reading,
s
it?
We could ask
what
Lincoln
said.
A
STUDENT:
Maybe
he wrote
a letter about it.
I
guess
everyone
was
talking
aboutJohn
Brown's
hanging.
A
STUDENT:
So
we wouldn't
have to read all
his
letters,
only
those he
wrote
when Brown
was
hanged.
When
was
that,
in
1859?
A STUDENT
(consulting
text
book):
It
says
here
he was
hanged
in
December,
1859.
We could
just
look
at letters Lincoln wrote
about
that
time.
A
STUDENT:
So
we
have
an inferential
question
for reason
I:
"Whatdid
Lincoln
say
in
December,
1859,
aboutJohn
Brown's
hanging?"
The
recorder
enters
this
question
in column
VI.
INFERENTIAL
QUES-
TIONS.
The class
period
is
nearly
over.
The students
copy
chart entries
into
notebooks. The teacher may wish to give a critiqueof specific entries on the
blackboard.
For
the
next class
meeting
the teacher
may
plan
to divide
the
class
into
groups
of four
or five to
construct
separate
charts on
one or
more
hypotheses
at several
blackboards
simultaneously.
The bell
rings.
427
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
11/21
Ray
W. Karras
Rationale: Structure of the
Argument
The
Civil
War
charting
was made
possible
only
because
the
students
had
already
masteredcertain
specific
learnings
about the
structure
and
terms
of
argument.
Since the
beginning
of the
school
year,
monthsbefore
the
observer
saw
them,
the class
had been
practicingcharting
and
other
exercises
designed
to make those
learnings
clear. We
shall see first
what
the studentshad been
learning
aboutthe structure f
argument.
Arguments
everend.The
eight-step
tructure f the
chart nvites
students
to
attempt
more
than
hey
can
complete
n one or two
class
sessions,
so
that
they
leave
the class
with the
argument
nfinished.We have seen
thatreason
II seemed
very
uncertain o the
students,
and that
throughout
he
argument
they
needed
many
more than
the
eight
facts
listed.
Classroom
charting
serves o
get
an
argument
tarted ndcarried s faras time
permits.
Completing
the work are
ongoing
homeworkand
class
learning
assignments.
Working
alone,
each studentcan add
facts,
revise
claims,
correct,
and reflect
on the
work
begun
in
the
classroom.
During
the
charting
esson
described,
he
teacher
pecifically
assigned
workon
hypotheses uggested
butnot
explored
at
the
time.
Charting
t home s to
argument
s
taking
notes s
to conventional
homework.
The
perennial
tudent
question
"how
do
you
want me
to take
notes on the
reading?"
s thus answeredwith a
specific
behavioralnstruc-
tion: "chart
he
reading."
In a
larger
sense,
the
charting
s never
complete
and the
argument
s
never finished.
Except
for the listed
facts,
every
statement n the
chart s
provisional.
Thus,
working
alone,
no
two studentswill make
exactly
the
same claims
or
use
exactly
the same
facts;
each
studentcreateshis
or her
own
historical
argument.
For
example,
an
essay question asking
"Hy-
pothesis:
the
main cause of
the
Civil War was the conflict
over aboli-
tionism.
Do
you agree?"
will
produce
as
many
different
papers
as
there
are students.
Charting
rovides
built-in
outlines
or
essay
writing.
The Civil
War
chart
claims
a
hypothesis
and
two mainreasons or
believing
t,
each
spelled
out
through
all
elementsof the chart. shall return o this
outlining
eature ater
in more
detail,
but
it
can be seen
now thatoutlines
or
an
argument
re
very
different
romconventional
"topic"
r
"subject"
utlines.
Analyzing
evidence.
Explicitly stating
how facts become
evidence to
support
claims
is not cued
in
the chart.This is to be done
in
classroom
participation
nd in
essay writing.
Thus,
the
rebuttal
laim
that
"Lincoln
rejectedcompromise"s basedon fact 8 about heCrittendenCompromise.
Analysis might say
that Lincoln
accepted
no extension of
slavery
in
the
West,
even
though
secession
was
already
under
way
at the
time
-
which
in
turn
requires
more evidence.
428
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
12/21
Teaching
History throughArgumentation
Starting
he
charting.
The exercise shouldstart
with the cue
most
appro-
priate
o
the nature f the material o be studiedand o the
students' ituation.
The Civil War lesson
began
in the FACTS column and then worked to
generalizations
f claims and
hypothesis,
butthis
was
not the
only
approach
available.
The teacher
might
have instead
expected
a
well-prepared
lass to
have
already
attained ome
grasp
of the
facts
in
the
relatively
elf-contained
chronology
of eventsbetween1820
and
1861.
In this
case,
the students'
irst
problem
would be less
to
identify
acts
than o
say
what
the
reading
was all
about
-
in
other
words,
to
conceptualize
t.
Starting
n the
CONCEI'S
column
might
have
immediately roduced ny
numberof
conceptual
lices
through
he
material,
uch
as
abolitionism,
ausationof the
War,
he
states'
rights
conflict,
he
quality
ofNorthern ndSouthern
eadership,
nd
regional
economic
conflict.
The
argument
ould
then
have
moved
o the left and
right
deductively
and
inductively
across
he
chart.
Or
suppose
thatthe
reading
deals with a less
sharply
defined
historical
episode:
an
account,
say,
of
slavery
over several
centuries
embracing
he
African slave
trade and
slavery
in
the New World. The student
reader
may
find such
a vast
panorama
of
history
to be a
difficult
array
of
unrelatedfacts.
Starting
where the students
are,
the teacher
might
best
start with facts before
gathering
hem into
conceptual
areas. The
grand
sweep
of the
history
of
slavery might
thus be brokendown into more
manageable
concepts
like
racism,
the economics of
slavery,
or West
Africans'
first contact
with
Europeans.
A still different
point
of
entry may
serve
subjects
that are
obviously
controversial.
For
example,
after
reading
about the Civil
Rights
move-
ment
in
the United
States between 1965
and
the
present,
students
might
immediately
make such claims as "affirmative ction has been
successful
(or
unsuccessful)"
or
"the women's
movement
has succeeded
(or
failed)
in its main
goals
since 1965."
A
nationalelection
might instantly
evoke
claims like "I think George Bush was a successful (or unsuccessful)
president."
n such cases
the
teacher
might
best
follow
the
students' ead
and start he
charting
n the
HYPOTHESIS
olumn.
Levels
of
thinking
skills.
Wherever he
charting
begins,
various levels
of
thinking
skills
are
engaged
as the
argumentdeepens
throughout
he
structure.
At the lowest
level is
the
recall of factual
information.At the
highest
level is
the evaluation of controversial historical
hypotheses.
Between
these levels
are the
synthesis
of
facts into
conceptual
areas,
then
into
the informal
ogic
of
conflicting
claims
with their attendant
analysis
of evidence to show its relevance to the claims. Finallyis the makingof
inferences
at the
open
end of the structure.
Probably
students
-
and all of us
-
"do" these
kinds of
thinking
in
everyday
ife as
well as
in
history
courses.
The
structure
f
argument
an
429
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
13/21
Ray
W.
Karras
enablestudents o
express
his
thinking
with
precision.
Recorded n
writing,
the
structure
ues studentsto look at what
they
have
said,
to
consider
carefully
what
hey
mightsay
next,
and
o
engage
deliberately
he
appropriate
level of
thinking
kill.
An
interestingonsequence
s that he
often-proclaimed
teaching
mission o
teach
students
ow
to
think
s not the main
missionof the
teacher
of
historical
argument.
The missionof the
teacherof
argument
s to
show students
how
to
express
with
increasingprecision
what
they
think
about
he
history
he teacherwants hem
to
know.
Rationale: Six
Terms of
Argument
We cannot assume that studentsknow what termslike
"facts,"
"hy-
pothesis,"
and
"inference"
mean,
even
though they
are often used in
many
classrooms.
In
historical
argumentation,
uch terms
carry special
meanings
and have
special
uses that teachers and
students must share.
What,
exactly,
do we
want
students to
do when
we ask them to
state
facts?
To ask historical
questions?
To
claim reasons?To make
nferences?
Exactly
what
do we
want
students
to
say
and do when
we ask them to
argue?
Though
these
questions
seem
philosophical,
and
though history
is not
philosophy,
these kinds of
questions
often underlie
many
student
puzzlements:
"I'm not sure what
you
mean";
"What
s this
all
about?";
"Why
do
you say
that?";
"Isthis
true?";
nd
sometimes,
the
plain
"I
don't
understand."
This is not to
suggest
that teachers should start
history
courses
with theoretical lectures
on
epistemology
and
historiography.
Students
typically
resist
raw
theory
until
they
need
it;
but
at that
crucial
moment of
need,
they
ask
for-they
demand-theory
in
orderto
under-
stand
what
they
are
doing.
The theoretical
underpinnings
of
historical
argumentation
and
perhaps
of
any teaching
approach)
an
and
should be
made
explicit
as and when students need and can
apply
them to the
materials
hey
study.
1.
Factual statements.
Factual
statements describe
what
has been
physically
observed
in
historical
accounts.
They
include
descriptions
of
actions,
quotations
from
primary
and
secondary
sources,
and
statistical
reports.
Accurate
descriptions
of
artifacts,
paintings,
photographs
and
films
provide
factual statements.
Asking
students o write lists of
every-
thing
they
see
in a
picture
can be
a valuable exercise
in
making
factual
statements.
Several
consequences,
some of which
may
be
unexpected,
flow fromthis definition.
A factual statement
may
be
either
true or false. It
is
a true factual
statement
that
Abraham Lincoln
gave
the
Gettysburg
Address on
19
November
1863
in which he said
thatwe should "here
highly
resolve that
430
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
14/21
Teaching
History throughArgumentation
these dead shall
not have died
in
vain." It is a
false factual statement o
say
thatWilliam Sewarddelivered
the
Gettysburg
Address.
However it is
neither
ruenor false for a
historian
o
say
that
the
dead did not die in
vain
at
Gettysburg;
his
is an
historical
claim,
not a factual
statement.This
distinction
must hold even
though
we often
speak
of "true
ideas" and
"true
opinions"
in
everyday
discourse.
In
historical
argument,
truth
or
falsity
are
exclusively
attributesof
factual
statements.
If
these constraints
eem more or
less
obvious,
ask students o sift the
factual
from other
kinds
of statementson almost
any page
of
any
history
text book.
A
variety
of
responses
is
likely,
and
they
reveal the
very
uncertain
grasp
many
students
have
on
the natureof historical
actuality.5Almost
everything
hey
read
may
seem to befactualstatements o students
accustomed
to rote memorization
of
narrativeaccounts. The
assiduous
may
try
to commit
it all to
memory,
painting
entire
pages
with
Magic
Markers.
I
have often asked
beginning
students
how
they
chose
what
to
highlight
and what not to.
Typical
answers
nclude
"I've
got
to know
the
facts for the
test,
don't I?" and the
despairing
"It's in the
book,
isn't it?"
These students
are
merely
obeying
directions to be
"responsible"
or
the
"important"
nd
significant"
acts,
and
they
are
perhaps
driven
by
the
prospect
of
true-false,
short-answerand standard
multiple-choice
tests.6
Historicalfacts are treated
differently
n historical
argumentation.
tart-
ing
with the
recognition
that not
everything
in
books is either true or
factual,
the
student
learns to
use care
in
making
entries
in
the
FACT
column.
"Important"
r
"significant"
acts in
argument
are
only
those
that
provide
evidence
for or
against
the student's own claims.
All
other
facts are irrelevant
o the
argument
at hand.
Yet
this
does not mean that
rejected
facts
are not
learned;
hey
must be identified and
learned
before
the student
can decide
to
reject
them.
Furthermore,
acts
rejected
in
one
argument
may
be
highly
significant
and
important
n
another
argument.
Students' vested interestsin
defending
their own controversialclaims
give
them a
need to
know,
and thus to
remember,
acts. Because
they
are
not
consciously engaged
in rote
recall,
I
have
found that some students
may
not
quite
realize
that
they
are
indeed,
after
all,
learning
facts.
Students
anticipating
national standardized
achievement
tests,
which
ordinarily
require
little
more than rote
recall,
have sometimes told me
that
they
fear the outcome
because "You
know,
we
really
don't
lear
the
facts
in
this
course."
More
often than
not,
these
students
have
been
pleasantly
surprised
at their
scores on these
tests.
Caveats.Thetruthorfalsityof factualstatementsas set forthheremay
trouble
the
professional
historianwhen
he
or
she leaves
the
study
for the
classroom.
As a
researcher,
he
historian
s
necessarily
concerned
with
the
verifiability
of
historical
facts,
and
may
even
be
skeptical
about
the
431
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
15/21
Ray
W.
Karras
very
information
he
or she
assigns
students to read.
Nevertheless,
stu-
dents have neither
the time
nor the
opportunity
o
follow
the
researcher
very
far into
original
research
when
they
prepare
term
papers,
write
classroom
essays,
or take
other tests.
The
result
may go against
the
historian's
grain:
studentsmust be
asked
to
accept
as true
the
facts
they
find, unless,
of
course,
the
teachercorrects hem.
Still,
there s
always
the
possibility
thata
bright
novice
might
unearth acts heretoforeoverlooked
or
be
able
to correct acts
already
given.
Unlikely
as this
may
be,
it
has the
best chance
of
happening
o the student
with a need
to know
generatedby
historical
argumentation.
Another
problemmay
have
already
struck
some
readers
of this
paper.
The
epistemology
of
factuality
offered here is
franklypositivist,
a
philo-
sophical
position
now
questioned
by
some scholars. Yet anti-
and non-
positivist
historians
can
still
find historical
argumentation
useful
peda-
gogy
if
they
are careful
to make clear
the
implications
and functions
of
whatever
historiographical
tance
they
take.
2.
Concepts.
In
our classroom scenario students used
concepts
as
a
bridge
between facts
and
claims. The
concepts
"abolitionism" and
"compromise"
lassified
facts,
and
they
were also the
substance of the
claim
"compromise
ailed due
to
the
conflict
over abolitionism."To do
this work students
had
learned
several
things
about
concepts.
Very
broad
concepts
can
classify very
few
facts,
but narrower
oncepts
can
classify many
morefacts. ThatAbrahamLincolnwrotethe
Emancipa-
tion Proclamation
nd that he delivered he
Gettysburg
Address
might
be
gathered
under he
giantconcept"politicalness,"
r
perhaps
"Lincolnness."
Narrower
and more
productive oncepts
arise as the list of facts
lengthens
and
deepens.
A
more
detailed
examination
f
events betweenthe
Emanci-
pation
Proclamation
f
January,
1863,
and the
Gettysburg
Addresseleven
months
ater,
ncluding
he documents
hemselves,
military
vents,
activities
of Northernand Confederate eadersand
journalists,
might bring
to the
surfacesuch
concepts
as Lincoln's
personal
eadership,
he effect
of aboli-
tionistsentiment
n
the
military
onduct
of the
War,
and he aims of the War
itself.
From these
might emerge
fruitfulhistorical
questions
ike,
to what
extent did
Lincoln's war aims
change
between
January
and
November
1863?
To whatextent
did the
Northern ause
shiftfroma
simple
mperative
to
save the Union
to
a
more
complex
mission
regarding
lavery?
n
this
way
explicitly
articulated
oncepts
can
help
students
map
the
ground
between
any
set
of facts and
full-fledged
arguments.Conceptualization
s
at the
crossroads f this terrain.
The
CONCEPT
column
also cued students o make
sharp
distinctions
among
the elements
of
the
argument.
n
our classroom
scenario
a student
offered "the
Civil War" as an
entry
for the FACT
column,
perhaps
432
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
16/21
Teaching
History throughArgumentation
because text books
and
everyday
usage
seem to treat
"the
Civil
War"as a
fact. Yet
the
students
rejected
this
usage
in their
charting.
No
one ever
saw
or
otherwise
physically
observed the Civil War or
any
other
war.
"The
Civil War" s
actually
a
concept
thatclassifies a
myriad
of
observed
factual events that occurredbetween
1861
and 1865.
The
distinction is
not overice.
These
very
same
events
have also
been classified
by
some
as "The War for Southern
Independence"
and "the
War
Between
the
States."
Even
the
concept
"war" tself
is
problematical,
or
Lincoln
did
not ask for
a declarationof
war and
Congress
did not
make
one.
How,
then,
should
he
events
between
1861 and 1865
be
characterized?
xplicitly
stated
concepts
can
expose interesting
historical and
historiographical
questions
that
might
otherwise
go
unnoticed.
Finding
words to
express
concepts
clearly
is easier than
t
might
seem.
In the
CONCEPT
column
of the
Civil
War
chart
we
find
the invented
word
"Westness,"
and
a moment
ago
we saw "Lincolnness"
and
"politicalness."
The
"-ness" uffix can be attached
o
any English
word
to
insure
that
t
is
understood
as a
concept;
that
by
"Westness"
we mean not
just
a
place
on the
map,
and that
by
"Lincolnness"
we mean
to
classify
many
facts about
that factual
man.
I
have
found that students
readily
understand nd
use this
"-ness"
strategy,
hough
of course in
writing
and
otherformal
assignments
hey
mustfind realwords forwhat
they
want to
say.
We
saw
this
process
begin
in
the
classroom
charting
as the
concept
"Westness"
was
already being
tentatively
refined
into
"Westward
Movement."
3.
Controversial
claims.
A
claim
is
controversial
f
opposing
as
well
as
supporting
facts are available
to
it. Like some
other
seemingly
straightforward
efinitions,
this
one has
its
consequences
and
underlying
assumptions.
The
problem
of
multiple
causation.
Multiple
causes
undoubtedlygov-
ernhistoricalevents. But
multiple
causationdoes not mean
equal
causa-
tion. The
arguer
cannot answer
the
question
"Why
did the
Civil War
happen?"
by
saying
"There
were
many
reasons,
and
I
will discuss them."
This
often
happens
when students
are
asked
to "discuss"historical
epi-
sodes.
The
result
s
usually
a
report
of
all
the
facts the
student
can muster
under
any
number
of
concepts,
one
in which
the student writes
one
paragraph
n
political
causes,
another
on social
causes,
another
on
eco-
nomic
causes,
and
so
on.
There
can be no
argument
n
this
treatmentbe-
cause
there
s no
controversy.
The
whole
"discussion"
tays
at
a
relatively
low-orderthinkingskill level and does not rise to evaluatethe relative
force
of
competing
causes.
The historical
arguer
s
obliged
to
read
the
question
about
the
cause
of the Civil
Waras
"What
was
the main
cause
of
the
Civil
War?"
433
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
17/21
Ray
W. Karras
Claimsare
provisional.
Thereare
nearly
an infinite
numberof
reasons
for
believing any hypothesis,
and it is not
possible
to
claim and
evaluate
all of themin
any
one
argument
hortof
writing
a
very
long
book. It
is,
of
course,
logically
necessary
to
claim
at
least two reasons for
believing
a
hypothesis;
otherwise
the
single
subordinate
eason
becomes
the
same as
the
hypothesis
it
is intended
to
support.
In
historical
argument,
the
student
arguer
s
really saying
that
"among
he
possible
reasons I
offer,
the
one
stated
in
my hypothesis
is the main reason."In a
characterizing
argument
(see
"Historical
questions"
below),
the
arguer
is
saying
that
"among
the
possible
characterizations
offer,
the
one stated
in
my
hypothesis
is the main characterization."
n
the
Civil War
chart students
claimedthat neitherthe failure of
compromise
northe WestwardMove-
ment
mainly
caused
the
War,
but that
abolitionism
acting
on these factors
caused
them both.
These claims are
provisional
not
only
with relationto claims
outside
the
scope
of the
argument,
but also
to
claims
and
evidence within
it.
In
preparing
he
argument,
wordings
of
reason
claims must be
continually
adjusted
o meet
the
challenges
of evidenceandof counter-claim
easoning;
and this
in
turn
requires
he constantmodificationor even
reversalof the
overall
hypothesis.
Levels of claims. Controversial laims work at two main levels. The
claim
of a controversial
hypothesis
(which
I
shall discuss
separately
below)
covers
the entire
argument
nd answersa main
historical
question.
The
second
main level claims
logically
independent
easons
or
believing
and
opposing
the
hypothesis.
These claims
of
reasons are the
body
of
the
argument.
To them are
attached
all factual
evidence;
against
hem are
opposed
competing
claims
and
evidence,
which are
in
turn
defeated
by
rebuttal laims and
evidence;
and
from all
these
arise inferential
questions.
In this hierarchyof claims the hypothesis itself is neitherdirectly
evidenced
or
attacked;
only
the more vulnerableand
narrower ub-claims
face direct
counterargument.
y
focusing
attention
on
one reason-claim
at a time this
strategy
drives the
arguer
ever
more
deeply
into the facts
needed to
support
and
oppose
it.
The
logic
of
the
strategy
s this:
if
we can
be
brought
to believe
the
reasons for a
hypothesis,
then
we
can,
at least
provisionally,
be
brought
o believe the
hypothesis
itself. The Civil
War
chartingproposed:
I.)
Compromise
ailed due
to
conflict over abolition-
ism;
and
(II.)
Conflict
over abolitionism
in the
Westward movement
caused the Civil War; therefore, we can tentatively believe that the
conflict
over abolitionism
was the
main
cause of the Civil
War,
for
abolitionism
was
the
agent
of
change
in both the
compromise
and
West-
ern
factors.
434
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
18/21
Teaching History throughArgumentation
Only
one
level
of
claimed reasons
supported
the
hypothesis
in
the
Civil
War chart.
However,
the
hierarchy
of claims can
be
deepened
to
any
level that
reasoning
and evidence
may
take
it.
Reasons can be claimed for
reasons. Once
again, only
the
lowest
sub-claims are
directly
evidenced
and
argued.
For
example:
CLAIM of
hypothesis
I. CLAIM
of
a
main
reason
for
believing
the
hypothesis
A.
CLAIM
of a
reason
for
believing
reason
I
(with
evidence,
oppos-
ing and rebuttalclaims andinferentialquestions)
B.
CLAIM of anotherreason
for
reason
I
1. CLAIM
of a reason for
believing
IB
(with
evidence,
oppos-
ing
and rebuttal
laims and inferential
questions)
2. CLAIM
of anotherreason for
believing
IB
(with
evidence,
opposing
and rebuttalclaims
and inferential
questions)
II.
CLAIM
of another
main reason
for
believing
the
hypothesis.
...and so
on....
Each
deeper
level
of claims
expands
exponentially
the size
and com-
plexity
of
the
argument.
Each lowest-level
claim carries its own
apparatus
of
supporting
evidence,
opposing
claim
(with
its
evidence),
rebuttal
claim
(with
its
evidence),
and inferential
questions
testing
this
claim.
In
classroom
charting
and
essay
writing
there
is seldom time to
go deeper
than
the
hypothesis
and main
reason
claim levels.
However,
term
papers
and
other
out-of-class
projects
can articulate
arguments through deeper
levels.
The
logic
of
competing
claims. Informal
logic governs
the lines of
argument
running
through
supporting,
opposing
and
rebuttal
claims.
The
basic
criterion
is that
we
should not
be
able
simultaneously
to believe
any
claim
and
its
opposition.
Not
all
parts
of a claim
need be
opposed
or
rebutted;
attacking
one
part
is
enough.
Thus,
in the Civil
War
chart,
reason
I
claiming
that
"Compromise
failed due
to
conflict
over aboli-
tionism"
was
met
with the
opposing
claim
"I.
Compromise
succeeded
because
Northern
leadership
accepted
it
to
save
[the]
Union."
This claim
attacks
only
the
"compromise
failed"
part
of the
supporting
claim,
with
no direct reference to abolitionism. In like
manner,
the rebuttal claim that
says
"I.
Lincoln
was
uncompromising,"
does
not
dispute
whether or
not
this
was
to save the
Union.
Nor need
it do so:
defeating
any part
of a claim
defeats
all
of
it.
435
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
19/21
Ray
W. Karras
Rebuttal
claims defend
supporting
laims
by
direct
attackon
opposing
claims,
and
not
through
further
strengthening
of
the
supporting
claim
itself. Logically, this is:
SUPPORTING
CLAIM
OPPOSING
CLAIM
NOT OPPOSINGCLAIM
-in which each kind
of
claim
requires
new
and
deeper
factual
evidence.
Managing
rebuttals s
perhaps
he hardest
part
of
argumentation.
To
be
resisted is the
temptation
o use
rebuttals o restore he
original
claim
by
simply reasserting t
with
addedevidence;i.e.:
SUPPORTING
CLAIM
OPPOSING
CLAIM
SUPPORTINGCLAIMREASSERTED
WITH
NEW EVIDENCE
This
is a
losing argument
because the unanswered
opposing
claim is left
in
the
clear.
4.
Hypotheses.
The
hypothesis,
s
we
have
seen,
s
the
most
general
laim
in theargument.tcontrolsand s controlled ythelogicandevidential orce
of all its sub-claims.
But whatof the
term
"hypothesis"
tself?
"Hypothesis"
uggests
the
necessary
tentativeness hat
possible
alter-
native
terms do not. "Thesis"
uggests
the
exhaustive
scope
and
depth
of
a
doctoral
dissertation,
which are
clearly impossible
in
high
school and
college
undergraduate
work. The word "conclusion"
s
also
problemati-
cal.
History
teachers
asking
students to "draw conclusions"
might
re-
member hat
hey
receive students romothercourseswhere
"conclusions"
have
varying
meanings.
In
literature
courses
students
learn
that the
conclusion to Hamlet is the death of the Prince. In mathematics, t is
conclusively
true
thattwo
plus
two
are four. Students
shouldnot be led to
believe that
historical
arguments
an
yield
such certainties.
"Theory"
s another
uspect
erm.
The
history
eacherrisks
pedagogical
confusion
n
following
the
dictionary
definition
of
"theory"
s a
synonym
for
"hypothesis."
Again,
students ome to
history
class
from
elsewhere.
In
science
courses,
Newton, Einstein,Darwin,
and
many
othersare
presented
as
formulating
heoretical aws that
govern
all of
time
past,
present
and
future,
and that
can be tested
by
repeated xperimentation.Many, perhaps
most,historyeachers esist hebelief hathistorybehavesikethephenomena
of
cosmology
or
biological
evolution.Of
course,
f
the teacherdoes
indeed
wish to
convey
a
historiography
f
theories,
hen
this must
be
made
very
clear
n
order
or
argument
o be effective.
436
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
20/21
Teaching History throughArgumentation
5. Historical
questions.
These are
of two kinds in the model
presented
here.
One
kind
asks
for causationof
events,
the
other
for their
character-
ization.
The
charting
class
obviously
asked a
question
of causation.
However,
"Did Lincoln
intentionally
advance the cause
of
abolitionism
in
the
Emancipation
Proclamation?"
s a
characterizing
question
asking
students
to
pin
a controversial abel
on Lincoln's
intentions. Both kinds
of
questions
are well
suited to historical
argumentation.
A
special
problem
arises with
questions
of historical
fact. The answer
to the
question
"Who
killed John F.
Kennedy?"
will
be a
controversial
factual
claim
requiring
original
research
which,
as
we have
seen,
students
can seldom
do. The best
strategy
here
is to recast
such
a
question
of fact
into
a
question
of characterization
uch
as,
"Which claim about the
assassin
is most
convincing?"
This invites
the student
o claim a
hypoth-
esis
evaluating
the
arguments
of,
say,
the
Warren
Commission,
of
Mark
Lane,
and
perhaps
of
Oliver Stone in
his
film
JFK.
Value
questions
pose
yet
another
problem.
"By
what
right
did Colum-
bus
take
over America?"
and "Have
minorities
n the
United States been
unjustly
oppressed?"
are
such
questions.
To be
effectively
argued,
these
questions
often use
historical
materials,
but
they
always
also
require
some
systematic
knowledge
of ethical
concepts;
otherwise,
they
tend
to
display
mainly
the
personal
feelings
of the
arguers.
Few novice students
have
the formal
philosophical
raining
needed
to
argue
value
questions.
6.
Inferential
questions.
At some
point
students
must
stop preparation
and
deliver
arguments.
They
must
do
so even
though
they
have become
aware
that
they
do not
know and cannot
know all the
facts needed to
test
their
claims.
But what
facts would
be
needed to
do this?
An
act
of
inference
is
needed,
a movement
from the
known
to the
unknown.
In the
classroom
scenario
we
observed
students
asking
an inferential
question
when
they sought
new
facts
aboutJohn
Brown's
hanging
late in the
year
1859. Inferential
questions
not
only
underlinethe
provisional
natureof
their
claims,
but
they
can show students
he
way
to
target
urther esearch
efficiently.
Should
answers
o inferential
questions
be
found,
they
will
be
entered
n
the
FACTS
column
along
with otherknown
facts.
Teaching
history
throughargumentation
iffers
in
several
ways
from
more conventional
approaches.
It
entails
special
teaching
methods,
a
formal structure,and its own epistemology in its terms of argument.
Teaching
history
hrough
argumentation
s not
and
cannot
be an occasional
classroom
activity
in
a
history
course.
Learning
history through
argu-
mentation
s the course
itself.
437
7/24/2019 Karras 1993 Teaching History Through Argumentation
21/21
Ray
W.
Karras
Notes
1. John Stuart
Mill,
"On
Liberty,"
n
Saxe
Cumminsand
Robert
N.
Linscott,eds.,
Mind and the State:
The
Political
Philosophers
(New
York: Random
House,
1947),
p.
172.
2.
D.
N.
Perkins,
"Post-Primary
ducation
Has
Little
Impact
on Informal
Reason-
ing,"
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
77
(October
1985),
pp.
569,
562-571.
3.
Mill,
p. 181.
4. A technical note: Allowances must be
made for the limitationsof blackboards.
At the end of class students need a few minutes to
copy
the
display.
Furthermore,
he
display
may
have
to
be
preserved
or futureclass
meetings.
Recent
technology
can
help.
An electronic
blackboard-copier
s
available that makes
any
number
of
copies
of
the
display
in minutes. In another
technology,
students could
ideally
share
displays
on
networked
computers,
and the results could
almost
instantly appear
on
printouts
for
everyone.
5.
Cf.
Ray
W.
Karras,
Coping
withMr.
Gradgrind,"
AH
Magazine
ofHistory,
Fall
1992,
pp.
9-12.
6.
Cf.
Ray
W.
Karras,
"Let's
ImproveMultiple-Choice
Tests,"
OAH
Magazine
of
History
6
(Summer, 1991),
pp.
8-9,
43;
Karras,
"A
Multi-Dimensional
Multiple-Choice
Testing
System,"
AmericanHistoricalAssociation
Perspectives
2
(February,
978);
Karras,
"WritingMultiple-Choice
Questions:
The Problem and a
Proposed
Solution,"
The His-
tory
Teacher
11
(February,
1978),
pp.
211-218.
438