2006
Taking Seriously the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Section Introduction
Gary J. Kornblith & Carol Lasser Article
Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the History Survey
Lendol Calder Article
Ways of Seeing: An Introduction
Michael Coventry, Peter Felten, David Jaffee, Cecilia O’Leary, and
Tracey Weis, with Susannah McGowan Article
Thinking Visually as Historians: Incorporating Visual Methods
David Jaffee Article
Confronting Prior Visual Knowledge, Beliefs, and Habits: “Seeing”
beyond the Surface
Peter Felten Article
What’s the Problem? Connecting Scholarship, Interpretation, and
Evidence in Telling Stories about Race and Slavery
Tracey Weis Article
Moving beyond "the Essay": Evaluating Historical Analysis and
Argument in Multimedia Presentations
Michael Coventry Article
Connecting to the Public: Using New Media to Engage Students in
the Iterative Process of History
Cecila O’Leary Article
Ways of Seeing: A Conclusion
Michael Coventry, Peter Felten, David Jaffee, Cecilia O’Leary, and
Tracey Weis, with Susannah McGowan Article
Ways of Seeing: Evidence and Learning in the History Classroom, An Introduction
Michael Coventry, Peter Felten, David Jaffee, Cecilia O’Leary, and
Tracey Weis, with Susannah McGowan
In a recent essay, David Pace decried the "chasm" between current practices in research
and those in teaching in our profession. For more than a century, historians have worked
together to build a research enterprise "infused with a commitment to rigor and collective
responsibility." Yet the discipline's approach to teaching could hardly differ more.
Because we generally teach in isolation, behind doors that keep our students in and
our colleagues out, a significant gap exists, in both orientation and practice, between
our research and our teaching. We tend to frame problems in our research as exciting
opportunities, and we often seek out colleagues to discuss our work. When it comes to
teaching, however, we see problems as disreputable, something to be hidden, rather than
as invitations to further the knowledge of a community of practitioners through discussion
and scholarship.1
Over the past decade, an increasing number of academics, including many historians,
have explored the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) as one way to bridge the
chasm by giving the same careful, methodical attention to problems in teaching as to
problems in research. As in other forms of scholarship, knowledge claims in SoTL must
be embedded in a body of knowledge, open to peer review, and accessible for exchange
with and use by disciplinary colleagues. In SoTL for history, then, professional historians
consider the questions about student learning that matter to them and apply standards
of historical scholarship to tackle those questions. Their lines of inquiry often begin with
questions about classroom practiceó"How can I help students understand and use primary
documents better?"óbut return to issues fundamental to teaching and learning historical
knowledge. The fundamental questions are varied, but historians engaged in SoTL
have concentrated on two broad lines of inquiry: "What do students bring to the history
classroom that may have a major impact on their learning?" and "What mental operations
and procedures must [students] master in order to think historically?"2
Those initial questions motivated the five authors of the case studies that follow. We
are historians at institutions ranging from open-admission public colleges to highly selective
private universities and were participants in the Visible Knowledge Project (VKP), a
grant-supported project funded by the Atlantic Philanthropies that involved over seventy
humanities faculty members on twenty-one campuses across the United States.3 Over
the five years of the project (August 2000 to October 2005), VKP participants sought to
make visible and to open for inquiry problems in teaching and student learning across
the fields of history, American Studies, and ethnic studies, among others. In these case
studies we report research into student learning that responds to three developments.
First, the scholarship of teaching and learning, or the pedagogicalturn in the profession,
engages historians in investigations of how students learn to think historically, treating
student work as evidence to be evaluated using discipline-specific research methods. Second,
the pictorial turn in culture studies prompts historians to reconsider the significance
of images in the construction of historical understanding. Despite the ubiquity of images
in online archives, in classrooms, and in the broader culture, many history students and
scholars struggle to devise reading strategies or protocols that are as rigorous and rewarding
as those used to interrogate textual sources. Finally, the digital turn in the profession
encourages scholars and students to experiment with the use of digital media to develop
new forms of historical discourse, through the creation of Web- and multimedia-based
articles, archives, and narratives.
The Pedagogical Turn
At the beginning of the Visible Knowledge Project, our research explored intersections
between new digital environments and our classroom practice. Over the course of our
investigations, technology became secondary to questions about student learning and
historical thinking. We gradually shifted from asking what new media could do for us
as teachers to exploring how students learn historical-thinking skills and content knowledge
in our classes. Student work became our crucial source of evidence as we probed to
see when and how students made incremental steps (or, more rarely, large leaps) toward
historical understanding. Our emphasis was on the processes by which students become
more expert in their thinking, so rather than concentrating on the final products of a
course (such as exams or research papers) we collected evidence throughout the term,
focusing on what the scholar of historical cognition Sam Wineburg has called "the moments
of confusion before an interpretation emerges, while indecision and doubt reign
and coherence remains elusive." We then approached that evidence as we would sources
in our scholarly researchósystematically performing close and contextualized readings
to develop a narrative response to our original research question.4
The Visible Knowledge Project (VKP) Web site provides links to syllabi, sample assignments, and multimedia projects from the authors’ classes as well as those of colleagues from across fields related to American history and culture. See <http://crossroads.georgetown.edu/vkp/> (Jan. 22, 2006). Courtesy Visible Knowledge Project, Center for New Designs in Learning & Scholarship, Georgetown University.
As in traditional historical scholarship, our individual work became part of a larger
scholarly discourse about fundamental questionsóin this case, about how students
learn history in our classrooms, how the use of visual sources shapes and disrupts historical
narratives, and how new media can provide innovative opportunities for the expression
of historical understanding. Because we based our inquiries on evidence rather
than intuition, we could examine our separate projects together to understand crucial issues
better. We have attempted to go beyond the anecdotal, beyond the teacher-centered
narrative, to analyze evidence rigorously and to engage theoretical aspects of the related
scholarship. We apply to all of these strategies what the SoTL theorist Mariolina Rizzi
Salvatori has called "unprecedented attentiveness to students' work." For us, this significant
move has converted our classrooms into places where, as Salvatori envisions, evidence
of student learning becomes "a litmus test for the theories that inform a teacher's
approach."5
Three core factors characterized our effort to undertake research in the scholarship of
teaching and learning:
Questions: a sustained inquiry guided by questions about how students
develop historical understanding
Methods: the use of discipline-based research methods to analyze evidence
of student learning
Scholarship: the connection of individual research projects and findings to
a larger body of related scholarship on teaching and learning
This approach has allowed us to begin the process that David Pace has described as
"replac[ing] an understanding of teaching based on folk traditions and unfounded personal
impressions with one rooted in a rigorous and collective examination of what fosters
student learning."6
The Pictorial Turn
While an emerging body of scholarship addresses the development of historical-thinking
skills using textual sources, little has been published on how the pictorial turn might
simultaneously complicate the study of history and offer new opportunities for faculty
to teach students to think historically. If, as the historian Robert B. Bain has suggested,
"the problem for history teachers begins with trying to understand what defines meaning
making in history," then the growing emphasis on understanding history through visual
images as artifacts and sources suggests that our inquiries into how students come to understand
historical-thinking skills should not be restricted to written texts. Our decision
to make images central in our classrooms reflects a convergence of factors. Many cultural theorists argue that we are in the midst of a major transformation. In 1994 W. J. T.
Mitchell, a theorist of images, asserted that this change marked the end of the centurieslong
text-based linguist turn in Western society. But historians have been slower than
their colleagues in other disciplines to accept the pictorial turn. "If historians have heard
of it," the historian of education Sol Cohen noted in 2003, "they have ignored it." Historians
traditionally have preferred textual over visual sources, and traditional historians
continue to argue for the primacy of written texts. Yet, increasingly some historians have
begun to rely on images as essential sources for scholarship, and recent investigations of
photographs and portraits, advertisements and buildings, have illuminated significant
aspects of the past.7
Technological changes have made it easier to use images and other primary sources to
teach history, but abundance and availability do not guarantee historical understanding.
In the past decade, visual archives have burst onto the World Wide Web in ever-increasing
numbers, making it simple to paste images onto class Web sites and into PowerPoint
presentations. Textbook publishers offer teachers and students a dazzling array of sources,
graphics, and other visual materials. While visuals have become commonplace in history
classrooms and texts, rarely do images move to center stage to become the focus of interpretation
or the source of new insights. Pedagogically, visual materials are too often used
only as presentational props.8 A slick slide shown in class or an appealing Flash movie
posted on a course Web site might transmit information effectively, but such uses fail to
capture the interactive possibilities of images and new media, used together, in promoting
students' historical understanding.
Students might enjoy, even demand, visual stimulation, but students do not necessarily
enter a college classroom able to give visual sources the disciplinary reading that furthers
their historical thinking. As Wineburg has argued, historians read primary documents in
a distinct way, applying a "sourcing heuristic"óthat is, a set of questions about a document,
its author's intentions, and its reliabilityóto use texts to build arguments about
the past. Students, in contrast, read sources in a less sophisticated way, as sources of information,
or "content knowledge." But because many historians have been so skeptical
of images, we have few conventions for reading images as historical sources. Louis Masur
maintains that pedagogy is perhaps the most challenging aspect of the emerging imagebased
scholarship: "Letting one's students interrogate, speculate, and often hyperventilate
is an alarming business, especially when at the [end of class] you cannot tell them definitely
how to read a picture or precisely how an image shaped history." The point of our classes is not to entertain our students, but to help them learn to think historicallyóto
develop their facility for making historical meaning from the images, texts, and objects in
the world around them.9 Responding to the pictorial turn will require historians to help
our students become sophisticated readersóand perhaps even authorsóof image-based
historical narratives.
The Digital Turn
Teaching students to craft engaging and effective historical interpretations, a perennial
challenge, becomes even more problematic in the digital classroom where faculty ask
students to design multimedia- and Web-based projects that demonstrate their ability to
think historically. In comparison to more traditional assignments such as term papers,
multimedia compositions allow students to use various forms of evidence (text, images,
audio clips, and music) to experiment with new forms of critical analysis and narrative.
Individual and collaborative multimedia authoring in the classroomóinvolving multiple
skills and points of view and frequently connecting a public audience to student
workóresembles, on a much more modest scale, the efforts of historians to develop new
forms of scholarship tailored to the digital medium.10 Can the digital turn do what William
G. Thomas III and Edward L. Ayers, pioneers in digital authoring, envisionócan
it make visible or reconfigure "deeper connections among documentation, evidence, and
analysis than a single plane of fixed text can offer"?11 What opportunities and obstacles
do electronic environments offer novice and expert historians interested in rethinking
historical narratives? How might the scholarship of teaching and learning help us better understand how the digital turn affects the development of historical thinking in our
students?
Bridging the Chasm: Case Studies from the Visible Knowledge Project
In the sections that follow, each of us outlines how her or his own scholarship of teaching
and learning research has explored the intersection of visual evidence, multimedia
authoring, and historical understanding. Working with our students in new-media environments,
we are generating evidence of how historical thinking with visual arguments
develops in our students. Our analysis of that evidence leads us to posit five interrelated
themes, each foregrounded in one of our essays:
In "Thinking Visually as Historians: Incorporating Visual Methods," David Jaffee discusses how pushing our students to see visual evidence contextually
can help us teach historical reasoning better.
In "Confronting Prior Visual Knowledge, Beliefs, and Habits: 'Seeing'
Beyond the Surface," Peter Felten illustrates how engaging students through a
seemingly familiar and self-evident visual culture can also direct them to confront
both their deeply held beliefs in particular historical narratives and the
constructed nature of any source.
In "What's the Problem? Connecting Scholarship, Interpretation, and
Evidence in Telling Stories about Race and Slavery," Tracey Weis explores how
watching students connect evidence and scholarship as they construct historical
arguments reveals ways to use new media to enrich student understanding
of historical investigation and argumentation.
In "Moving beyond 'the Essay': Evaluating Historical Analysis and Argument
in Multimedia Presentations," Michael Coventry proposes that combining
argument and evidence in multimedia historical narratives drives faculty
and students to rethink the limits of writing as a way of representing historical
knowledge.
In "Connecting to the Public: Using New Media to Engage Students
in the Iterative Process of History," Cecilia O'Leary documents how students
become citizen historians by creating digital histories that not only connect
them personally to the history they study but also give them the tools to make
history public.
Our collaboration has helped us see that the very openness and uncertainty at the heart
of the task of interpreting visual materials provide an opportunity to introduce students
to the complexity of the past. That complexity often stands in direct opposition to prior
knowledge and beliefs about history. Our research also leads us to propose that the confrontation
with complexity and the sense of power gained in creating a visual argument
replicate for students some of what practitioners experience as we create historical narratives
in both traditional and nontraditional media. Making the process of student learning
visible offers possibilities both for our students to learn to think historically and for us
to develop a rigorous and open approach to our pedagogy, bridging the chasm between
research and classroom practice in our profession.
The authors wish to thank the editors of the JAH, and especially Gary Kornblith and Carol Lasser, "Textbooks and
Teaching" section editors, for their invaluable help. David Pace was instrumental throughout, facilitating discussion
at our writing residency and reading drafts. Roy Rosenzweig kindly read and offered detailed comments on an early
draft. Susannah McGowan, assistant director for curriculum design at the Center for New Designs in Learning and
Scholarship at Georgetown University, assisted in the writing of this essay by participating in conversations about
its shape, compiling early versions of the pieces, and commenting on drafts. We acknowledge with gratitude her
important contribution to our thinking. The authors thank Randy Bass and Bret Eynon and all of their colleagues
from the Visible Knowledge Project (VKP) for providing a nurturing space for the exploration of these ideas. We each
express thanks to our students for permitting us to quote and paraphrase their work. Our title echoes that of John
Berger's influential book, Ways of Seeing (1972).
Michael Coventry teaches in the Communication, Culture, and Technology Program at Georgetown University;
previously he was assistant director of the VKP. Matthias Oppermann, Randy Bass, John Rakestraw, Patricia
O'Connor, Diana Owen, and Molly Chehak offered suggestions and critique. Gelardin New Media Center, Lauinger
Library, Georgetown University, provided support, student training, and collaboration. My students, who
have engaged in this work so enthusiastically, merit a special thanks.
Peter Felten is associate professor and director of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning
at Elon University. He offers special thanks to Sherry Linkon, David Pace, Allison Pingree, and all his VKP colleagues.
David Jaffee teaches in the History Department and the Interactive Technology and Pedagogy Program at the
City College of New York and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He thanks his VKP colleagues at
the Graduate Center, Paula Berggren, Sally Webster, and Larry Hanley, and especially Steve Brier for his support of
the project, along with all the other VKP participants.
Cecilia O'Leary is a professor of history at California State University, Monterey Bay, and is on the editorial
board of Social Justice.
Tracey Weis is an associate professor in the Department of History at Millersville University. She also coordinates
the university's Women's Studies Program. She thanks her students for permission to share their work so that
others may benefit from their efforts. Thanks to the VKP Seminar at Millersville University and to the Catholic Girls
Writing Group for their encouragement and support.
1 David Pace, "The Amateur in the Operating Room: History and the Scholarship of Teaching," American Historical
Review, 109 (Oct. 2004), 1171. On viewing teaching problems as positive and worthy of research, see Randy Bass, "The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the Problem?," inventio, 1 (Feb. 1999) http://www.doiiit.gmu.edu/Archives/feb98/randybass.htm (Sept. 20, 2005).
2 The questions are from Pace, "Amateur in the Operating Room," 1176. On early work that takes the evidencebased
approach advocated here, see Lendol Calder, William W. Cutler III, and T. Mills Kelly, "History Lessons:
Historians and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning," in Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning: Exploring Common Ground, ed. Mary Taylor Huber and Sherwyn Morreale (Washington, 2002), 46,
52ñ54. We adapt this definition of scholarship from Lee Shulman and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching, who expand the work of Ernest L. Boyer. See Lee Shulman, "Course Anatomy: The Dissection
and Analysis of Knowledge through Teaching," in The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine Their Teaching to
Advance Practice and Improve Student Learning, ed. Pat Hutchings (Washington, 1988), 5. Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Princeton, 1990).
4 Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past (Philadelphia,
2001), 91. Entries for "history teaching" indexed in America: History and Life increased from 253 (1985ñ
1989), to 260 (1990ñ1994), to 357 (1995ñ1999), and to 428 (2000ñ2005). Important book-length investigations
include Paul Gagnon, ed., Historical Literacy: The Case for History in American Education (New York, 1989); Peter
N. Stearns, Meaning over Memory: Recasting the Teaching of Culture and History (Chapel Hill, 1993); Robert Blackley,
ed. History Anew: Innovations in the Teaching of History Today (Long Beach, 1993); Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn, History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past (New York, 1997); Peter
N. Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg, eds., Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History (New York, 2000);
Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts; Jonathan Zimmerman, Whose America? Culture Wars in
the Public Schools (Cambridge, Mass., 2002); Linda Symcox, Whose History? The Struggle for National Standards in
American Classrooms (New York, 2002); and Thomas Bender et al., The Education of Historians for the Twenty-First
Century (Urbana, 2004).
5 Mariolina Rizzi Salvatori, "The Scholarship of Teaching: Beyond the Anecdotal," Pedagogy, 2 (Fall 2002),
298.
7 Robert B. Bain, "Into the Breach: Using Research and Theory to Shape History Instruction," in Knowing,
Teaching, and Learning History, ed. Stearns, Seixas, and Wineburg, 332; W. J. T. Mitchell, Picture Theory: Essays on
Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago, 1994), 11; Sol Cohen, "An Innocent Eye: The Pictorial Turn, Film Studies,
and History," History of Education Quarterly, 43 (Summer 2003), 251. For a survey of approaches to images,
see Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (Ithaca, 2001). For examples of the recent
shift toward visual evidence, see George H. Roeder Jr., "Filling in the Picture: Visual Culture," Reviews in American
History, 26 (March 1998), 275ñ93; Joshua Brown, Beyond the Lines: Pictorial Reporting, Everyday Life, and the Crises
of Gilded Age America (Berkeley, 2002); and Peter H. Wood, Weathering the Storm: Inside Winslow Homer's Gulf
Stream (Athens, Ga., 2004).
8 Louis Masur, "'Pictures Have Now Become a Necessity': The Use of Images in American History Textbooks,"
Journal of American History, 84 (March 1998), 1409; David Jaffee, "'Scholars will soon be instructed through the
eye': E-Supplements and the Teaching of U.S. History," ibid., 89 (March 2003), 1463ñ82. For speculations on
moving images to the center of historical accounts, see Katherine Martinez, "Imaging the Past: Historians, Visual
Images, and the Contested Definition of History," Visual Resources, 11 (no. 1, 1995), 27.
9 On students and images, see James H. Madison, "Teaching with Images," OAH Magazine of History, 18 (Jan.
2004), 65. For a detailed approach to understanding the textual reading practices of historians, see Wineburg, Historical
Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts, 89ñ112, esp. 76. On the need for conventions for reading images, see
Robert M. Levine, Insights into American History: Photographs as Documents (Upper Saddle River, 2004), ix. Wineburg's
model was adapted by the Center for History and New Media, the American Social History Project, and the
Visible Knowledge Project in the production of the Making Sense of Evidence Web site. See Center for History and
New Media, Making Sense of Evidence http://historymatters.gmu.edu/browse/makesense/ (Sept. 20, 2005). For
another project that works with college, university, and high school teachers of history and the use of images in the
classroom, see American Social History Project, Learning to Look: Visual Evidence and the U.S. Past in the New Media
Classroom http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ashp/LTLNMC/ (Sept. 20, 2005). Masur, "'Pictures Have Now Become
a Necessity,'" 1423.
10 On the complexities of multimedia authoring in humanities classrooms, see Visible Knowledge Project,
Multimedia Authoring Gallery http://crossroads.georgetown.edu/vkp/themes/poster_showcase_writing.htm (Sept. 20, 2005). See also Randy Bass and Bret Eynon, eds., The Difference That Inquiry Makes (forthcoming,
2006), and Randy Bass and Bret Eynon, "Teaching Culture, Learning Culture, and New Media Technologies:
An Introduction and Framework," Works and Days, 16 (nos. 1ñ2, 1998), 11ñ96. For examples of new digital
scholarship in history, see Robert Darnton, "An Early Information Society: News and the Media in Eighteenth-
Century Paris," American Historical Review, 105 (Feb. 2000), 1ñ35; Roy Rosenzweig et al., "Forum on Hypertext
Scholarship: AQ as Web-ZineóResponses to AQ's Experimental Online Issue," American Quarterly, 51 (June 1999),
237ñ83; and the contents of the special issue "Hypertext Scholarship in American Studies," ed. Roy Rosenzweig,
American Quarterly, 51 (June 1999) http://chnm.gmu.edu/aq/ (Sept. 20, 2005). See also the introduction to
an online article on slavery: William G. Thomas III and Edward L. Ayers, "The Difference That Slavery Made: A
Close Analysis of Two American Communities," American Historical Review, 108 (Dec. 2003), 1299ñ1307; and
the article: William G. Thomas III and Edward L. Ayers, "The Difference That Slavery Made: A Close Analysis
of Two American Communities," American Historical Review, 108 (Dec. 2003) http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/
AHR/ (Sept. 20, 2005).