Table of Contents

OAH Magazine of History
Volume 7, No 4
Summer 1993

Copyright ©
Organization of American Historians

Using the Position Paper to Teach Higher-Level Thinking Skills in American History

William I. Mitchell

In an article published in the Fall 1991 issue of the Magazine of History, Kline Capps and David Vocke provided a rationale for using writing activities to teach higher-level thinking skills and suggested an instructional technique that should accomplish this goal (1). Their approach has a solid foundation but requires further development. Too often teachers concentrate on supplying knowledge content, expecting thought processes and writing skills to develop spontaneously. The thought processes must be given direction by guiding the student through the writing assignment to its conclusion.

In support for their article, a frequently stated goal of history instruction is the development of critical thinking skills in secondary school students. Historian Linda Alkana, an instructor of critical thinking at California State University, has observed, “Historical methodology is, indeed, critical thinking methodology, and the two disciplines are mutually beneficial” (2). The development of higher-level thinking in secondary students is a perennial problem facing history teachers. For the student, learning history should involve learning thought processes as well as historical content. This is frequently not accomplished because students often do not understand that history is interpretive and that historians deal with conflicting sources. Frequently they cannot distinguish between primary and secondary sources (3).

Effective history instruction requires students to think about content rather than merely reproduce it (4). Research suggests that peer interaction is a vital component of the thought process (5). It follows that thoughtful consideration and discussion of the content should be an inherent function of the history writing assignment.

Capps and Vocke based their work on an earlier instructional model proposed by two reading specialists, Loren Thompson and Alan Frager. That model combined peer interaction with the use of multiple sources as preparation for student discussions. Because the electronic media is both provocative and a major source of information today, the model considered music, broadcasts, and film as valid sources.

Capps and Vocke applied the model as preparation for history writing assignments. The model is valuable because it incorporates crucial components of the thinking process such as writing, peer interaction, and multiple source materials. Writing is recognized as one of the most effective means of promoting critical thinking because of the need to manipulate ideas precisely (6). Interaction with peers generates ideas and introduces the student to alternate perspectives. By nature, critical thinking implies choice. If possible, teachers should provide students with multiple or conflicting perspectives on a common theme. Peer interaction as well as the use of multiple source documents, including both primary and secondary varieties, accomplishes this.

Among the types of writing assignments to be given, Capps and Vocke suggest opinion papers, document-based essays which promote understanding of primary and secondary historical sources. The position paper promotes critical thinking skills through the synthesis of knowledge and the analysis of arguments. The taking of a position requires the student to evaluate the arguments and take ownership of a perspective, a powerful motivational tool.

However, the Capps and Vocke model needs elaboration and further development. Thompson and Frager insisted that effective learning uses prior knowledge and experience. This is accurate, but such prior knowledge with concomitant values can inhibit critical thinking unless the assignment requires the student to analyze and evaluate his/her own perspective with the evidence. Too often students search for and use evidence to support their own preconceived position rather than carefully weighing the evidence for all perspectives. Higher-level thinking requires the restructuring of the knowledge already present. To achieve this, discussion among students should take place both before the writing assignment, as Capps and Vocke suggest, and during the writing process itself, after the completion of a rough draft of the assignment. Students should evaluate each others’ initial work and discuss its positive and negative aspects. Students may then revise their writing in relation to the peer critiques.

In making the writing assignment, history teachers should give careful consideration to the constituent components required for completion, such as the specific thought processes to be encouraged, the specific wording of the assignment, and the quality of the finished product (7). The writing assignment might consist of multiple parts, each designed to address the development of an ascending level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. For example, the first part of the assignment addresses the knowledge or comprehension level. The second part makes use of the analysis provided in the class discussions and requires synthesis of the material. The third part requires the student to employ evaluation, the highest cognitive level.

It is helpful for the teacher to provide guidelines during the writing and discussion process. The rubric to be used for evaluation of the final work is excellent for this purpose and should be included with the writing assignment.

The Capps and Vocke assignment, a document-based position paper, requires students to formulate a reasoned opinion regarding the historical veracity of the image of General George A. Custer. The assignment might appear thus:

1. The films Custer: The American Surge Westward and Little Big Man present contrasting perspectives of General George Armstrong Custer and the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Based on your interpretation of the films:

1. Describe the difference between the two views of Custer and the battle.
2. Explain why you believe the filmmakers presented him in that fashion. Support your position with evidence from the films.

2. Evaluate the sources and rank them in the order in which you believe to be most trustworthy. Support your choice with explanations as to your specific reasons.

3. On the basis of your response in question two, evaluate which film perspective you believe to be most historically accurate.

1. Support your argument with examples and citations to the films, to the textbook account of Custer, and to the assigned primary source readings.
2. What generalizations do you infer about the accuracy of media such as films in presenting history?

Students address each segment of the assignment consecutively. Question one requires students to demonstrate understanding of the perspectives through comparison of the content of the films and to communicate the differences, while Part B requires reasoned speculation as to motives. Question two requires analysis and evaluation of source materials, in which students must demonstrate the basis for their reasoning. The third question requires synthesis as well as evaluation of the results.

Before students begin to write, the teacher provides them with a copy of the rubric to guide their writing (See handout on page 7). Such rubric may utilize a Likert-type scale to evaluate the student’s performance on each component of the assignment. Students should be aware that reasoned argument and writing skills rather than a particular position will be the basis of evaluation of their work.

Upon completion of the rough drafts, students receive instructions to bring the original and two copies of their papers to class. In small groups of three, students exchange and read each other’s work. They write critical comments, including praise as well as specific areas for reconsideration, on the drafts and then discuss these among themselves. The teacher uses the peer reviews to encourage students to evaluate their own work. Students then revise their manuscripts in reference to peer comments.

When completed, the revised papers and rough drafts containing the reviewers’ comments are evaluated together. The latter provide the teacher with material to evaluate the developing thinking skills of all students and are a factor in the final evaluation of individual papers.

Teachers should require individuals whose level of performance is unacceptable to continue revising their papers using the teacher’s critique until they attain an acceptable level of performance. Too often teachers fail to provide students with the opportunity for revision. Such a practice communicates low teacher expectations and discourages the development of critical thinking. To facilitate revision, teachers should write critical comments in the form of additional ideas for consideration.

Frequent use of this writing assignment model will enable history students to think critically about both historical knowledge and the sources of that knowledge. It will also contribute to the development of improved writing skills. Students are provided with guidance throughout the assignment and know from the beginning exactly what is expected from them. Discussion before and during the writing process ensures that alternate perspectives are generated and that students have the opportunity to grapple with challenges to their individual perspectives. Use of the model will ensure that history teachers avoid what Capps and Vocke refer to as the charge that their teaching is characterized by factualism.

1. Differences between the two films are described.
1 2 3 4 5

2. Student presents logical explanations as to the film makers motivations.
1 2 3 4 5

3. Evaluation in Part 2 is supported with evidence.
1 2 3 4 5

4. Student’s evaluation of the film perspective is logically consistent with position in Part 2.
1 2 3 4 5

5. Argument is supported with examples and citations from the sources.
1 2 3 4 5

6. Student’s position is logically constructed.
1 2 3 4 5

7. Quality of writing.
1 2 3 4 5

8. Manuscript has been revised as suggested.
1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

1. Kline Capps and David Vocke, “Developing Higher-Level Thinking Skills Through American History Writing Assignments,” OAH Magazine of History 6 (Fall 1991): 6-9.

2. Linda Kelly Alkana, “Teaching Critical Thinking with Historical Methodology,” Perspectives (April 1992): 23-27.

3. Jere Brophy, Bruce A. VanSledright, and Nancy Bredin, “Fifth Graders’ Ideas About History Expressed Before and After their Introduction to the Subject,” Theory and Research in Social Education 20 (1992): 440-89.

4. Alan G. Griffin, A Philosophical Approach to the Subject Matter Preparation of Teachers of History (Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1992), 37.

5. Loren C. Thompson and Alan M. Frager, “Teaching Critical Thinking: Guidelines for Teacher-designed Content Area Lessons,” Journal of Reading (November 1984): 122-127.

6. Grace E. Grant, Teaching Critical Thinking (New York: Praeger, 1988), 36.

7. Ibid., 37.

William I. Mitchell is Assistant Professor in the Department of History and Social Studies Education at Buffalo State College