karras 1993 teaching history through argumentation

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-pdf


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


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


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


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


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


7/21

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


8/21


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


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


10/21


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


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


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


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


14/21

Teaching


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


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


16/21

Teaching


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


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


18/21


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


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


20/21


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


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

karras 1993 teaching history through argumentation

Documents