Teaching By Talking: Discussion-Based Learning in the AP World History Survey

Erik Vincent

Every Socratic dialogue I have read depends on some fool claiming that he knows something and then Socrates revealing to posterity that the hapless dunce was far more ignorant then he or even we fully comprehend. Socrates the Modest first destroys the pretender to knowledge and then presents the real answer to the question.—John Moore ("Teaching By Discussion: Dangers and Opportunities") ¹

What Socrates Knew (and May Not Have Known)

     Dialogic instruction as a form of inquiry-based teaching has existed since antiquity. Most students know the story of Socrates, the wise man of Athens who shunned the material comforts of life in favor of a life-long quest for knowledge and truth – a quest facilitated by a systematic question-and-answer method of philosophizing that pit Socrates against one of his fellows in conversation in hopes of stimulating critical thinking and illuminating ideas. This method, a form of "teaching by talking instead of telling,"² was idealized by Socrates' contemporaries, Plato in particular, and today is often held up as a model for educators who laud it as critical pedagogy: "The purpose of using dialectic in the classroom is to clarify an idea or come to some understanding that's greater regarding that idea, or to improve our ability to use that dialectic in our own thinking and decision-making."³

     At its best, Socratic instruction cultivates an attitude with respect to knowledge that is both skeptical and sifting, challenging students to be reflexive while investigating the source of their ideas and to approach learning as critical inquiry. It is an approach that has the potential to inspire as well as surprise, as physics professor Ryan Neilson of BYU-Idaho observed in his own classroom: "One of the exciting things about it is that students have the ability to tackle a new problem that they can approach with their learning more independently. I was exceptionally excited and more than a little taken aback by the standards of thinking that they began to apply to themselves."⁴

     That said, educators are far from united in support of Socratic methods. In fact, some are openly critical. John Moore, Associate Professor in the Department of English and Comparative Literature at Penn State University argues that "To employ the Socratic Method is great fun if you get to play Socrates, but I suspect that this type of academic mugging is just what every hesitant student fears most about speaking up in class. The Socratic Method violates the principle 'Never put down a student comment'."⁵ Ironically, critics view Socratic instruction as a subtle, veiled form of the banking method of instruction against which Paulo Freire argues so passionately in his 1970 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. They point to the power asymmetries involved in the Teacher-Pupil relationship, question the claims to equality and reciprocity within the dialogical relation and challenge the emancipatory potential and inclusivity of the Platonic ideal. Nicholas C. Burbules of the University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign's Department of Educational Policy Studies puts it thusly:

     The criticisms point to the silences, exclusions, and coercive or co-opting elements in dialogue, which challenge its self-conception as something open, neutral, and inviting to all. What these criticisms have done is to refocus attention on the practice of dialogue, with its tensions, paradoxes, and material effects on those who are not willing or able to participate in educational discussions in that manner. Engaging in this practice requires awareness of these difficulties and dilemmas, and an acknowledgement that particular forms of dialogue cannot serve the very aims that they avow.⁶

     In short, detractors argue, there are limits to dialogue as critical pedagogy.

Beyond Socrates: The Merits of Discussion-Based Teaching

     Fortunately for those of us who use discussions in our classrooms, the Socratic Method is only one of many instructional techniques modeled on the use of dialogue; they range from the formal dialectic to methods that resemble inquiry-based instruction. And regardless of the particular form, the benefits of discussion-based teaching and other active learning strategies have been demonstrated across multiple subject areas.⁷

     As if to confirm Prof. Neilson's classroom observations, Applebee et al. (2003) found that "students whose classroom experiences emphasize discussion based approaches in the context of high academic standards internalize the knowledge and skills necessary to engage in challenging tasks on their own."⁸ Kolb's (1984) report supports this conclusion, suggesting that students participating in a cooperative learning environment in which discussions-based "simulations"⁹ are frequently used indicate significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the course than those taking the traditional format option which involved more lectures. "The simulations not only energized the students but also personalized an in-depth understanding of course content and related issues."¹⁰

     Finally, Cliff and Miller's (1997) study suggests that when the most common pitfalls in discussion-based teaching are avoided through good planning and careful execution, the discussion method can be a reliable way to draw students into interaction with the subject matter, what they term the "dance of creative and critical thinking."¹¹ In this dance, they argue, "the teachers open the floor, create a free space, invite students to enter in and play the music of activities; they ask students to compose their 'improvisational dances' in talking and to try to understand possibilities from their own and others' movements."¹² In this dialogic space, what Cliff and Miller call a "caring community," mutual learning occurs; students are free to "think out loud" without fear of being told that they are wrong and instructors learn to teach through conversation – to develop a culturally-responsive, constructive pedagogy that does not prematurely silence their students' voices but rather empowers them as agents in their own learning.¹³ As Sharon and Ron, two high school social studies teachers whose students are the focus of Cliff and Miller's study, put it: "We believe that education is a process which involves thinking, analysis, problem solving, effective communication, cooperation, engagement and enthusiasm. Our projects are designed to help students develop and have these skills and attitudes."¹⁴ It is a process that is transformative, both for the students who enter into the dialogic space and for the classroom teachers who employ these methods. Again, Prof. Neilson:

     One of the things that I found is that it's very profoundly affected how I teach because I am much more willing to address a student's thinking, even in a lecture course when a student asks a question. I used to be very frightened of a student expressing an incorrect idea in class. When inquiry works particularly well, I've helped to create and the students have helped to create an environment in which they can afford to make mistakes, where they can learn by making mistakes. And I greatly appreciate the dignity that it gives the role of the learner.¹⁵

     These results support the belief that discussion-based teaching provides an opportunity for the members of a class to "work actively with the ideas and concepts that are being pursued, to use the resources of the group, to apply principles, and to provide continuous feedback to the instructor about what students are learning and how successfully they can apply what they learned."¹⁶

Discussion and the Doing of History

     History (and world history in particular) can be one of the most difficult subjects for students to understand. This may be due partly to the nature of the discipline itself¹⁷ but also to the peculiar attachment that many history instructors feel to more traditional teaching methods that emphasize factual recall and simple cause-effect chains.¹⁸ As Del Favero et al. (2007) observe, "A thorough understanding of history implies the recognition that several possible causes and consequences may be invoked when reconstructing the past, often with no certain or 'true' conclusion."¹⁹ For our high school world history students, many of whom take AP World History during their sophomore year when they are only 15 years old, it may be difficult to manage such complexities, especially when they are not prompted, let alone prepared, to do so. It should not be surprising then that many view history as "dreary, useless, irrelevant to their lifestyle"²⁰ because it involves "nothing more than memorizing facts"²¹ and that students often "enter the classroom with at best neutral or, more frequently, with negative feelings about history."²² Consequently, we as teachers face tough choices about what instructional strategies to use in our classrooms to boost student interest in history while at the same time extending their learning.

     To make matters more difficult for classroom teachers, logistic necessity (i.e. large class sizes, scheduling concerns, etc.) dictates that traditional lecture will likely continue to be important in the learning process if, for no other reason, than it is a fairly efficient way to cover content. However, given the tendency of such traditional methods to encourage "surface-level learning,"²³ and considering the broad benefits of discussion-based teaching described above, one wonders whether an instructional approach based on the use of classroom discussion could impact not only student motivation for learning history but also their learning of historical concepts and competence in the critical historical thinking skills that our course demands?

     Here the results are mixed. DeNeve and Heppner (1997) report that a search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) covering a three-year period returned 175 articles about active learning of which only twelve involved a direct comparison between active learning and more traditional methods. A majority of these twelve reported no significant differences between active and passive techniques in terms of student performance.²⁴ "These results agree with recent research that suggested that active learning techniques are more effective for achieving some goals, while lectures are more effective at achieving others."²⁵ Miller and Groccia (1997) found similarly mixed results. In a post-course evaluation to assess competence in five critical thinking skills, those participating in the collaborative class in which discussion-based learning strategies were used performed no better than their peers in the traditional class.²⁶

     In a more recent study, Del Favero et al. (2007) observed one hundred eighth graders attending four classes of a public middle school in a town in the north east of Italy over a one year period in order to compare the effects of two teaching methods on students' learning and comprehension of historical issues as well as their self-perception of confidence and interest in history. To cite directly from their investigation:

     The first teaching approach was based on individual problem-solving, the second involved problem-solving through discussion. Students in the discussion condition were prompted to discuss the value of studying history with the entire class and were required to solve historical problems in groups. Classroom discussion had two functions: whole-class discussions were aimed at helping students understand the reasons why history is taught in school. Small group discussions, where participants had to solve historical problems with classmates, were intended to help students understand specific historical contents and epistemological procedures. Students in the individual problem-solving condition had to solve the same historical problems by themselves, without discussion.²⁷

     Del Favero et al. confirm empirically what Prof. Neilson, Sharon and Ron recount anecdotally; namely, that discussions improve situational, topical and individual interest in history, as well as students' own self-perception of competence in the discipline.²⁸ Analysis also revealed that "the discussion condition seemed to support a deeper understanding of the way historical knowledge is created;"²⁹ collaboration and discussion were particularly useful in "increasing the general domain-specific abilities"³⁰ associated with the discipline, which Del Favero et al. defined as "analy[zing] various historical documents," and "evaluating the adequacy and reliability of a source to answer questions about the past."³¹ That said, however, students in the discussion condition fared no better than their peers in reaching higher levels of topic knowledge at the end of the investigation.³²

     Here, Del Favero et al.'s results contradict the findings of an earlier study by McCarthy and Anderson (2000). Their analysis of actively learning techniques compared with traditional methods in two high school history and political science courses suggested "clear evidence that, across both disciplines, students who engaged in active learning activities performed significantly better than those exposed to traditional methods."³³ However, these results may be due to a clear distinction McCarthy and Anderson make between what they term to be "lower-order" active learning strategies, such as simple teacher-centered discussions, and "higher-order" strategies, such as debates and role-play simulations. "Simple" discussions, they argue, though preferable to traditional lecture, have their limits, especially when it comes to helping students "think past thoughts, to understand the motives and perceptions of other people perhaps very unlike themselves and inhabiting different conceptual worlds, and to comprehend the perspectives of others even though they might not agree or personally identify with them."³⁴ Whereas many teachers might have students read and reflect upon primary and secondary sources but return to a teacher centered (i.e. more traditional) approach when discussing the materials and the perceptions that they reveal, "In-class role plays," McCarthy and Anderson contend, "can round out the process, making every facet of the particular learning experience active and student-centered"³⁵ Thus promoting deeper learning.

     These results provide a qualified endorsement of discussion-based teaching strategies in the history classroom, but only as part of broader, inquiry-based instructional approach that is both active and student-centered. In addition to being more engaging for students, properly designed and executed, they have the potential to more effectively impart information than traditional formats and are widely considered to encourage the kind of "deep" learning that is critical to the humanities and the social sciences.     

A View from the Classroom: Columbus on Trial

     In our course, a team-taught AP world history and gifted world literature class of twenty-five sophomores in a large public high school just north of Atlanta, we use a variety of active learning strategies to engage learners, impart subject area knowledge and redress the deficiency in critical thinking skills that seem to hinder our students at the college level.³⁶ Following McCarthy and Anderson (2000), our pedagogy is by necessity interdisciplinary, blending social constructivist methods with teacher- and student-led discussions and lecture. Our goals, regardless of the assignment, are to promote critical thinking and clear expression, whether aloud or in writing. It is an approach whose inspiration comes from Dotolo and Nicolay's (2008) experiment with a first-year "learning community" at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, New York.³⁷

     As a hybrid course in history and world literature, our class sessions usually center on a text³⁸ and frequently involve discussions. We have experimented with both "simple," "lower-order," discussion-based methods and "higher-order" active learning strategies, each to good effect. In particular, roundtable seminars based on thematic chapters from document readers such as Kevin Reilly's Worlds of History and Weisner-Hanks et al.'s Discovering the Global Past,³⁹ PRO/CON debates from the "Taking Sides" series published by McGraw-Hill⁴⁰ and jigsaw discussions using materials from the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University,⁴¹ stand out for their ability to boost student interest in learning history, engage multiple learning styles while imparting core content, and sharpen critical thinking skills.

     To cite one example, as part of a unit on New World encounters in the Americas during the 16^th century, we conducted a week-long mock trial in which we debated whether or not Christopher Columbus' voyages of discovery represented a positive force for the development of world history. After a half-day of lecture and informal class discussion to establish key concepts and themes (i.e., the "who," "what" "when," and "where")⁴² students were broken up into two large groups (representing the prosecution and defense respectively) and given the PRO and CON position papers from Issue #10 of the Taking Sides "World Civilizations" 2ed to review for homework.⁴³ The next day, we allowed approximately 20 minutes for our students meet in their teams to discuss the articles, sharing notes, questions and opinions about how they might use the arguments and evidence presented by each author as the basis for their case. A whole-class question and answer session followed before students were released to begin their library research⁴⁴ and start the task of assigning attorney and witness roles, preparing opening statements and setting theme and theory for their side.

     My colleague and I thought the whole-class "disclosure" period was necessary to define critical vocabulary and ensure that each side clearly understood their own position and the likely arguments that would be presented by their opponents before jumping in to trial preparation. We did not expect and were surprised by the depth of the discussion we facilitated during this initial Q&A. Students examined points of view from multiple angles, challenged and at times defended authorial bias and offered alternative theories about why Columbus may have done or did not do what he was accused of doing, often requesting additional sources that would become the basis for witness affidavits. In part this is due to the nature of the Taking Sides series—the PRO/CON format invites debate and encourages critical thinking—but the conversation quickly took on a maturity and quality all its own. Without any formal prompting, students were creatively thinking out loud and engaging in the basics of historiography: namely, evaluation and argumentation. We were pleased that both the analysis and competitive spirit carried into the trial itself.

     We allowed one full class period (approximately 80 minutes) for the trial before adjourning to jury deliberations. These took the form of a 35–40 minute Harkness Table discussion among a pre-selected group of students the next morning. We chose the Harkness method in order to give jury members a sense of ownership over a part of the trial and to extend the analysis and reflection into the post-trial debriefing period. It had the added benefit of "keeping me on my A game," as one prosecution attorney put it in an exit survey, "since I knew that part of my grade, and theirs, depended on how clearly I got my thoughts across and how well I made the case for the evidence that we prepared…"

     As with the initial disclosure discussion, the Harkness deliberations proved intense, thoughtful and driven by the evidence, though this time brought out in trial. Attorneys and witnesses were given immediate (and often direct) feedback on "how clearly you made your points" as one Harkness member put it, and "how well you convinced me that Columbus knew what would happen to the natives once the Spanish took control," said another. We, the teachers, found this experience to be immensely gratifying to watch; the critique carried the entire period, was conducted with dignity and respect for the hard work students put into the activity, and, as with the pre-trial debate, showcased our students' ability to not only demonstrate an understanding of a set of factual claims but also an understanding of the warrant for those claims, as evidenced by the following comment from Jeremy, one of the jurors:

     I agree, the defense made a strong case. They knew the facts and presented them well and I really liked how they worked the primary sources into their argument. I think they twisted Sepulveda too much, but that's my bias. But anyway, that doesn't mean that they were right and the prosecution was wrong. They [the prosecution] had an equally difficult case to make. We shouldn't be convinced by the defense just because their position is one that we're more familiar with from middle school. You know, that Columbus wonderful because he discovered the New World. If this trial did nothing else it showed us that Columbus was part of a much bigger story of explorations and encounters during this period and that the standard textbook story leaves a lot out. No, before we vote we need to weigh the evidence like they did. The defense just presented us with the facts and argued what they wanted us to believe. Theirs was just one of many stories that could have been told. Now we need to discuss things ourselves and make a final judgment. So, let's get to it.

     And get to it they did.

Conclusion: Partners in a Human Enterprise

     Used in conjunction with both informal and formal writing assignments, our mock trial and other discussion-based learning activities have helped students "get better at using primary and secondary sources," "appreciate how two smart people can have two very different views of something that happened in the past," "learn some stuff about world history and "consider another person's point of view in a way that I never had before" to quote students' own evaluations of their in-class experiences.⁴⁵ Most just "had fun" or "enjoyed the talking," happy to "waste an hour's worth of time instead of writing something or doing a chart." But one student, Jamie, reflected on her experience in a way that was different from all of her other classmates. To quote at length from her end-of-term evaluation:

     At first I didn't understand why we talked all the time. I mean, we just talked and talked, like every week we had a discussion and something to write about. Mr. Vincent kept asking questions and Ms. Satterfield kept pointing us back to the novel, or poem or whatever it was and made us "give textual support for what you're saying." It was definitely an odd way of doing history […] after a while though, the talking got easier. I don't know if I just had more to say or what […] the debates were cool, especially the mock trials. They were always fun. Hard, but at least they got everyone involved. But even the regular discussions, you know, the simple ones, I don't know, meant more after a while. The tests never got easier. No way. Harkness didn't help there. Maybe for the essays […] I guess I just finally figured out how to think and learned how to ask my own questions, like I was the teacher or something.

     Shades of the Platonic ideal? Perhaps, but we think Socrates would be pleased.

     On balance then, active learning strategies stimulate interest and inquiry; being student- rather than teacher-centered, they "maximize participation, are highly motivational and give immediacy to the subject matter by encouraging students to move beyond a superficial, fact-based approach to the material,"⁴⁶ leading to "gains in general subject mastery, reading comprehension, and conceptual understanding."⁴⁷ As part of a broad-based instructional approach, discussions shift the focus from the instructor talking to the pupil learning, i.e. they can help develop, sharpen and extend a more progressive, mature type of student thinking and learning than is possible in traditional, teacher-focused classrooms.⁴⁸ As philanthropist Edward Harkness put it in his bequest to Phillips Exeter Academy in the 1920s, "the net result would be that a boy would become more of a grown up, would think of his studies as something more real, and would have an interest, a compelling motive, which he would carry to college." The "successful teacher," Harkness went on, "would not be a drill master, but a partner in a human enterprise."⁴⁹

Erik Vincent teaches Advanced Placement courses in world history, economics and comparative government at Dunwoody High School. A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and Oxford University, he has been a reader and table leader for AP World History since 2007 and currently serves on the Development Committee for AP World History. He can be contacted at erik.vincent@gmail.com.

¹ Originally given as an IDP Master Teacher Seminar on October 19, 1994. Cited in D. M. Enerson et al., "The Penn State Teacher II: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn" (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, 1997), 42–53.

² R. Garlikov. "The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of Telling." http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html.

³ Excerpt from an interview with Brian Merrill, BYU-Idaho professor of philosophy. Available on http://www.byui.edu/learningandteaching/resources/video/march/purpose.html. May 18, 2010.

⁴ Excerpt from an interview conducted at BYU-Idaho Center for Inspired Learning and Teaching. Available on http://www.byui.edu/learningandteaching/resources/video/march/response.html. May, 18, 2010.

⁵ Cited in D. M. Enerson et al., "The Penn State Teacher II: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn" (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, 1997), 43.

⁶ N.C. Burbules. "The Limits of Dialogue as a Critical Pedagogy." In Revolutionary Pedagogies, ed., P. Trionfas, 251–73. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000. Emphasis in original.

⁷ J.P. Gall and M.D. Gall. "Outcomes of the Discussion Method." In Teaching and Learning Through Discussion: The Theory, Research and Practice of the Discussion Method, ed. W. W. Wilen, 25–44, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; M.D. Gall and M. Gillet, "The Discussion Method in Classroom Teaching," Theory into Practice 19, 2 (1980): 98–103.

⁸ A.N. Applebee, J.A. Langer, M. Nystrand and A. Gamoran, "Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English," American Educational Research Journal 40, 3 (2003): 685.

⁹ D. Kolb. Experiential Learning (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984): 217.

¹⁰ Kolb. Experiential Learning, 217.

¹¹ C. Cliff and S. Miller, "Multicultural Dialogue in Literature-History Classes: The Dance of Creative and Critical Thinking," Report Series 7.9 (Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, 1997).

¹² Cliff and Miller, "Multicultural Dialogue," 3.

¹³ L.D. Delpit, "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children," Harvard Educational Review 58, 3 (1988): 280–98.

¹⁴ Quoted in Cliff and Miller, "Multicultural Dialogue," 4.

¹⁵ Excerpt from an interview conducted at BYU-Idaho Center for Inspired Learning and Teaching. Available on http://www.byui.edu/learningandteaching/resources/video/march/results.html. May 18, 2010. Emphasis added.

¹⁶ D.M. Enerson, R.N. Johnson, S. Milner and K.M. Plank, "The Penn State Teacher II: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn," (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, 1997): 41.

¹⁷ S. Hutton, "Under the Magnifying Glass: The Challenge of Teaching World History," (California History Social Science Project: 2010): 3–4. See also http://csmp.ucop.edu/files/resources/files/368_Winter%202010%20Edition%20of%20The%20Source%20Final.pdf.

¹⁸ M. Booth, "Cognition in History: a British Perspective," Educational Psychologist 29, 2 (1994): 61–69.

¹⁹ L. Del Favero, P. Boscolo, G. Vidotto and M. Vicentini, "Classroom Discussion and Individual Problem-Solving in the Teaching of History: Do Different Instructional Approaches Affect Interest in Different Ways," Learning and Instruction 17 (2007): 635.

²⁰ J.B.M. Schick, "What Do Students Really Think of History?" The History Teacher 24, 3 (1991): 331.

²¹ K.T Spoehr and L.W. Spoehr, "Learning to Think Historically," Educational Psychologist 27, 1 (1994): 1–17.

²² Schick, "What do Students Think," 331.

²³ F. Marton and R. Saljo, "On Qualitative Differences in Learning: Outcomes and Processes," British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 1 (1976): 4–11.

²⁴ K.M. DeNeve and M.J. Heppner, "Role-Play Simulations: The Assessment of an Active Learning Technique and Comparisons with Traditional Lectures," Innovative Higher Education 21, 3 (1997): 232. Cited in J.P. McCarthy and L. Anderson, "Active Learning Strategies Versus Traditional Learning Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science," Innovative High Education 24, 4 (2000): 281.

²⁵ K.M. DeNeve and M.J. Heppner, "Role-Play Simulations," 243.

²⁶ J.E. Miller and J.E. Groccia, "Are Four Heads Better Than One? A Comparison of Cooperative and Traditional Formats in an Introductory Biology Course," Innovative Higher Education 21, 2 (1997): 253–73.

²⁷ Del Favero et al., "Classroom Discusson,"641

²⁸ Ibid., 647.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ Ibid., 650.

³¹ Ibid., 641.

³² Del Favero, "Classroom Discussion,"646.

³³ J.P. McCarthy and L. Anderson, "Active Learning Strategies," 280.

³⁴ Ibid., 283.

³⁵ Ibid., 284.

³⁶ Here, see National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). "The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007." Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/. Accessed May 2010; F. Dotolo and T. Nicolay. "Approaching History Through Literature: Generating Knowledge Through Writing and Inquiry in a Cross Disciplinary First-year Learning Community," The History Teacher 42, 1 (2008): 25; and S. Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001).

³⁷ F. Dotolo and T. Nicolay. "Approaching History Through Literature: Generating Knowledge Through Writing and Inquiry in a Cross Disciplinary First-year Learning Community," The History Teacher 42, 1 (2008): 25.

³⁸ Novels, excerpts from primary sources, essays, etc.

³⁹ For a specific discussion of how these materials were utilized in a seminar on Atlantic World encounters during a unit on colonial Latin America, see E. Vincent, "Learning to Think on Paper: Why Writing Remains Essential in the AP World History Course," World History Connected 7, 2 (June, 2010). http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/7.2/vincent.html.

⁴⁰ We have found Issue #10 in Taking Sides: Controversial Issues in World Civilizations, "Were Columbus' New World Discoveries a Positive Force in the Development of World History?" to be a particularly provocative topic.

⁴¹ For example, see the teaching case study "Gender and Race in Colonial Latin America" http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/d/124/wwh.html.

⁴² We pulled most of our preteaching materials from World History For Us All, Big Era 6, "The Great Global Convergence, 1400–1800 CE," Landscape Teaching Units 6.1 and 6.2. Available on http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/eras/era6.php#pan.

⁴³ "Were Christopher Columbus' Discoveries a Positive Force in the Development of World History?" Available on http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0076667771/student_view0/world_civilizations/2e/table_of_contents.html.

⁴⁴ We allowed three full days of library research time on block schedule.

⁴⁵ These comments came from midterm surveys collected at the end of the fall semester 2010.

⁴⁶ J.P. McCarthy and L. Anderson, "Active Learning Strategies,"280.

⁴⁷ J.E. Henning. The Art of Discussion-Based Teaching: Opening up Conversation in the Classroom (New York, NY: Routledge, 2008), 2.

⁴⁸ Adler, Mary & Rougle, Eija. Building Literacy Through Classroom Discussion: Research-Based Strategies for Developing Critical Readers and Thoughtful Writers in Middle School (New York, NY: Scholastic, 2005).

⁴⁹ L.A. Smith and M. Foley, "Partners in a Human Enterprise: Harkness Teaching in the History Classroom," The History Teacher 42, 4 (2009): 477.