As a first step in this new phase of Bringing History Home's (BHH) development, I have applied for federal 501(c)(3) status, and registered BHH as a non-profit corporation in South Carolina.  As we move ahead, I look forward to meeting curriculum directors, teachers, methods faculty, and historians across the Carolinas and the nation, to collaborate and continue sharing BHH research-proven strategies for engaging children in doing history. 

BHH has always been about teachers inspiring teachers, and students inspiring teachers.  Twenty years after the first Bringing History Home project began, here's to continuing that tradition of inspiration through a new decade and beyond.  

We're excited for the next round of workshops coming up on August 1-4.  It will be another great week dedicated to stretching the boundaries of what children can do when they study history with rigor and integrity.

The Bringing History Home 2011 Mentor Team:

Joan Viet

Lauren Stark

Catherine Metz

Nicole Greazel

Cher McAllister

Kathy Severson

Susie Stark

Jennifer Schaffer

Jennifer Klekar

Mary Beth Wagemester

Amanda Tieskotter

Stephanie Stulken

Teresa Drtina

Angela Patterson

Josie Norton

Tracy Woodell

Catherine Metz

Susie Stark

Kathy Severson

Thank you, Dr. Denial!

BHH teachers began a new year and continued exploring history with their students.

February 

BHH director Elise Fillpot attended the annual Technical Advisory Group meeting for the National History Education Clearinghouse.

Santa Fe teachers in Grades 3-6 explored the BHH Five Processes in a workshop funded by TAH. 

March

The University of Iowa Center for Evaluation and Assessment designed assessments for the BHH 5th grade pilot of a unit on the Columbian Exchange.  The unit was adapted by BHH staff and teachers from National Endowment for the Humanities Edsitement lessons titled "What was Columbus Thinking?"

April

Kyle Longley, Snell Family Dean's Professor of History at Arizona State University, led a two-day Grant Wood History Institute workshop for middle and high school teachers on the Vietnam War. 

In a session at the American Education Research Association annual conference, distinguished Social Studies and History education faculty Keith Barton, Linda Levstik, Kelly Woestman, Jack Zevin and David Gerwin analyzed and discussed classroom video footage of BHH lead mentor Kim Heckart leading a discussion during one of her predict and infer units. 

May

Elizabeth Ridgway, Library of Congress Director of Educational Outreach, and her colleague Anne Savage visited Prairie Ridge Elementary School to observe Kim teaching 3rd grade history via her predict and infer model.

5th and 6th grade teachers in Anchorage, Alaska explored the BHH Five Processes during the annual Anchorage School District Summer Academy. 

June

140 Cedar Rapids teachers will attend their first BHH workshop.

July

60 Prairie ISD and 18 Cedar Rapids teachers will attend their second BHH workshop.

Kim Heckart travels to Boston with teacher participants in the St. Clair County Regional Office of Education TAH grant.   When they return to Illinois, Kim will help the teachers use BHH strategies to design lessons based on their learning during the trip.

August

110 Cedar Rapids teachers will attend their first BHH workshop. 

September

BHH teachers begin a new school year.  First year teachers will implement their initial BHH unit.  Second year teachers will implement both BHH grade level units. 

November

Elise joins Sarah Brooks of UVA and Jason Endacott of Keene College for a National Council of the Social Studies College and University Faculty Assembly panel presentation on affective learning in history.   

A Professional Development Event for Future and Current History Teachers

Teachers at Prairie ISD in southeast Cedar Rapids and lead teachers for Cedar Rapids CSD have been implementing their first BHH units during the 2009-10 school year.  Their 2nd-year workshops are scheduled for July, and will be held again in the Prairie Ridge commons room.

July 26-27
1.  All Heights teachers
2.  Crest teachers -- Kindergarten, 2nd and 4th grades

July 28-29
1.  All View teachers
2.  Crest teachers -- 1st and 3rd grades
3.  Creek teachers -- 5th grade

All new Cedar Rapids CSD BHH teachers will begin the two-year workshop sequence this summer.  Their events are scheduled for June and August with locations to be determined.

June 14-15

June 16-17

August 2-3

August 4-5

If you are not a member of the Cedar Rapids school district but would like to attend or observe one of the first-year workshops, please contact Elise Fillpot for additional information. 

Throughout six weeks in the spring of 2009, Bringing History Home lead mentor Kim Heckart filmed her Iowa third grade class studying Industrialization.   This video archive offers an unprecedented and rich resource for teachers and researchers in history education.  Teaching strategies, students' historical thinking, examples of history heuristics and sociocultural tools identified in education scholarship...Kim's classroom footage includes vivid examples of many dimensions of history teaching and learning.

As we begin a new year, BHH students, teachers and staff are excited to share excerpts of this footage via the National History Education Clearinghouse website and the BHH Youtube channel.  Various video clips are already available for view on these venues.  During the coming months, BHH director Elise Fillpot will also be posting brief essays to highlight the examples of history teaching and learning that are illustrated in the excerpts.

As always, we look forward to hearing your thoughts about, responses to and experiences with BHH resources.  And we extend a huge THANK YOU to those who created these BHH video resources...in this case, Jonathan Burian, our brilliant videographer and Youtube channel manager; and Kim Heckart, whose excellence and commitment to students and history learning are ever inspiring.

The team's faculty leader, Gary Neuzil, has been a member of the Grant Wood History Institute since 2007.   His technology expertise, high spirits and unfailing support have been an indispensable part of that program, and he brought the same great qualities to mentoring his We the People team. 

Thank you, Gary.  You're an amazing advocate for history education. 

BHH sends out a bit WOOT! for your Constitutional history stars!

In the November issue of Perspectives, the newsmagazine of the American Historical Association.

A month ago my FP students read an excerpt from Deborah Tannen's The Argument Culture, a 1998 book that explored the dynamics of antagonism in political, economic, and cultural speech.  Tannen spends a great deal of time focused on education, and the adversarial roots of most western systems through which knowledge is imparted, tested, and proved.  My students recognized their education in Tannen's words - recalled the formalized debates they'd been expected to enter into in history class, and the overarching goal of winning, not understanding, as their task.  They remembered English classes where people established themselves as intelligent by savaging authors, and civics courses where articulating the failures of government systems constituted the only meaningful measure of success.

Everyone talked in high school, my students suggested, but no one really listened.  I wondered how to be sure their college experienced would not be more of the same.

My challenge to the students was to come up with a better set of guidelines for the way we'd communicate in our class.  What would be acceptable, as we tried to learn about each other and our world, and what would not?  How would we deal with inflammatory topics and ensure our discussions were just?

This is what they decided:

1) Keep an open mind.

2) Respect each other, and each other's ideas.

3) Be aware of emotional distress, your own and others'.  Know your limits.

4) Be willing to communicate your feelings about the way a discussion is unfolding.

5) Extend the benefit of the doubt to each other.  If someone says something with which you disagree, or that makes you angry and uncomfortable, ask, "Why did you say that?" or something similar.  Don't assume the worst, but do insist that people take responsibility for their words.

6) Don't make assumptions about each other, or why someone holds a given belief.

7) Participate.  Listen; allow time for people to respond; reflect on what others are saying; ask questions; be prepared for class (mentally and physically); find a method of staying engaged that works for you; acknowledge other people as they speak.

8) Don't take things personally.

9) Remember we are all from different places and were raised in different ways.  Value these differences.

10) Remember that discussion is not a competition.

11) Allow expansiveness of discussion.  We are not only interested in "facts" but in theories, ideas, and possibilities.

12) Think before you speak.

13) Don't hold grudges.  Every new class period is a new beginning.

14) What happens in FP stays in FP.  Respect the trust placed in you when others share something difficult or personal, and keep it confidential.

15) Have courage.

A month later and the guidelines are firmly in place in our classroom.  We reference them frequently - especially the last - and my students have not raised their voices (except in warm, well-placed laughter), or shut each other down, or approached discussion as something they might win, or taken offense at another's words.  We've navigated the slings and arrows of Malcolm X, of Kwame Appiah's Cosmopolitanism, of conversation about Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism and Voodoo - and in each instance we've listened, considered other points of view, reflected, and we have into a delightfully messy host of ideas.

My students, in essence, have taught me how to talk.  I'm looking forward to asking my other classes what their guidelines for conversation will be.

This week, twenty-two faculty members attended a two-day workshop to consider ways of integrating the principles of sustainability into our curriculum.  We came from a dozen departments and programs - Biology, Dance, Classics, Computer Science, Creative Writing, Economics, History, Journalism, Modern Languages, Political Science, Physics, and Psychology (as well as our colleagues from Environmental Studies).  Through readings, speakers, spirited discussion, and collaborative workshops, we each worked to create an assignment we might use in an existing course, meeting both the goals of our discipline and our college-wide commitment to teach our students to be stewards of the world.

Layering the skills and subjects that our students learn in a single class period is common to almost all teachers.  Part of my job, for example, is to teach my students to become better writers in every class they take.  Elementary school teachers perhaps face this challenge even more acutely - it's hard to find time to teach social studies when No Child Left Behind puts such pressure on schools to improve reading and math scores above all else.  Bringing History Home tackles this problem head on, working with teachers to enable them to meet their literacy goals through social studies - to have read-aloud books that reinforce historical thinking; to have students write about history as a way of learning vocabulary, sentence-structure, and organization.

I thought of this summer's fifth-grade teachers often during the sustainability workshop and their creativity in finding ways to teach literacy, science, and math goals using Columbus' 1493 letter to the King of Spain.  I needed a jolt of their creativity, since it was challenging for me to find a way to honor the importance of educating our students about sustainability while maintaining the values of my discipline.  While communities in the past grew and retracted according to their relationship with the natural world (which didn't always include respecting it - many cultures have tried to dominate their local environment, or harness resources in ways that, with hindsight, we can see were damaging) 'sustainability' is a twentieth-century concept.  'Sustainability,' as a movement, is also rooted in a specific time and place, and the principles we discussed in our workshop came out of a western framework of looking at the world.  Applying 'sustainability' to non-Western cultures - like the Arawak or Carib of the fifteenth-century Caribbean - seemed to be to be another instance of trying to make non-Western cultures bend to Western desires.  Handled badly, it could be colonialism all over again.

In the end I found a way to accommodate both the promises and pitfalls of consciously thinking about sustainability in the classroom.  In working with fifth-grade teachers this summer on Columbus' letter, I asked them to think about what Columbus' words told us about Europe, instead of the Caribbean; to consider how we learn about organization of Europe's cities, harbors, fields, and homes by the comparisons Columbus makes to what he sees in what - to him - is a new world.  I tweaked this idea just a little more to make an assignment for the students in Introduction to Latin American History:

What does The Columbus Letter of 1493 tell us about the natural resources most prized in Europe, and the way in which the social, political, economic, and religious systems of that region were determined by both the presence of those resources, and their lack?

I hope that in answering this question, my students will become more conscious of the way in which human societies choose to use the resources around them, and the way in which political events are often linked to the search for more of what a country or community deems necessary to support their way of life.  That's a transferable skill that will serve them well as they think about their own lifestyle, and the issues of sustainability that face us today.  Still, the question is rooted in the past, and asks students to think critically about a major shift in world events from within the context of that time.

My experience teaches me that we can reach untold combinations of goals in our teaching, provided we're given the time, intellectual support, and sometimes money necessary to make it happen.  I needed two days of intense discussion with my colleagues to figure out how to make this particular challenge work for me.  The same is often true of our Bringing History Home teachers, and it's a delight to be part of that process from a different perspective - to brainstorm with smart, inventive teachers how to have students compare the foodstuffs of the Caribbean and Europe to meet the science goal of 'understanding nutrition', or to consider if there are math goals we can reach by having students calculate the distance Columbus thought he had traveled with the actual distance he did.

At the heart of all of these challenges met is collaboration - collaboration between teachers of all levels, between mentors and new learners, between non-academic experts and students of every age.  Perhaps that is the greatest unexpected reward of any experience of teaching across the curriculum - the sense that we are part of a team, and can rely on one another's creativity and imagination in providing the education our students need.

With that bit of background established, let's get to the heart of the blog.  In this post, I will list the question that was posed.  In the two following posts, I will list Catherine and Konrad's responses.  On August 4, 2009, I asked Catherine and Konrad to respond to the following...

In the course of Bringing History Home professional development events, we explore the nature of history as evidence-based and interpretive.  During a recent workshop, one of the 4th grade teachers attending the event considered the implications of this nature, and posed this question:

In today's world where we have the software to alter photos and 
edit documents, how do we combat things like holocaust denial?  How 
do we give students any confidence in drawing conclusions about 
what happened in the past when evidence itself is vulnerable to 
tampering and alteration?
  

 Dr. Catherine Denial's Response

There are two ways we guard against being misled - the first is by stopping to understand where the evidence we have came from, and the second is by corroborating items with other evidence from the same era.  In essence, primary sources must earn our trust.

 Sourcing:

 'Stop and Source!' is a tactic we talk about in our Bringing History Home workshops.  Whenever we analyze a document, a photograph, an illustration, or an artifact, we first stop and ask: 

• Who made this?
• When was it made?
• Where was it made?
• Why was it made?
•  

These pieces of information help us become critical consumers of historical evidence.  They help us work out the context in which a document or an image was created and ask who benefited from it being made.  They help us anticipate the ways in which that document or image might be constructed to relate a very particular point of view.  If we don't know who made the document, image, or artifact, why it was made, or when, then we know to approach the item with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 Corroboration:

 Historians never base their conclusions on a single piece of evidence - rather, they compare primary sources (documents, images, and artifacts left from the era the historian is studying) to find patterns.  A single piece of evidence that suggests the Holocaust never happened (perhaps by omitting the location of concentration camps from maps, for example) would hold very little weight in comparison to the thousands of pieces of evidence that suggest the opposite is true.  The same is true for our students - they can compare evidence to see where patterns occur and learn that the strongest arguments are those that can be proved from multiple sources, not just one.

Catherine Denial is Assistant Professor of History at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. 

 Dr. Konrad Hamilton's Response

My answer consists of 3 general parts: technical; preponderance of evidence; motives.

Technical:  While it is true that photos and documents can be faked, it is the rare fake that can stand up to forensic scrutiny.  Alterations usually leave visual, chemical, physical, or other traces that are detectable by experts.

Preponderance of evidence:  Historians never rely upon one document or upon a series of documents from one source.  One photo from the Israeli defense ministry might be suspect.  But if its content is confirmed by different photos from USSR, French, British, US, and German sources, it's harder to argue that all of these photos were doctored.  If we also have German documents (and we do) to back up the content of the photos, then a massive conspiracy to fake every single piece of available evidence becomes less likely.

Motives:  What motive would those who control the documents on the Holocaust have to fake the event?  What could unite friends and foes of Jews, uncooperative nations, survivors and government officials, etc. to all collaborate in an intricate cover up of the truth?  Now ask what motive Holocaust deniers have to charge that the Holocaust is not true. 

Finally, I would use the various court cases and academic debates that have shown the Holocaust to be authentic to talk about the history of Holocaust denial as its own subject.
Variations on the above can also be used to refute those who deny slavery, Native American genocide, etc.

Dr. Hamilton is Associate Professor of History at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. 

We encourage readers to get involved!   Do you have suggestions for questions or points to ponder, and/or pairs of potential respondents?  Please send your ideas to BHH director Elise Fillpot.  And don't hesitate to chime in on the conversations via the comments section.  We welcome divergent opinions; we simply we ask that exchanges be civil and respectful.   

Disclaimer - Positions, assertions, and opinions that appear on Comparing Viewpoints are in no way, implied or otherwise, necessarily endorsed or shared by the stakeholders of Bringing History Home.  The Bringing History Home web administrators reserve the right to delete any comments that are deemed uncivil or include any form of hate speech. 

Parker Palmer, To Know as We are Known: A Spirituality of Education. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1983. 30.

When I was eleven years old, I took my first physics class. The subject was fascinating, promising the means to understand my own world and the universe beyond it - but the practice of the discipline quickly frustrated me. After one experiment into the properties of electricity I asked my teacher to explain why electricity behaved the way it did. His answer was vague and unsatisfying, so I rephrased my question and asked again. My teacher huffed impatiently and said, "Go get a Ph.D. in physics, come back, and we'll talk." The subject was closed. There was nothing that I, a lowly eleven-year-old, could add to the conversation.

In contrast, History was a subject where the question "why?" was never inappropriate. Especially delightful to me were the occasions when my teacher replied to my question by asking, "why do you think it happened that way?" There is no overstating the pleasure I felt when I realized I could figure out the answer for myself.

These memories returned to me this week as I worked alongside a group of smart, dynamic elementary school teachers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa - the newest educators to join the Bringing History Home program. Their questions and ideas about social studies education reminded me just how much of a difference a good teacher makes in the life of a child. (I have no doubt I might have loved physics more had my teacher been more committed to the process of inquiry than the seemingly unassailable domain of facts.) In talking to mentors and looking over student work from classrooms where the BHH curriculum is already at work, I remembered the heady rush of empowerment that history supplied when I was eleven. In timelines, think-alouds, maps, and essays I saw a similar buoyant energy reflected in the work of children from kindergarten on up.

All the work we do as part of Bringing History Home rests on a central idea - that history is not something you passively receive, but something you do. This is as true for kindergarteners as it is for the college-aged students I most usually teach; as true for fifth-graders as it is for professional historians engaged in research, going to conferences, and working on their books. For all of us, the question of "Why?" is the fuel for our work, for our constantly changing sense of the world. "Why?" is one of the most precious questions we can allow others to ask, and as educators, "Why do you think it happened that way?" the best question we can ask in return.

The practices at work in BHH are intuitively part of what professional historians do - but it's in making those practices explicit to our students that we reveal history as a dynamic human enterprise in which they can take a full and vital part. I hope this blog can foster conversation about how to model history as an enterprise of doing - how to teach our students, at every level, to seek out and analyze primary sources, to select and assess secondary sources, to use maps and timelines as visual organizers that aid them in identifying patterns of change, and to synthesize all of these parts into evidence-supported narratives about the past. Thinking about how to do this has made me a different teacher, thinker, and student - someone who has learned as much from elementary school teachers undertaking these same practices as she can hope to have shared. I'm looking forward to learning even more.

This year, we introduced a new emphasis in our document and image analysis -- SOURCING. Daisy Martin, associate director of the Stanford history education group, suggests using the phrase STOP AND SOURCEtohelp students remember to alwaysidentify information such as the author, date of creation, type ofdocument or image and place of creation...before reading or examining a document or image.Because sourcing is only truly meaningful when we have some understanding of the authorandthe time and place in which a piece of evidence was created, it may seem a bit gratuitous to introduce the concept to Kindergarten children. But I believe we develop good habits of the mind by practice. If children develop a habit of sourcing even before they can make sense of its information, they may become used to recognizing that information and be ready to make use of it when they have developed enough knowledge to do so. The Prairie and CR teachers that joined us for this summer's events expressed willingness to tackle this challenge-- so we'llsee what happens whenchildren STOP AND SOURCE across the grade levels.

All of which brings me to the reason for this post -- expressing my heartfelt THANKS to the teachers, mentors, faculty, and support staffwho came together thispast weekto study andprepare so that children in two more school districts will have the opportunity to grow through history.Youguys rock. Truly.If the excellence you brought to the workshops is any sign of the excellence that will go into the 2009-10 BHH unit implementations, I suspect we'll have some celebrating to dowhen we rendezvous again inthe summer of 2010.

To the teachers of Prairie and Cedar Rapids,I look forward toschool yearvisitswith you in your own classroom stomping grounds. Until then, best wishes toall for the remaining days of summer!

This morning I contemplate a problem that seems all but endemic in how students perceive the nature of historic evidence.   British researchers, American researchers, Portuguese researchers all have identified the problem.  It is this:  When students learn that historic sources/evidence have authors and that those authors have particular perspectives, students often react by deciding that such evidence is hopelessly tainted by that perspective.  The assumption follows that since all sources are untrustworthy, historians' interpretations of those sources must be undefendable.   

Bruce VanSledright situates this student reaction within what he calls the "interpretive paradox" that lies at the heart of how we construct history (2002).  The paradox is that historians' claims are human interpretations of human interpretations of events.  Denis Shemilt of Great Britain has his own name for this conundrum; he calls it the "hazard of infinite regress" and compares the construction of historic claims to the construction of a house in a swamp.  The foundation pilings never reach bedrock; they can only reach a point of stability to support a particular structure at a particular moment in time (1987).  Peter Lee, et.al. labeled one dimension of the student misunderstanding of the paradox a case of treating evidence as Testimony: the past is reported either well or badly.  To determine which camp a piece of evidence falls into, students use a simple binary criteria; a source is either "right or wrong" rather than topical or perspectival (1993).  

The interesting thing about this student misconception is that it seems to accompany growth in awareness about the nature of evidence, namely that evidence is created by people whose perspectives and motives must be taken into account if we are to make accurate use of their records or artifacts.  Bruce VanSledright articulated this eloquently in his 2002 descriptions of working with 5th grade students.  By having the students explore a mystery in colonial history that cannot be solved given the available evidence, he hoped the students would learn that there is no factual single story of the past magically pre-existing in a book.  He hoped the students would come to understand that history is an interpretive process in which claims are considered more or less defendable based on their relationship to evidence.  Instead, the students exchanged one misconception for another.  While they were at first oblivious to the authors of evidence and hence uncritically took everything they read at face value, once the students realized evidence has a human source, they skeptically decided nothing could be believed. 

In her 2003 essay, Ruth Sandwell addresses this issue.  She describes activities she uses in her college history courses to move students past the paradox pothole. 

What does all this mean for Bringing History Home, for teaching history in grades K-5?  I've reached the conclusion it means we need to purge history instruction of the words "bias" and "reliability", at least when we are discussing evidence (or historian's accounts -- but I'll save that related issue for another meditation.)   I propose we replace the banished terms with concepts such as "perspective" and "values" and "experiences".  And that we always place responsibility for how to use evidence in the hands of the reader rather than the author.  By wondering, "What can we ask of this document (or letter or image)?"  rather than "What does this document tell us?", we never have to enter territory where we discard a document purely on the grounds that its information is tainted by "bias".  It's only tainted if we ask the wrong questions. 

BHH director Elise Fillpot and lead mentor Kim Heckart will be crossing the Mississippi off and on over the next few years to join in this project.  We're excited for the opportunity to explore and learn with a whole new cohort of elementary history teachers.  Sending a big woot from Iowa to Illinois!

The History of Me (K)

My History at School (1st grade)

Immigration History (2nd grade)

Segregation History  (3rd grade)

The Great Depression  (4th grade)

The Columbian Exchange  (5th grade)

The workshop dates are July 30 & 31 and August 3 & 4.  Teachers attend one of the two events. 

The BHH staff, mentors and faculty are excited to meet, study with, and exchange education strategies with a brand new cohort of elementary history educators.   Teachers of Praire, you have a reputation for your innovative spirits and dedication to the children in your classes.  We're honored and thrilled to have this chance to collaborate with you. 

Best wishes for a glorious summer... and we'll see you soon!

With that disclaimer established, I'll try to explain the origin and purpose for this blog...

The blind man feeling the elephant is an apt analogy for how I've developed a relationship with the history ed literature.  Over the years I've scaffolded an understanding of the major frameworks that have been developed to explain how children make sense of the components of history.  But I was a spectator to the texts I read, a bit like the novice reader of history in Sam Wineburg's On the Reading of Historical Texts (2001).  I read them largely as received wisdom, though I would make notes in the margins, such as "This is BHH!" or "I see this in our 2nd graders!"  My relationship with the literature began to change when I one day said, "Wow, the students I've observed in BHH classrooms can do so much more than this research team is saying children of this age can do."   And while the study that triggered that reaction was particularly ill-conceived and interpreted, and shall be nameless in this particular blog post, it nonetheless provided a service.  It shifted my relationship to the literature from receiving to participating.  I use "participating" loosely -- I only just submitted my first piece for peer review publication last year -- as a description of how I read.  

While my book margins have always been messy places of musings and connections, they've now become sites of affirmation and argument unbeknownst to the writers that filled the spaces between those margins.  I frequently reach the end of a paper or chapter and wish I could invite the author to my gazebo for a glass of sangria and an evening considering the permuations of their studies, their data and their interpretations and conclusions about said data. 

Given that there is no time to even share such conversation with fellow readers much less the authors, I've resorted to beginning this blog.  I want to see if a virtual gazebo is a workable surrogate for the real thing.  I have my doubts.  Essentially, I'm still scribbling in the margins.  But at least if others are looking for a bit of information on a paper or two, maybe they'll find their way here and make some use of my musings. 

I will try to include in each entry a link to a bibliography on the web that may be of use to members of various parts of the history ed K-PhD community.  In that spirit, I start off with the bibliography of Works on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning History: http://www.indiana.edu/~histsotl/blog/scholarship/bibliography/    This is on the site of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in History.  Several leading British history ed researchers of the late 20th and early 21st century aren't included on the  bib.  But the SOTL-H site includes an open invitation for members to send in additional titles, so it's a work in progress. 

Whether you are a long-time BHH teacher or a newcomer to the site, please look around!  And please let me know what you'd like to see on the site.  We'll be adding elements and information to the General Resources view on an ongoing basis, so you may wish to keep that page bookmarked in addition to the home page. 

Thanks for stopping by...and please let us know how we're doing!

Best wishes,

Elise

Elise Fillpot

BHH Director

Congratulations, Kim!