As a first year teacher, I found myself advising our high school’s well-established National History Day (“NHD”) program. Already overwhelmed with trying to build my curriculum in a new 1:1 program, this experience indelibly shaped my teaching philosophy and understanding of the adolescent learner--more than I understood at that time. An academic competition originated in 1974 when Case Western Reserve University professors sought to shake up secondary history instruction so survey-level college students would be more excited about historical studies, NHD challenges students to individually or collaboratively research a topic of their choice related to an annual theme (National History Day). Too often, secondary history classes have become the predictable cycle of teacher lecture or film presentations, followed by trivia-based assessments. The founders believed that offering students opportunities to participate in authentic historical inquiry and historical problem solving would reinvigorate history classrooms with engaged students developing research and critical thinking skills transferable to other disciplines (Gorn, C., 2001).
NHD student research ranges from local history to world history, from politics to music, from the obscure to mainstream people and events. Students not only select what they are going to explore, but they also have the flexibility to publish their findings in a variety of mediums (documentary, exhibit, paper, performance, or website). The combination of topic choice and assessment selection creates a space for athletes, artists, musicians, and coders in historical research. Year after year, I am impressed by NHD student initiative, innovation and creativity. While the end products are impressive, it is the process that amazes me as an educator. I have watched students unearth a Kennedy family member’s personal cell number to ask for an interview about the Peace Corp, carefully unbox documents and artifacts in museum archives to make new connections, and experiment with Final Cut Pro, despite no formal training, to make a professional quality documentary. Why should these powerful learning experiences be isolated to NHD participants? Wasn’t Van Tassel’s intent to transform secondary historical education? How can educators harness the power of an NHD experience for all our students? NHD’s mantra has been, “It’s more than a day, it is an experience.” Thus, it seems that the purpose of sparking interest in our past to better understand our future could be best addressed in classroom curriculums that empower students to have an active role in their education. Many educators would argue that we should expect NHD’s impressive learning outcomes from gifted students, but a majority of my NHD students are not identified as gifted. Carol Ann Tomlinson, the modern proponent of differentiated learning would argue that these positive outcomes are rooted in the benefits of differentiated instruction: (a) students are different, (b) personal differences impact learning method and rate, and (c) teachers are more effective when they seek to understand those differences and design instruction taking those differences into consideration (Tomlinson, C. A., 2016). While I find merit in the fundamental concepts of differentiated learning, I am not actively engaged in developing curriculum or instruction for my NHD learners. I am a coach, probing with questions and providing guidance when students encounter roadblocks. Rather, the inquiry naturally develops learner differentiation. It appears that inquiry choice and continued control over the inquiry are the critical elements impacting and sustaining student engagement and performance in a year-long research project. The role of inquiry would also explain why an NHD student who can impress college professors in the defense of his/her research at competition does not alway impress teachers in the secondary history classroom. Advocates of project based learning ("PBL") would argue the NHD outcomes are the result of engagement in authentic historical inquiry (Barrows, 1996). According to the Buck Institute of Education, there are seven essential characteristics of PBL, known as the Gold Standard PBL: (1) a challenging question or problem, (2) sustained inquiry, (3) authenticity, (4) student voice and choice, (5) reflection, (6) critique and revision, and (7) public product. The effectiveness of PBL has been documented in the science classroom, whether students are studying chemistry, biology, or physics (Baleman & Keskin, 2018). Furthermore, the impact spans every grade level, demonstrating the highest impact in high school classrooms. (Baleman & Keskin, 2018). Unfortunately, the social studies have been devalued from elementary school to high school, as high stakes testing created an intense focus on reading and math (Ravitch, 2010). Most high school history teachers are charged with teaching a survey level course, addressing state standards of varying specificity. Teachers who have taken the charge to create inquiry-based classrooms, find themselves challenged with fulfilling competing purposes: (1) developing content knowledge needed for high-stakes testing scenarios and (2) fostering the skills needed to be critical thinkers and active citizens in a democracy (Lazar, 2011). It is important for students to be exposed to a broad range of events, people, and concepts to develop an overall understanding of our nation’s past. As expressed by the National Council on Social Studies (NCSS), “social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences.” This devaluation of social studies is unjustified, as the social studies provide a unique opportunity for cross-curricular connections that build enduring understandings--learning that has value beyond the classroom (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). As politics and policymakers appear to have increasing influence on how history is taught, it is not surprising that learner attitudes toward history have also been impacted. Chido and Byford (2004) found that students’ views of social studies were not as negative as prior studies found when (1) learners were given an active role in the learning process, (2) teachers were enthusiastic advocates for historical studies, and (3) the utilitarian value or relevance of historical studies were made evident. Consistent with the Gold Standards of PBL, as educators craft active roles in classrooms, choice becomes a central theme. Choice has been identified as a motivator in a variety of environments, from workplaces to therapeutic settings to classrooms (Lepper, Corpus & Iyengar, 2005). Teachers commonly use choice as a means to engage students in learning activities. Despite this practice of teachers incorporating choice, the literature does not decisively taut the potential benefits of choice. Rather, the impact of choice appears to depend upon student circumstances, such as the type of choice provided, the number of options, the choices made, and culture (Reeve et al., 2003). Furthermore, Reeve et al. found that choice did not intrinsically motivate students, unless the choice also increased internal locus of control and volition. Hence, this study is designed to not only give learners choice in the content they explore and use to develop historical thinking skills, but also choice in assessment form. Sam Wineburg, founder of the Stanford Historical Education Group argues that broad exposure to our collective past can be achieved while also engaging students in tasks that build historical thinking skills, specifically the “discernment, judgment, and caution” of the past (Wineburg, 2001). He further asserts that history must be taught as a complex compilation of perspectives, rather than the simplistic “history is what happened” approach (Wineburg, 2001). While many history educators may agree that a more complex approach to history is needed, this pedagogical shift is difficult given the landscape of modern social studies classrooms. The failed efforts to establish National History Standards in 1995, and the divisive culture wars it ignited did little to elevate social studies learning (Fine, 1995). Instead, states have inconsistent standards of varying degrees of specificity. Some states have adopted the Common Core standards for reading and writing, demonstrating the value of analytical competencies. At the same time, some states have adopted social studies standardized tests that continue to promote drill and grill content knowledge over analytic skills. What history teachers teach and how we teach it remains a heated national debate, as seen in the current Critical Race Theory debate. But students and their learning outcomes, which should be our foremost concern, have been lost in these debates. Andreas Schleicher, Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), asserts that "the world economy no longer pays for what people know but for what they can do with what they know" (Big Think, 2014). Social studies classrooms have the potential to be the playground where the critical thinking and communication skills relevant to all disciplines are honed, and this is possible by embracing personalized learning, the benefits of which we have seen annually in the NHD program. Kallick and Zmuda (2017) call for the shift to personalized learning across the curriculum because it will "accelerate student learning by tailoring instruction to individuals' needs and skills as they go about fulfilling curricular requirements [and] unleash the power of students' aspirations, which will strengthen their eventual participation in citizenship and the economy." Personalized learning has four key attributes: (1) learner voice, (2) co-creation, (3) social context, and (4) self-discovery. To meet these four attributes, the traditional teacher role has to shift to permit more input and collaboration with students in curriculum and outputs. Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen (2011) explored the instructional practices of high school teachers who students perceived as creating supportive motivational and learning contexts in their classes. They found that while disciplines, content, and activities varied remarkably, three commonalities emerged: Motivated classrooms are guided by teachers who (1) support understanding, (2) build and maintain rapport, and (3) manage the classroom (Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen, 2011). In an environment where we acknowledge the importance of historical understanding to a thriving democracy, why then do we resist the kind of intellectual freedom that is imperative to fostering historical curiosity? How do we avoid students returning for their 10th year reunion and sharing regret that they wish they had cared more about their history courses? How do we ensure that as our classrooms diversify content so every learner has an opportunity to understand his or her roots? Particularly in technology-accessible classrooms, this challenge is no longer impeded by access to resources. As Jeroen Bron found in his work with SLO, the Netherlands’ National Institute for Curriculum Development, involving social studies students in the design of their own curriculum increases relevance and develops citizenship and 21st century skills (Bron, 2014). There does seem to be a contradictory message in encouraging secondary students to become active participants in the democratic process, but then denying them a voice in the study of their nation. Bron (2014) advocates the view that curriculum is a process, not a product. And while there are limited references to “curriculum negotiation” by Boomer in Australia in the 1980s and “democratic schools” sprinkled throughout the globe, there is little reference to a teacher-learner partnership in curriculum design in the social studies (Bron, 2014).
Some of my greatest teaching moments have been connected to advising our school’s National History Day program. Having the opportunity to work with the same learners in the traditional classroom and on an independent study project has proved rather enlightening, as different skills, reactions, and thought processes are at work. For those unfamiliar with National History Day, it is an academic competition that originated in 1974 when Case Western Reserve University professors sought to shake up secondary history instruction so survey-level college students would be more excited about historical studies. Too often, U.S. History classes had become the predictable cycle of teacher lecture or film, followed by trivia based assessments. These college professors believed that offering students opportunities to participate in authentic historical inquiry and the work of historians in the field would reinvigorate history classrooms with engaged students who were developing skills transferable to other disciplines. Every summer, National History Day announces an annual theme, and students work either independently or collaboratively to research a topic of their choice related to the theme. Learner-selected topics range from local history to world history, from politics to music, from the obscure to mainstream people and events. Learners publish their research findings the following spring in a documentary, exhibit, paper, performance, or website; submit their publications for review; and stand in front of a panel of judges to present their research process and defend their work. Year after year, I am impressed by the initiative, research, writing, innovation and creativity I see teenagers demonstrate. While the end products are impressive, it is the process that amazes me as an educator. I have watched students dive into the internet to directly contact and arrange for an interview with a Kennedy family member about the Peace Corps.; carefully unbox documents and artifacts in college and museum archives to make new connections; and experiment with Final Cut Pro, with no formal training, to make a professional quality documentary. The risks, innovation, and persistence are remarkable. Many would argue that these are the learning outcomes we should expect from gifted students, but a majority of my NHD students are not identified as gifted. Carol Ann Tomlinson, the modern proponent of differentiated learning would argue that these positive outcomes are rooted in the benefits of differentiated instruction: (a) students are different, (b) personal differences impact learning method and rate, and (c) teachers are more effective when they seek to understand those differences and design instruction taking those differences into consideration (Tomlinson, C. A., 2016). While I find merit in the fundamental concepts of differentiated learning, I am not actively engaged in developing curriculum or instruction for my NHD learners. I am a coach, probing with questions and providing guidance when students encounter roadblocks. Advocates of project based learning ("PBL") would argue these outcomes are the result of engagement in authentic historical inquiry (Barrows, 1996). According to the Buck Institute of Education, there are seven essential characteristics of PBL, known as the Gold Standard PBL: (1) a challenging question or problem, (2) sustained inquiry, (3) authenticity, (4) student voice and choice, (5) reflection, (6) critique and revision, and (7) public product. For years, NHD’s slogan was “It’s more than a day, it is an experience.” So, the question becomes, how do I engage all my students (average annual student load ranges from 80-110) in learning experiences that incorporate the core elements of PBL? Most high school history teachers are charged with teaching a survey level course, addressing state standards of varying specificity. It is important for students to be exposed to a broad range of events, people, and concepts to develop an overall understanding of our nation’s past. Sam Wineburg, founder of the Stanford Historical Education Group, however, argues that broad exposure to our collective past can be achieved while also engaging students in tasks that build historical thinking skills, specifically the “discernment, judgment, and caution” of the past (Wineburg, 2001). He further asserts that history must be taught as a complex compilation of perspectives, rather than the simplistic “history is what happened” approach. (Wineburg, 2001). While many history teachers may agree that a more complex approach to history is needed, this pedagogical shift is difficult given the landscape of modern social studies classrooms. The failed efforts to establish National History Standards in 1995, and the divisive culture wars it ignited did little to elevate social studies learning. (Fine, 1995). Instead, states have inconsistent standards of varying degrees of specificity. Some states have adopted the Common Core standards for reading and writing, demonstrating the value of analytical competencies. At the same time, some states have adopted social studies standardized tests that continue to promote drill and grill content knowledge over analytic skills. What history teachers teach and how we teach it remains a heated national debate, as seen in the current Critical Race Theory debate, but students and their learning outcomes, which should be our foremost concern, have been lost in these debates. Andreas Schleicher, Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), asserts that "the world economy no longer pays for what people know but for what they can do with what they know" (Big Think, 2014). Social studies classrooms have the potential to be the playground where the critical thinking and communication skills relevant to all disciplines are honed, and this is possible by embracing personalized learning, the benefits of which we have seen annually in the National History Day program. Kallick and Zmuda call for the shift to personalized learning across the curriculum because it will "accelerate student learning by tailoring instruction to individuals' needs and skills as they go about fulfilling curricular requirements [and] unleash the power of students' aspirations, which will strengthen their eventual participation in citizenship and the economy." (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017). Personalized learning has four key attributes: (1) learner voice, (2) co-creation, (3) social context, and (4) self-discovery. To meet these four attributes, the traditional teacher role has to shift to permit more input and collaboration with students in curriculum and outputs. Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen's exploration of the instructional practices of high school teachers who students perceived as creating supportive motivational and learning contexts in their classes found that while disciplines, content and activities varied remarkably, three commonalities emerged. Motivated classrooms are guided by teachers who support understanding, build and maintain rapport, and manage the classroom (Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen, 2011). In an environment where we acknowledge the importance of historical understanding to a thriving democracy, why then do we resist the kind of intellectual freedom that is imperative to fostering historical curiosity? How do we avoid the students who return on their 10th year reunion to share that they now wish they had cared more about their history courses? How do we ensure that as our classrooms diversify content so every learner has an opportunity to understand his or her roots? Particularly in technology-accessible classrooms, this challenge is no longer impeded by access to resources. As Jeroen Bron found in his work with SLO, the Netherlands’ National Institute for Curriculum Development, involving social studies students in the design of their own curriculum increases relevance and develops citizenship and 21st century skills (Bron, 2014). There does seem to be a contradictory message in encouraging secondary students to become active participants in the democratic process, but then denying them a voice in the study of their nation. Bron advocates the view that curriculum is a process, not a product. (2014). And while there are limited references to “curriculum negotiation” by Boomer in Australia in the 1980s and “democratic schools” sprinkled throughout the globe, there is little reference to a teacher-learner partnership in curriculum design in the social studies (Bron, 2014).
References
Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students' motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113(5), 969-1003. Anthony, M., Turner, B., Callahan, P., & Archer, C. (2019, January 1). Connections between feedback and student happiness and engagement in high achievement classrooms. ERIC. http://moravian.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED606800&site=ehost-live&scope=site Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students' motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning outcome. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 87-103. Bae, S., & Kokka, K. (2016, August 24). Student engagement in assessments: What students and teachers find engaging (Student Engagement series). Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/publications/1434 Balemen, N., & Özer Keskin, M. (2018). The effectiveness of Project-Based Learning on science education: A meta-analysis search. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5(4), 849-865.http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/452/297 Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3- 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804 Bergdahl, N., Knutsson, O., & Fors, U. (2018). Designing for engagement in TEL -- A teacher-researcher collaboration. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 100-111. Big Think. (2014, April 14). Educating for the 21st century—Global Education Forum [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--7Dd2sAwPA Bron, J. G. (2014). What students want to learn? Involving students in negotiating the social studies classroom curriculum. Journal of International Social Studies, 4(1), 3-16. Chico, J.J. & Byford, J. (2004). Do they really dislike social studies? A study of middle school and high school students. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1), 16-26. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and creative strategies for teachers. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Curry, M. W., & Athanases, S. Z. (2020). In pursuit of engaged learning with Latinx students: Expanding learning beyond classrooms through performance-based engagements. Teachers College Record, 122(8). Fine, M. (1995). Habits of mind: The politics and practice of moral education. Jossey-Bass. Gorn, C. (2001). A Tribute to a Founding Father: David Van Tassel and National History Day. The History Teacher, 34(2), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054281 Kallick, B., Zmuda, A., & Costa, A. L. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. ASCD. Keyes, T. S. (2019). A qualitative inquiry: Factors that promote classroom belonging and engagement among high school students. School Community Journal, 29(1), 171-200. Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J. R., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. ASCD. Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184 Lesh, B. A. (2011). 'Why won't you just tell us the answer?': Teaching historical thinking in grades 7-12. Stenhouse. Nash, G. B., & Dunn, R. E. (1995, March). The National History Standards controversy. Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522–534. Pennsylvania Department of Education, PA Core Standards for Writing in History and Social Studies March 2014, A. (Pa. 2014). https://www.pdesas.org/Page/Viewer/ViewPage/11/ Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books. Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375 Tomlinson, C. A. (2016). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Published by Pearson Education, Inc., by special arrangement with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Tucker, C. R. (2020). Balance with blended learning: Partner with your students to reimagine learning and reclaim your life. Corwin. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Temple University Press.
Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students' motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113(5), 969-1003. Anthony, M., Turner, B., Callahan, P., & Archer, C. (2019, January 1). Connections between feedback and student happiness and engagement in high achievement classrooms. ERIC. http://moravian.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED606800&site=ehost-live&scope=site Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students' motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning outcome. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 87-103. Bae, S., & Kokka, K. (2016, August 24). Student engagement in assessments: What students and teachers find engaging (Student Engagement series). Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/publications/1434 Balemen, N., & Özer Keskin, M. (2018). The effectiveness of Project-Based Learning on science education: A meta-analysis search. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5(4), 849-865.http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/452/297 Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3- 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804 Bergdahl, N., Knutsson, O., & Fors, U. (2018). Designing for engagement in TEL -- A teacher-researcher collaboration. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 100-111. Big Think. (2014, April 14). Educating for the 21st century—Global Education Forum [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--7Dd2sAwPA Bron, J. G. (2014). What students want to learn? Involving students in negotiating the social studies classroom curriculum. Journal of International Social Studies, 4(1), 3-16. Chico, J.J. & Byford, J. (2004). Do they really dislike social studies? A study of middle school and high school students. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1), 16-26. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and creative strategies for teachers. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Curry, M. W., & Athanases, S. Z. (2020). In pursuit of engaged learning with Latinx students: Expanding learning beyond classrooms through performance-based engagements. Teachers College Record, 122(8). Fine, M. (1995). Habits of mind: The politics and practice of moral education. Jossey-Bass. Gorn, C. (2001). A Tribute to a Founding Father: David Van Tassel and National History Day. The History Teacher, 34(2), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054281 Kallick, B., Zmuda, A., & Costa, A. L. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. ASCD. Keyes, T. S. (2019). A qualitative inquiry: Factors that promote classroom belonging and engagement among high school students. School Community Journal, 29(1), 171-200. Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J. R., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. ASCD. Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184 Lesh, B. A. (2011). 'Why won't you just tell us the answer?': Teaching historical thinking in grades 7-12. Stenhouse. Nash, G. B., & Dunn, R. E. (1995, March). The National History Standards controversy. Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522–534. Pennsylvania Department of Education, PA Core Standards for Writing in History and Social Studies March 2014, A. (Pa. 2014). https://www.pdesas.org/Page/Viewer/ViewPage/11/ Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books. Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375 Tomlinson, C. A. (2016). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Published by Pearson Education, Inc., by special arrangement with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Tucker, C. R. (2020). Balance with blended learning: Partner with your students to reimagine learning and reclaim your life. Corwin. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Temple University Press.
Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students' motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113(5), 969-1003. Anthony, M., Turner, B., Callahan, P., & Archer, C. (2019, January 1). Connections between feedback and student happiness and engagement in high achievement classrooms. ERIC. http://moravian.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED606800&site=ehost-live&scope=site Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students' motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning outcome. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 87-103. Bae, S., & Kokka, K. (2016, August 24). Student engagement in assessments: What students and teachers find engaging (Student Engagement series). Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/publications/1434 Balemen, N., & Özer Keskin, M. (2018). The effectiveness of Project-Based Learning on science education: A meta-analysis search. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5(4), 849-865.http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/452/297 Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3- 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804 Bergdahl, N., Knutsson, O., & Fors, U. (2018). Designing for engagement in TEL -- A teacher-researcher collaboration. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 100-111. Big Think. (2014, April 14). Educating for the 21st century—Global Education Forum [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--7Dd2sAwPA Bron, J. G. (2014). What students want to learn? Involving students in negotiating the social studies classroom curriculum. Journal of International Social Studies, 4(1), 3-16. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and creative strategies for teachers. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Curry, M. W., & Athanases, S. Z. (2020). In pursuit of engaged learning with Latinx students: Expanding learning beyond classrooms through performance-based engagements. Teachers College Record, 122(8). Fine, M. (1995). Habits of mind: The politics and practice of moral education. Jossey-Bass. Gorn, C. (2001). A Tribute to a Founding Father: David Van Tassel and National History Day. The History Teacher, 34(2), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054281 Kallick, B., Zmuda, A., & Costa, A. L. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. ASCD. Keyes, T. S. (2019). A qualitative inquiry: Factors that promote classroom belonging and engagement among high school students. School Community Journal, 29(1), 171-200. Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J. R., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. ASCD. Lesh, B. A. (2011). 'Why won't you just tell us the answer?': Teaching historical thinking in grades 7-12. Stenhouse. Pennsylvania Department of Education, PA Core Standards for Writing in History and Social Studies March 2014, A. (Pa. 2014). https://www.pdesas.org/Page/Viewer/ViewPage/11/ Tomlinson, C. A. (2016). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Published by Pearson Education, Inc., by special arrangement with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Tucker, C. R. (2020). Balance with blended learning: Partner with your students to reimagine learning and reclaim your life. Corwin. Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Temple University Press.