인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
피인용 0
초록·키워드
As research on historical thinking has advanced, heuristics such as sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization have received attention, yet learning them has not necessarily deepened students’ understanding of history’s epistemological foundations. Historiography has thus emerged as a complementary focus in history education. This study interviewed 17 high school seniors using seven historical texts on King Gwanghaegun’s Neutral Diplomacy to examine their reading of historiography.
Participants’ reading was analyzed along three dimensions. In “authorial perspective,” critical reading depended on assumptions about a text’s era of production and the author’s characteristics, and was applied only selectively by text type. In “narrative change,” participants’ narratives were largely incomplete, often treating all texts as equally valid and reflecting unfamiliarity with the idea that narratives change over time. In “context of production,” participants relied on a single context—usually historical background—often neglecting or dismissing other factors, reflecting a belief that historical knowledge is shaped mainly by its time of production.
Overall, participants read texts individually without grasping their interrelations or chronology. This limited understanding of history’s epistemological foundations made their reading resemble passive fact-checking rather than critical engagement.
These findings point to the need for explicit instruction in historiography with differentiated reading strategies: analytical reading of primary sources in middle school, expanding to secondary sources in high school, supported by instruction in research methodology and the concept of change. Through such instruction, students can internalize history’s epistemological foundations, read critically, and find personal meaning in learning history.
Participants’ reading was analyzed along three dimensions. In “authorial perspective,” critical reading depended on assumptions about a text’s era of production and the author’s characteristics, and was applied only selectively by text type. In “narrative change,” participants’ narratives were largely incomplete, often treating all texts as equally valid and reflecting unfamiliarity with the idea that narratives change over time. In “context of production,” participants relied on a single context—usually historical background—often neglecting or dismissing other factors, reflecting a belief that historical knowledge is shaped mainly by its time of production.
Overall, participants read texts individually without grasping their interrelations or chronology. This limited understanding of history’s epistemological foundations made their reading resemble passive fact-checking rather than critical engagement.
These findings point to the need for explicit instruction in historiography with differentiated reading strategies: analytical reading of primary sources in middle school, expanding to secondary sources in high school, supported by instruction in research methodology and the concept of change. Through such instruction, students can internalize history’s epistemological foundations, read critically, and find personal meaning in learning history.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
