Introduction
Nowadays we have Google, Wikipedia, and even the History Channel to tell us all about past events in history. So, what’s the point of dedicating time and effort towards focusing on events that we cannot change? … Adding the burden of studying history to students does not provide an immediate satisfaction that the material has added any skill or substance to their life. (Student 22’s introduction, ‘Why study history?’ essay)
Today history students contend with and negotiate more external challenges and demands than previous generations. As Student 22 shared, the Internet age has led to the rise of authoritative voices (for example, Wikipedia) that provide instant access to information. According to this student, studying the past can be a challenging and unsatisfactory exercise; the imagined distance leads to an apathetic appreciation for history as a discipline and a growing indifference in the United States towards a subject that holds questionable value (Berg, 2019; Wineburg, 2018). ‘It’s the end of history,’ declared historian Daniel Bessner (2023). ‘And the consequences will be significant’ (para. 12). In a New York Times article titled ‘The Dangerous Decline of the Historical Profession’, Bessner goes on to discuss the accelerating decline of history as a profession and as a school subject in higher education, warning: ‘Americans must do everything in their power to avert the end of history. If we don’t, exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies will dominate our historical imagination and make it impossible to understand, and learn from, the past’ (para. 16). Similarly, in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the author observed, ‘And of all the disciplines, history has fared the worst, even as college and university enrollments have grown’ (Pettit, 2018, para. 2). In other words, colleges and universities across the United States have experienced a steady rise in enrolment, while history departments (for example, declared majors) have dwindled.
The problem described in the United States is one of bureaucracy, institutional priorities, politics and decision-making, leading to various outcomes that adversely affect history programmes and faculty (Berg and Christou, 2017). As ominous as the state of history appears in the United States, there is a healthy optimism within historical circles. Historian Elizabeth Stice (2023) suggests there is still a strong historical connection with people: ‘we often say there’s just no audience for history. That’s just not true’ (para. 5). The appeal of history endures because the wisdom of history meets the needs of the present and prepares students for the future. The role of governing and institutional bodies is crucial. Revitalising history’s place in the curriculum requires collaboration among all stakeholders.
The challenges that history as a college/university subject and discipline faces today are symptomatic of a larger problem: What value does history hold for twenty-first-century students? The question ‘Why study history?’ is not new or unique to the United States. The many generational ‘history wars’ at home and abroad have left traumatic scars on society and infiltrated every nook and cranny of public and private life (Evans, 2009; MacIntyre et al., 2004; Taylor and Guyver, 2012). Recently, Jeffrey Veidlinger (2023) warned that the skills inherent to a historical education ‘are urgently needed’ today (p. 8). An education grounded in history has the potential to change lives; the problem is that history has slowly moved to the periphery of the curriculum, and in extreme cases, it is altogether forgotten. This is due, in part, to Louis Masur’s assertion that ‘a persuasive case for why history matters has not been made’ (Masur, 2019, para. 4).
There is a gap in the literature on higher education (post-secondary) settings and the reasons students should study history (Berg and Christou, 2020). Most of the studies examined in this review pertained to secondary education (6th–12th grade) in the United States, with only a few considering the higher education context (college/university). Furthermore, while some studies explored student perspectives from a secondary education perspective, there are no studies that I am aware of exploring higher education students’ perspectives on why they should study history. To become effective history teachers and empower an educated citizenry to see the value of history in and outside the classroom, we must understand our students’ evolving needs.
Conceptual framework
There are few subjects as contentious as school history. In the United States, ‘history wars’ emerged in response to cultural and social movements (for example, the First World War, the Great Depression and the Cold War) throughout the twentieth century (Berg and Christou, 2017). When the political arena proved insufficient, ‘history wars’ were fought in the arena of public opinion, with public schools being the preferred battleground. After the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), the American public education system scrambled en masse to respond to increased public scrutiny about the lacklustre quality of education and calls for educational reform. Historically, the remedy suggested by the Academy was to improve teachers’ content knowledge and familiarity with historical methods. In this context, the Academy refers to the institutional system of higher education, including colleges, universities and disciplinary organisations, through which scholarly knowledge is produced, validated and disseminated according to professional norms of research, evidence and writing. It operates at the intersection of intellectual rigour, cultural authority and public engagement, shaping relationships among scholars, schools, industry, government and the broader public. The relationship between the Academy and public schools until this time could be characterised by indifference. The American Historical Association (AHA), under the leadership of AHA president Arthur Link, however, saw an opportunity to revitalise and reinvigorate history education in a way that had not been done since the First World War (Mehlinger, 1988). Beginning in the mid-1980s, the AHA tasked William McNeill, the ‘father of world history’ from the University of Chicago, and, in the late 1990s, Peter Stearns, chair of the Advanced Placement World History Committee, to ponder and reflect on why history is a necessary course of study and a critical foundation for an educated citizenry. These were not academic responses by McNeill (1985) and Stearns (1998) to a controversial and politicised debate; rather, they sought to increase public interest and support for the growth of history education in the United States.
McNeill’s (1985) and Stearns’ (1998) frameworks illustrate two complementary, yet personal, perspectives on why we should study history. Table 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of thematic interests from both frameworks. There is some overlap in how each historian categorises their typological choices within their frameworks. For instance, McNeill’s ‘collective identity’ is global in scale and outlook, whereas Stearns’s ‘provides identity’ is more flexible in scope. Furthermore, McNeill’s ‘historical understanding’ is broadly conceived and Stearns’s ‘moral understanding’ is more specific. In other words, there are subtle differences in phrasing that lead to different emphases (for example, micro- versus macro-historical scales) and potentially different conclusions and interpretations. While there are more recent frameworks available, such as the National Council of Social Studies’ College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework and the National Council of History Education’s History’s Habits of Mind, the target audience is K-12 social studies (for example, civics, economics or geography) and the concepts, in general, proceed from those articulated by McNeill (1985) and Stearns (1998). The McNeill–Stearns framework, first explored by Berg (2019), provides a well-rounded lens for analysing and understanding the justifications and rationales of scholars ‘and students’ for studying history. The McNeill–Stearns framework along with Berg’s (2019) article serve as the literature that students use to explore ‘Why study history?’ in this study.
McNeill–Stearns framework
| McNeill (1985) | Stearns (1998) |
|---|---|
| Collective memory | Understand people and societies |
| Historical knowledge & understanding | Importance in our own lives |
| Level I: Personal level | Moral understanding |
| Level II: National history | Provides identity |
| Level III: Global | Good citizenship |
| Critical thinking | |
| Transferable skills |
Literature review
Virtues of history
Scholars have written widely on the various attributes and factors they feel make history a worthy subject of study, as well as hindrances to untapping history’s potential. Historians have often used the word ‘virtue’ to describe the positive habits of mind that students and scholars alike should embody or aspire to. Historian Herman Paul (2022) traced the nuanced history of what ‘virtue’ meant from ancient times to the twentieth century and described it as a ‘continuing source of controversy’ (p. 15) in historiography. In the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, virtue was synonymous with accuracy and truthfulness. The ancient understanding of virtue changed in the medieval and early modern periods, and even into the twentieth century (Iggers, 1997; Paul, 2022). Paul (2022) argues that ‘different cultures expect different things from their historians’ (p. 15), and that a marked shift emerged with the Rankean creed of ‘criticism, precision, and penetration’ (p. 38). For our purposes, Paul’s invitation to consider a ‘constellation of virtues’ is appropriate to our discussion of virtues and their connection to history didactics (pp. 7, 15, 23). Iggers (1997) observed that ‘history continue[s] to be a learned craft’, therefore, the virtues necessary for historical thinking can be cultivated (p. 15). Literature from the mid-twentieth century to the present demonstrates a reasonable degree of consistency and continuity in how historians have understood the virtues of history in theory and in practice.
A long-standing reason for studying history since the mid-twentieth century is that it prepares students for active and engaged citizenship (Bentley, 2007; McCully, 1978; Stricker, 1992; Wood and Sheehan, 2021). One important goal of citizenship for scholars is to have students become active and engaged in public affairs and ‘think critically about various social issues’ (Lin, 2015, p. 36). This goal dovetails with many historical thinking models (for example, Lévesque, 2011) and is a general ambition of history education (Stearns, 1998). Hunt (2011) reminds us that ‘If students are to mature into citizens, they need to know their past’ (p. 263). Van Straaten et al. (2019) found that a history curriculum grounded in examining an ‘enduring human issue’ (p. 643) through historical analogy and comparison to the present helped promote citizenship. However, the concept of citizenship is not a static construct. Citizenship is evolving in orientation as national interests intersect with competing global visions in an increasingly interconnected world (Goren and Yemini, 2017). How students and teachers mediate traditional understandings of citizenship alongside international and global frameworks in US and world history classes is gaining traction in recent scholarship (Muertterties, 2022; Ylimaki and Wilmers, 2021).
Cultivating and promoting an ethical and moral system, whether as an individual or a corporate member of society, is another reason for studying history (Andress, 1997; Bloxham, 2020; Kreider, 1937). The study of history as a means of providing relevance in the present was noted in much of the literature (Carr, 1961; Gray, 2005; Nicoll, 1969; Teaford, 1973), as was history’s ability to teach students lessons (Durant, 2014; Glassie, 1994; Stricker, 1992) or analogies to ‘illuminate the present and guide the future’ (Andress, 1997, p. 312). The study of history provides countless parallels that inform critical thinking and decision-making in the present. Historian Linda Kerber (2015) put it succinctly: ‘History is not separate from life’ (p. 11). History effectively promotes personal and collective/national identity (Bohnstedt, 1971; Hunt, 2011; Low, 1948; McCully, 1978). In particular, history can ‘help [students] “forge their own link with the past”’ (Kashatus, 1990, p. 116). Collingwood (1946/2005) observed that ‘history is “for” human self-knowledge’ (p. 10) and that cultivating and nurturing good judgement, understanding and wisdom are natural outcomes of studying the past (Bentley, 2007; Kreider, 1937; Sloan, 1993).
The revelatory outcome Collingwood noted requires an ‘imaginative understanding’ of the historical past as Carr (1961, p. 20) described it. ‘History cannot be written,’ Carr concludes, ‘unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing’ (p. 21). Moreover, a student’s creative centre – their imagination – is exercised as they engage in historical study (Carr, 1961; Collingwood, 1946/2005; Low, 1948; McCully, 1978; Teaford, 1973). As Norman Cantor and Richard Schneider (1967) observed, ‘history is worth studying because it is a creative act’ that ‘demands … the exercise of a creative imagination’ (p. 3). Studying history is also fun, providing a sophisticated venue for entertainment (Bloxham, 2020; Glassie, 1994; Kreider, 1937; Teaford, 1973). Similarly, Nuttall (2021) argued that history has ‘aesthetic value … to move us, to inspire us, or to make us feel some sense of awe’ (p. 92). The pinnacle of historical enquiry is ‘when [our] vision of the past is illuminated by insights into the problems of the present’ (Carr, 1961, p. 44). As many scholars have argued, history is worthy of study for its own sake (Bohnstedt, 1971; Gray, 2005; Sloan, 1993).
Methodology
The research design was a basic qualitative study approach to understand undergraduate students’ attitudes and beliefs about why we should study history. A sample of 103 undergraduate students was used, and their final reflective essay on ‘Why study history?’ was the instrument. Data analysis was guided by Miles et al.’s (2014) two-cycle coding process; they recommend ‘analysis concurrent with data collection’, leading to ‘new, often better, data’ and a ‘healthy corrective for built-in blind spots’ (p. 70). They emphasise the analytical and reflective function of coding and argue that ‘coding … [is] deep analysis and interpretation of the data’s meanings’ (p. 72). A deductive-inductive coding process, also known as analytic induction (Patton, 2015, p. 543), was used. The coding process began with a ‘provisional “start list” of codes’ (Miles et al., 2014, p. 81) gleaned from the McNeill–Stearns framework (see Berg, 2019) to begin data analysis. Using these descriptors (for example, citizenship, collective memory and moral understanding) as a ‘start list’, analysis and coding shifted to an inductive process through descriptive coding. According to Miles et al. (2014), coding is a dynamic process that can be ‘“mixed and matched” as needed’ (p. 74). Refining codes through an inductive approach demonstrates that the ‘researcher is open to what the site has to say rather than determined to force-fit the data into preexisting codes’ (p. 81).
Participants and setting
Participants were recruited from a public state college in the south-eastern United States. The institution grants associate and bachelor’s degrees and serves approximately 50,000 students both in person and online. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained via email from the chair of the IRB.
The recruitment site was chosen because of the diversity and representation of online students in the region, as well as using the researcher’s classroom to facilitate the assignment. The data from the participants were collected from five class sections of ‘US History until 1877’ from autumn 2022 to summer 2023. There was one online section in autumn 2022, three in spring 2023 and one in summer 2023. No demographic data were collected, although indirect information, such as particulars often included on a title page or header, was present on the assignment submission. Student information was anonymised (for example, Student 1, Student 2 and so on) and entered into Excel spreadsheets for analysis. One spreadsheet contained anonymised participant information to avoid confusion and ensure the integrity of the coding process. A second spreadsheet was used as a coding matrix to visualise the coding process.
Lumen Learning Waymaker courseware
A non-traditional digital experience
Textbook adoption at this institution is a cyclical process that involves full-time and tenured faculty, discipline managers and college-wide chairs for each division. In the summer of 2022, our department adopted Lumen Learning’s Waymaker programme and implemented it in the autumn of 2022. It is not a traditional, physical text from an established textbook publisher (for example, Macmillan or Pearson) but an immersive open educational resource that uses a proprietary ‘study plan’ functioning as a quasi-digital text embedded in the online learning management system Canvas. According to Lumen Learning’s website, the Waymaker programme for United States History I ‘aims to help students use historical thinking skills to describe, compare, contextualize, and construct historical arguments about major events in American history through 1877’ (Lumen Learning Waymaker Courseware, n.d.). Lumen Learning’s Waymaker courseware markets ambitious learning outcomes: ‘Think like a historian; make historical connections by studying historical narratives and arguments, analyzing documents, synthesizing information, evaluating cause and effect, and studying how things change over time.’
Departing from a traditional textbook was a conscious effort to invigorate the study of history at our institution by introducing students to the work historians do. This immersive learning experience introduces students to thinking like historians and encourages them to critically engage with primary and secondary sources. The desired outcome is for students to move beyond traditional history instruction (for example, rote memorisation or passive learning) and into higher-order thinking, where they begin to judiciously weigh evidence, make sense of biased or conflicting claims and draw reasonable interpretive conclusions (Martell, 2013). The Waymaker courseware was used by all faculty members across the institution, regardless of the campus or modality. Anecdotal evidence gleaned from informal conversations with other faculty and/or students throughout this time suggests that it was viewed as a positive experience.
‘Why study history?’ Assignment
The researcher has used several iterations of the ‘Why study history?’ assignment in the past. When the researcher first began facilitating online history surveys, it was an introductory discussion board to get students thinking about why they should study history and to interact with their peers’ choices for why they should study history. Then, several years ago, the researcher was curious to see what students thought about the question ‘Why study history?’ in a formal assignment. Essentially, their exit interview in the final two weeks of the class culminated in a reflective essay on ‘Why study history?’ This is the only short paper required for the course because of the nature of the class (history survey) and because it is often taken as a general education requirement by non-history majors; the hope is that students will devote adequate time and effort to submit their best work.
Guidelines for the assignment
To encourage critical and independent thinking, guiding questions were used as prompts for the essay. Kross and Giust (2019) suggest that guiding questions can play a key role in quality research, guiding methodology, data-collection methods and interpretation of results. Similarly, guided questions have been shown to reduce cognitive load, facilitate enhanced self-explanation of directive or open-ended questions, and improve performance (Budé et al., 2012). Reisman and Wineburg (2008) note that guiding questions ‘prompt students to read carefully and think deeply’ (p. 204). Because the paper is reflective and encourages students to activate prior learning and exercise historical sensibilities, such as historical thinking (McNeill, 1985; Seixas and Morton, 2013; Stearns, 1998), guiding questions should improve the quality of thoughtful writing and support reflective responses (Monte-Sano, 2016; Moussa-Inaty, 2015). Letizia (2016) considers focused historical writing to be ‘one of the most effective ways to engage … students in the discipline of history’ (p. 219).
The four guiding questions from the assignment ‘Why study history?’ were intended to provide a few approaches to the subject matter that students could engage with while writing their essays. Student assumptions and beliefs about learning can be understood as a spectrum: on one end, students desire explicit and concrete directions for a given assignment, while on the other, they appreciate the flexibility and freedom to pursue the assignment in a way that makes sense to them. Students often navigate the space between these tensions. The guiding questions and general instructions can be found in Box 1.
Box 1. Guiding questions and assignment instructions for the ‘Why Study History?’ undergraduate reflective essay
Here are some guiding questions to consider as you complete this essay:
-
How does the study of history help us in our everyday lives?
-
How does history help us better understand ourselves and the world around us?
-
What purpose does the study of history have in the college curriculum today, if any?
-
How does history prepare us to be active citizens in our community?
Students will write one historical essay of approx. 1,500 words (4–5 pages) using a minimum of two sources listed below (Berg, McNeill and Stearns) to compare and contrast the authors’ reasons why we should study history that resonates with your own understanding of history.
Limitations
The following is a discussion of the limitations of the study. Critics of qualitative research argue that it is less rigorous than quantitative methods or statistical analyses. Rahman (2017) observed that each method – qualitative and quantitative – has ‘pros and cons’ (p. 102), while Yin (2014) contends that this unfavourable assumption about qualitative research stems from a misunderstanding of its methodologies. The aims, objectives and research question(s) often dictate which methodology is the best fit; in other words, these are not competing but complementary methodologies to pursue a research question in the best possible way. As Flyvbjerg (2006) put it, ‘The choice of method should clearly depend on the problem under study and its circumstances’ (p. 226). Another challenge of qualitative research is the sample size, and a related limitation is the perceived lack of generalisability of the findings (Rahman, 2017). According to Flyvbjerg (2006), a preoccupation with generalisability is unfounded: ‘formal generalization, whether on the basis of large samples or single cases, is considerably overrated as the main source of scientific progress’ (p. 226, emphasis added). The contribution of qualitative research to human knowledge cannot be diminished or dismissed because of concerns about generalisability: ‘That knowledge cannot be formally generalized does not mean that it cannot enter into the collective process of knowledge accumulation in a given field or in a society’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 227). While generalisability might be problematic, the data and findings could be transferable in terms of themes and implications (Nowell et al., 2017). Qualitative research has demonstrated its rigour and value through its many approaches (for example, basic qualitative, case study or phenomenology) and is recognised as an essential scholarly method. A qualitative approach was appropriate for exploring student essay responses to the prompting of the guiding questions. ‘Qualitative methods have emerged as indispensable tools for garnering deep insights and understanding complex phenomena’ (Lim, 2025, p. 199).
Findings and discussion
The guiding questions or prompts were suggestive and not prescriptive, although most responses aimed to address several or all prompts. The importance of each response to the prompt ‘Why study history?’ is emphasised in how individuals prioritised certain reasons from particular readings that aligned or resonated with their understanding of the value of history. Essay excerpts illustrate how students responded to the general prompt ‘Why study history?’ Where appropriate, longer excerpts are used to fully illustrate students’ thinking so that ‘we can understand … and draw our own interpretations about meanings and significance’ (Patton, 2015, p. 534).
The McNeill–Stearns framework (cf. Berg, 2019) guided data analysis and coding of the data. Figure 1 captures the range of themes generated through two coding cycles (Miles et al., 2014). Figure 2 visually displays the five most significant themes in a side-by-side comparison. Because of the descriptive coding process, some themes in Figure 1 could use elaboration. The theme General comments was used as a categorical bucket for interesting student statements that showed initial promise, but on closer inspection, were not viable. Levels of history were taken directly from the McNeill–Stearns framework when local, regional, national or international contexts were mentioned.
Themes
Significant themes
How does the study of history help us in our everyday lives?
Prudential uses of history
The themes captured under the umbrella of prudential uses of history include prepare for the future (n = 50), repeating history (n = 75), lessons of history (n = 40) and historical analogy and comparison (n = 47). The descriptive category prudential uses of history is borrowed from Chapman et al.’s (2018) typology, which considers how students engage and learn from the past in general (for example, repeating mistakes or lessons) and is a useful categorical lens to explore these various thematic threads together rather than in isolation.
Prepare for the future
British historian Penelope Corfield (2007) observed that ‘history is inescapable’ (para. 1), and the data suggests students (n = 50) agree that history is an important consideration in everyday life. Students view history as a beneficial tool for preparing for the future. One student explained, ‘History aids in predicting future occurrence … The world we know, and love, is changing constantly … When trying to predict the future, no one [can do] that. History is not just about the past … it is more about the unknown future and the future is unpredictable’ (Student 53). For this student, history can serve as a reliable compass to direct our next steps into an uncertain future. Half a century ago, Ward (1974) argued that ‘serious history is a free man’s [sic] tool for coping with life’ (p. 187) and that tomorrow’s anxiety could be lessened through thoughtful historical study. Another student saw the power of history to inform the present and, by extension, the future, and provided the following illustrative historical analogy:
‘The past causes the present, and so the future’, (Stearns) [sic] Knowing what has happened before better prepares us for handling similar situations in the future. For example, Germany lost WWI and as a result, they were put into millions of dollars in debt. Well, this influenced their future, and most everyone else’s as well. Adolf Hitler lived in post-WWI Germany and after experiencing the country’s hardships, was motivated to get back at the world. Hitler became a dictator, his main focus was building Germany back up and getting his revenge. However, he did not stop there. Hitler became power-hungry and threatened to take over the world. In the end, he was stopped, but precautions had to be taken. Despite Germany losing yet another world war, the same punishment could not be used. This was in order to prevent history repeating itself again. (Student 62)
Student 62’s description reflects the didactic function of history. The student evidenced a nuanced understanding of history and its corrective and illustrative purposes in guiding present actions to influence a better future. Kerber (2015) reminds us of Gerda Lerner’s observation later in life that ‘civil wars and racist perspectives thrive on selective memory and forgetting’ (p. 10); how can we prepare for the future if we have no interest or connection to the past, or if we are reluctant or unwilling to interrogate it? ‘History is not separate from life’, according to Kerber (2015, p. 11), and we must ‘nurture among our students an appreciation for the study of history and the role it plays in their own lives … to help them “forge their own link with the past”’ (Kashatus, 1990, p. 116).
Repeating history
This theme was present in 72.8 per cent of student essays and was characterised by phrases such as ‘repeating history’ or ‘repeating mistakes’. Student 4 was critical of humanity’s perceived inability to learn from history and cautioned that ignoring history is perilous:
‘Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.’ The famous quote seems to have the simple answer to the importance of Historical study. Study the past and we will not repeat the same mistakes. However, I disagree … mankind has repeated the same mistakes over and over since then with more knowledge now than ever before. Perhaps, history has slowly seeped through the cracks in most people’s studies. Mankind seems to be doomed to an infinite loop of repeating mistakes at times. Regardless of these factors, it does not take away the importance of studying history… In the end, history is one of the best tools we have to protect ourselves from ourselves.
While this student’s response draws attention to the complexity of human behaviour in their mechanistic understanding of history, they concede that studying history could challenge the ‘infinite loop’ and disrupt the generational causal chain reaction of misguided actions. In other words, studying history can influence and change individuals and, thus, the course of human history (that is, avoiding repeating mistakes).
However, most responses were optimistic in tone and outlook. For instance, Student 27 addressed this theme more than once in their essay in a reflective manner, stating, ‘Overall, we study history because it helps us to try and strive to improve, and not make the same mistakes twice.’ They continued: ‘When a mistake is made, it is best to look back on it and reflect on it, gathering as much information as you can and learning as much as possible to make sure that mistake is not repeated.’ The responses here indicate that students understand history as an interpretive tool for living in the present and how certain actions could lead to a better (or worse) future (Carr, 1961; Glassie, 1994; Gray, 2005). Similarly, this student discussed the theme only to return to it later in their essay, noting that ‘Even more important, it [history] allows us to learn from past mistakes and triumphs of generations that came before us’ and ‘by learning about past injustices other groups face, students are less likely to repeat them in their interactions’ (Student 30). Lastly, one student argued that the antidote for an uncertain future is an applied understanding of the past:
so we know what to do in the future. I think this is a very interesting take. I believe this take explains why we use history in our everyday lives. It is, in a sense, an insurance policy, so we don’t mess up in the same way over and over again. History can be [a] tough teacher if you don’t learn from it. (Student 54)
These students identified the purpose of history in utilitarian terms, that is, as practical and prudent. These students saw the study of history as a necessary measure against the vicissitudes and uncertainties of human existence (Seixas and Morton, 2013; Sheehan, 2011).
Lessons of history
The theme lessons of history was referenced in the data many times (n = 40), although the majority of responses were underdeveloped or unremarkable. This finding stands in stark contrast to other studies in the scholarly literature where ‘lessons’ were noted as a prominent data point (Berg, 2019; Nuttall, 2021). The few outliers where students substantively elaborated on this theme evidenced mature historical understanding. ‘Studying history teaches invaluable lessons that can be applied to [one’s] own life… It allows us to appreciate how far we have come as a society,’ said Student 30. The next excerpt illustrates nuanced thinking about the educative value of history:
Of course, we’re not going to make the same choices as Hitler, duh, the history we make will outshine those of our ancestors in the past (that was satire.) No, we who do not know history will be sure to repeat it and reset it and repeat it until we have learned our lesson. Have we learned our lesson yet? Good question, I don’t know. Maybe in some ways but not in others. (Student 55)
Gleaning lessons from the past is not without challenges and can be problematic: ‘The search for lessons from history is almost as frustrating a task as seeking to find the Holy Grail or Camelot’ (Gray, 2005, p. 156). Teachers should be mindful of the potential pitfalls and unforeseen challenges associated with using the past as an interpretive lens for meaning-making in the present. Promoting disciplined historical thinking (Nuttall, 2021; Wineburg, 2018) and developing a conscious recognition of the threat of presentism are two strategies for applying historical lessons in context (Counsell, 2004; Miles and Gibson, 2022).
Historical analogy and comparison
The theme of historical analogy came up frequently (n = 47) in the data. The analogies students used varied, with most referencing modern historical events and people. However, all the analogies referenced a historical turning point or moment that was important to them within an American context. To give a sense of the breadth of student responses, historical analogies referenced topics such as the American Indian Wars, the Columbian Exchange and the Declaration of Independence. Most responses focused on the twentieth century (for example, the Holocaust, Enigma code and Space Shuttle Challenger disaster) or contemporary events from an American perspective (for example, the controversy over Confederate memorials/monuments, the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic). The excerpt below illustrates this student’s historical reasoning for protecting civil liberties from authoritarian regimes by way of analogy:
Historians and historical documentation are a hedge against not only making the same mistakes of the past, but a shield from tyranny and malicious partisan sources. In Ray Bradbury’s book Fahrenheit 451 a tyrannical government orders the destruction of all reading material not approved by the state and go to enormous lengths to ensure that its citizenry do not have access to this information. While it is a fictional novel the ideology of disconnecting people from their past as a means of control has been seen throughout the history of tyrannical governments. The Nazi book burning in March of 1933 where the government ordered the burning of tens of thousands of ‘Un-German’ books ultimately was one of the catalysts that led to the general population turning a blind eye to the Holocaust. (Student 8)
Both students discussed in this section draw a parallel from the past to a temporal moment (that is, the present) rather than an exact parallel in time and space (that is, X or Y event). In this way, they exhibit historical consciousness in their positionality, contemplating the past, present and future (Körber, 2016; Seixas, 2006, 2012). In the following example, the student calls for a balanced historical narrative inclusive of underrepresented groups, such as women:
We need to have a full picture of the good, the bad, and the ugly to really address what can be changed in our future. When we fail to recognize women, such as Genevieve Grotjan Feinstein, who deciphered the Japanese Purple machine’s cryptographic code in 1940, we teach our young women that the things they accomplish are not worth recognizing and that they will not be honored in the future. This is indeed unacceptable. I learned about Grotjan as part of my military training when I was in the Navy. Learning cryptology, we took a module on cryptologic history. My chief made sure to build up the female sailors by adding Grotjan’s accomplishments into the curriculum. The tactic worked, because it gave my fellow female sailors and me more pride in what we were learning to do. (Student 13)
The example above is a compelling argument for the power of analogical reasoning in engaging with the past (Van Straaten et al., 2019). Relatedly, this is a timely example of an isolated theme that has been broadly categorised as a prudential use of history. The four sub-themes identified in the data – prepare for the future, repeating history, lessons of history and historical analogy and comparison – illustrate the overlap between one sub-theme (for example, historical analogy and comparison) and another. Often, students connect one sub-theme with another as they explore a train of thought. Using a larger conceptual category, such as prudential uses of history, is helpful and necessary in exploring and organising data for the researcher.
Using historical analogies and drawing comparisons are useful tools for history students to identify parallels and create meaningful connections between the past and the present. Lacquement (2019) argues that ‘the use of historical analogies is one of humanity’s most important adaptive tools’ and ‘reasoning by analogy helps us make sense of the world’ (p. 59). The student excerpts discussed above are evidence of the power of analogical reasoning through higher-order thinking and mature historical understanding. However, the use of historical analogies and parallels is fraught with challenges and dangers (Jay and Reisman, 2019), especially concerning military, political and public affairs. As students ‘learn to use the magic wand of analogy’, they should be judicious and thoughtful in their approach (Fernandez-Sebastian, 2021, p. 519).
How does history help us to better understand ourselves and the world around us?
Identity
The themes of identity (n = 65), understand peoples and societies (n = 70) and historical knowledge and understanding (n = 50) were overwhelmingly present in the data. While the theme of identity elicited substantive engagement in the data, the themes understand peoples and societies (cf. Stearns, 1998) and historical knowledge and understanding (cf. McNeill, 1985) were limited to brief overtures without further explanation or discussion (Nuttall, 2021).
The literature shows different approaches taken to this theme. For instance, Stearns (1998) defines identity in broad, inclusive terms, where identity transcends individual and family units and extends to businesses, institutions and nations. According to Stearns (1998), identity can materialise in a myriad of ways. Chapman et al.’s (2018) typology includes three dimensions – national, group and personal identity. The common element in both understandings of identity is the personal dimension. In the examples shared here, sub-themes included a personal connection to a shared ancestral past: ‘Tracing back our family roots not only allows us to form a deeper appreciation for our loved ones and their possible sacrifices,’ Student 3 explained, ‘but also allows us to make observations about how our ancestors’ decisions impacted our lives.’ Relatedly, Student 13 touched on similar points when they said, ‘They can appreciate the struggles and triumphs of their predecessors’ and ‘fully understand one’s own culture, such as festivals, rituals, rites of passage, etc.’ A connection to a shared ancestral past (distant or more recent) comes with challenges for some students as they make sense of difficult historical narratives that affected their family and, perhaps, are grappling with in the present (Harris et al., 2022; Smith, 2022). ‘By studying your personal history, which would include your family’s personal history, you give yourself a better appreciation of who you are, where you come from, and how far you believe your life can take you,’ Student 61 remarked, and continued, ‘some people may find a bleak and grim story. Hardships ranging from slavery and genocide may give one a more personal feeling of themselves or their families.’
The growing interest in exploring family histories through oral histories or tracing genealogy (for example, www.ancestry.com or DNA testing) can be mundane or revelatory experiences. For some, it might satisfy a passing interest to learn a little about their ancestral past, but for others, as shown above, it can present new challenges or open old wounds (cf. Smith, 2022). One challenge is to present a curriculum that appeals to and resonates with diverse student populations. In Sandhu et al.’s (2023) study of 20 college-educated young adults in the UK, participant interview data revealed an ‘identity crisis’ where ‘nearly all participants felt as if they had been marginalized as a result of the history curriculum’ (pp. 161, 162). Decolonising the history curriculum and privileging multiple and alternative perspectives is a necessary step to connect historical subject matter about identity with a multicultural audience (Keefe and Berg, 2022). Barton and McCully (2005) explored identity with 253 students aged 11–14 in Northern Ireland; they found that ‘students’ responses contradict any simplistic generalizations about their historical identifications’ (p. 107). That is, these students had an evolving, nuanced understanding of identity that transcended political persuasions or religious affiliations; rather than being tied to historical or inherited beliefs or traditions, they were ‘actively constructing their historical identifications’ (Barton and McCully, 2005, p. 107). In the present study, students were concerned about personal identity vis-à-vis a fascination with an ancestral past that shapes their own identity development through a shared historical connection (Miguel-Revilla, 2021). These findings are grounded in the personal dimension and were not complicated by problematic history curricula, as reported by Sandhu et al. (2023) or the mediating variable of collective memory and religious identity investigated by Barton and McCully (2005).
How does history prepare us to be active citizens in our community?
Citizenship
The theme of citizenship was a notable finding in the data (n = 62) and responses included descriptive language to emphasise certain attributes, such as ‘good’, ‘responsible’ and ‘best’, and align with the literature (cf. Patterson and Torsney, 2021, p. 213). After completing an exhaustive literature review, Gökçınar and Dere (2024) identified four domains of citizenship: (1) civic knowledge, (2) civic tendencies, (3) civic skills, and (4) civic values (p. 98). Several responses were connected to these domains, such as civic knowledge, where one was expected to actively participate in public affairs. Voting is civic knowledge in action and, as described by Student 85, it is ‘the most pure and important forms of citizenship’. In other instances, they actualised civic tendencies, such as critical thinking and decision-making. In the illustrative example below, they model what Sandahl has termed ‘civic consciousness’, where many domains are exemplified through ‘personal-making attribution’ (Sandahl, 2015, p. 5):
As citizens, we need to remember those who lost lives, fought, or stood firm to make these changes occur. History is the foundation for creating good citizens… As a woman, I have a respect and appreciation for those historical women that fought for my voice to be heard. As a citizen of the United States, I have a respect and appreciation for those who have and are fighting for our rights. The history of our country defines who we are. The sacrifices that others had to endure for our freedoms are sometimes beyond what I can imagine. Our past has spiraled change, not that it perfected it. Learning from the hardships of our forefathers, will help us to become more productive citizens and educated citizens. (Student 63)
The way students conceptualised citizenship was firmly ensconced in a nationalist framework (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Ylimaki and Wilmers, 2021). ‘We hold citizenship tests for immigrants so they can understand the complicated history of our country so they will share the same ideas, morals, and values that we strive to bestow in our everyday lives,’ remarked Student 61. They continued, ‘This is important for our children to learn as they grow up so they will have a sense of pride for our nation and also strive to uphold those same qualities.’ For Wood and Sheehan (2021), active citizenship ‘cultivates the habits of mind, heart, and participation’ (p. 501), and the responses considered here align with that expectation. ‘As good citizens, we must know our history to know when we are being oppressed and when to rise against it without going too far’ according to Student 101. Stearns (1998) recognised the importance of defining citizenship as ‘good’ and this student embraced and advocated for noble civic values such as justice, equality and human rights (Cummings, 2019; Patterson and Torsney, 2021).
Critical thinking and decision-making
The theme of critical thinking was prevalent (n = 24) in the data, though students were not always attached to this specific guiding question. Often, critical thinking was referenced in connection to one or more guided questions (for example, ‘How does the study of history help us in our everyday lives?’) and, in some instances, in stream-of-consciousness writing. The reason for including it here is that some students explicitly mentioned it in connection with citizenship. Decision-making (n = 40) was coded as a stand-alone theme, but it shared an affinity with critical thinking. Decision-making was referenced numerous times, but not in a meaningful way.
‘The goal of education is often framed as teaching students how to think critically rather than simply imparting information,’ suggests Student 30, and ‘critical thinking means recognizing bias and avoiding generalizations, which can only be achieved through a solid grounding in historical fact.’ What they propose embodies several historical thinking tenets (Reisman, 2012) while recognising the limitations of a traditional history curriculum, where rote memorisation is privileged (Martell, 2013). Building on this idea of critical thinking, another student cited challenges in discerning ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ in an age of dis- and misinformation:
Critical thinking is undoubtedly an essential tool in anyone’s belt in the modern age. Unfortunately, with social media firmly cemented as the principal influencer of public opinion, users spread inaccurate information and push their own beliefs onto others, whether through referencing past events or through commentary on modern politics. When information can spread like wildfire, it is imperative that the ones most affected must be able to form their own educated opinions. (Student 33)
Critical thinking is a necessity in ‘our Google-drenched society’, according to Wineburg (2018, p. 3), and, as Student 55 argued, it is, indeed, ‘essential’ as ‘history gives students the license to think and apply practical decisions in everyday life’. Some students also tied critical thinking to decision-making, observing, ‘It helps one learn to make better decisions and cope with unforeseen consequences’ (Student 56). Veidlinger (2023) claimed that ‘the most important attributes’ of historical and humanistic education include critical thinking and ‘collaborative decision-making’ (p. 8). Students acknowledged the practicality of critical thinking in navigating the complexities of twenty-first-century life. ‘A true understanding of history, based on evaluation of ideas and critical thinking,’ according to Letizia (2016, p. 219), ‘is one of the foundations of citizenship’. Whitehouse (2005) maintains that cultivating critical thinking sparks a ‘fundamental shift in thinking’ (p. 83) and the findings show independent thought at play. Historians have also argued for its importance in various ways. Kashatus (1990), writing during a ‘history war’ in the United States, recognised the value of critical thinking in the service of the public good, declaring ‘critical thinking skills [are] necessary to be an active member in a free society’ (p. 116).
Conclusions
The question ‘Why study history?’ is a recurring theme in American history. Half a century ago, Ward (1974) observed, ‘many people will go on asking “Why history?” and we must go on taking the question seriously’ (p. 273). In this study, findings from student data include prudential uses of history, identity and citizenship. The guiding questions inspired students to consider and explore the general prompt, ‘Why study history?’, using a selection of popular and scholarly literature to support their enquiries (McNeill, 1985; Stearns, 1998). While it is unsurprising that students’ views aligned with historians’ interpretations given the assigned readings, this study provides insight into how students actively integrate scholarly perspectives with their own lived experiences. Of particular interest is how students engaged with the guiding questions, negotiating the value of history through personal reflection and interpretation. Prior scholarship in history education – particularly in international contexts – has examined students’ historical thinking, identity formation and civic engagement. What remains less explored, especially in the United States, is how students articulate the epistemological significance of studying history through direct engagement with historians’ arguments and reflective writing. In this sense, the findings presented here are comparable to studies such as Berg (2019) and Nuttall (2021) in their attention to meaning-making, while extending this work by foregrounding the question of why history matters within a US undergraduate curriculum. The findings demonstrate that the study of history is closely tied to the development of critical thinking habits of mind, including historical sensibilities, personal identity formation and orientations towards civic participation. Framing history education around this epistemological question positions the discipline not merely as content knowledge, but as a formative process through which students make sense of themselves and their place in the world. As such, ‘Why study history?’ remains an underexamined yet consequential question in US history education research.
The McNeill–Stearns framework was used to guide data analysis and coding; however, the framework was unable to capture or categorise some of the findings. A gap in the framework emerged that could not address what Chapman et al.’s (2018) typology described as prudential uses of history. The following sub-themes are nested within the categorical umbrella of prudential uses of history: preparing for the future, repeating history, lessons of history and historical analogy and comparison. The McNeill–Stearns framework is useful but is not without limitations. These findings uphold the view in the literature that history is a viable means of making sense of the past (Bloxham, 2020; Kashatus, 1990; Nuttall, 2021). The theme of prudential uses of history was significant in the present study and confirms what VanSledright observed nearly 30 years ago, that ‘the Santayanan rationale’ for studying history continues to resonate with history students (VanSledright, 1997, p. 529). While a more sophisticated understanding of the interplay of past, present and future would include a discussion of historical consciousness (Körber, 2016; Seixas, 2012), most responses did not evidence this degree of reasoning. Prudential uses of history are relevant to students in this study and inform their attitudes, beliefs and understanding of history.
Identity was another important theme that students referenced, often taking the form of personal identity and heritage, with a notable fascination with their genealogy. The personal dimension of the theme of identity in this study diverged from several studies’ findings that evidenced the mediating role of class, ethnicity/race and political/religious affiliations in understanding the layers and nuances of identity (Barton and McCully, 2005; Sandhu et al., 2023). What can be gleaned from this study and others that have explored this topic is the importance of a representative history curriculum that privileges all history over selective treatments. Keefe and Berg (2022) recounted their experience of revising their humanities curriculum with this goal in mind and the positive response from their students. For history to remain relevant to twenty-first-century students, it should connect to them in personally meaningful ways (for example, culture, ethnicity and race). Two themes that occurred frequently in the data in insubstantial ways were understand peoples and societies and historical knowledge and understanding. It is uncertain why students made superficial references to these two themes – part of the McNeill–Stearns framework – and did not develop them further in meaningful ways. One possible explanation is that students saw these categorical terms mentioned in the McNeill–Stearns framework and felt compelled to include them for the sake of coverage.
Citizenship was noted often, and students framed citizenship within the four domains suggested by Gökçınar and Dere (2024): civic knowledge, civic tendencies, civic skills and civic values. In the present study, citizenship was understood by students as an active (for example, voting) exercise of civic engagement and responsibility. Responses were thoughtful and robust and evidenced what Sandahl (2015) described as ‘civic consciousness’ (p. 5). The scholarly literature often combines critical thinking and decision-making with citizenship and how students participate in their communities, but not necessarily with political motivation (Lin, 2015; Wood and Sheehan, 2021). Student responses in this study made an explicit connection between civic tendencies and critical thinking and decision-making (Gökçınar and Dere, 2024). What is clear from this study is that students view citizenship as a critical function of being an educated citizen and a primary reason for studying history. This implies that studying history could help facilitate the development of active citizenship for the public good.
Since the 2010s, a handful of excellent studies have contributed to our understanding of students’ attitudes, beliefs and views about the purpose and study of history. Most of these studies were concerned with secondary (6th–12th grade) school contexts or their equivalent (for example, Nuttall’s (2021) sixth-form college students). More research is needed to broaden and deepen our knowledge of student perceptions of history. The methodological choices of Haydn and Harris (2010) and Grever et al. (2011), who included survey questionnaires followed by focus-group interviews, could be possible future directions for research. A corollary research interest is exploring student attitudes and beliefs about history within a comparative and/or multicultural context (Grever et al., 2011). The present study was limited to one institution in the south-eastern United States, and future collaborative studies that include larger sample sizes from multiple institutions of higher learning may provide a more holistic and representative picture of why students believe history should be studied. The research possibilities discussed above are qualitative in nature, and Miguel-Revilla’s (2021) quantitative study examining secondary, undergraduate and pre-service teachers confirmed the validity of Van Straaten et al.’s (2018) Relevance of History Measurement Scale (RHMS). A similar study employing mixed methods using the RHMS within the United States is a promising possibility to ‘observe important contrasts … among undergraduate students’ about prudential uses of history, identity and citizenship, for instance (Miguel-Revilla, 2021, p. 12).
Just over two centuries ago, John Adams (1813) wrote to Thomas Jefferson, perhaps in a reflective mood, as he traced the trajectory of their political lives through ‘Serious Times’. In that same letter, Adams continued and declared, ‘I know not whether We have ever Seen any moments more Serious than the present’ (vol. 198, fol. 35349). His words echo beyond their historical moment. Each generation, facing its own uncertainties, imagines its age to be the most precarious and its decisions the most consequential. However, this enduring sense of gravity is precisely what makes the study of history essential. It reminds us that the dilemmas we confront are neither singular nor unprecedented and that humanity has long struggled to find meaning, direction and courage amid change. To study history is to recognise that every ‘present moment’ bears both the weight and promise of those that came before. The choices we make today will shape the history that others inherit tomorrow. In this sense, history is not a distant country but an unending conversation that affirms both the vulnerability and resilience of the human experience. To engage with it is to look into a mirror that reflects who we have been and who we might yet become, and in that reflection, to find the courage to act wisely in our own time.
Data availability statement
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available because they contain identifiable student information collected in an educational setting. De-identified data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to institutional review board (IRB) and institutional policies designed to protect participant confidentiality.
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
The author declares that research ethics approval for this article was provided by the IRB chair of their college.
Consent for publication statement
The author declares that research participants’ informed consent to publication of findings was secured prior to publication. No photos, videos, or any personal or identifiable information was used.
Conflicts of interest statement
The author declares no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the author during peer review of this article have been made. The author declares no further conflicts with this article.
References
Adams,J. (1813). John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, [ca. 3–5] July 1813. Founders Online. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0220.
Andress,D. (1997). Beyond irony and relativism: What is postmodern history for?. Rethinking History 1 (3) :311–326, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529708596321
Barton,K C; McCully,A W. (2005). History, identity, and the school curriculum in Northern Ireland: An empirical study of secondary students’ ideas and perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (1) :85–116, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000266070
Bentley,J H. (2007). Why study world history?. World History Connected October2007 5 (1) https://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/5.1/bentley.html.
Berg,C W. (2019). Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history. Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness, Historical Cultures, and History Education 6 (1) :54–71, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.52289/hej6.100
Berg,C W; Christou,T. (2017). History and the public good: American Historical Association presidential addresses and the evolving understanding of history education. Curriculum History 17 (1) :37–55.
Berg,C W; Christou,T. (2020). The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education. Springer.
Bessner,D. (2023). The dangerous decline of the historical profession. The New York Times, January142023 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/14/opinion/american-history-college-university-academia.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Bk4.D2vs.dXRkt-YN-cr4&smid=url-share.
Bloxham,D. (2020). Why study the past?. History Today 70 :78–83. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/why-study-past.
Bohnstedt,J W. (1971). Why study history?. The History Teacher 4 (4) :63–65, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/492600
Budé,L; van de Wiel,M W J; Imbos,T; Berger,M P F. (2012). The effect of guiding questions on students’ performance and attitude towards statistics. British Journal of Educational Psychology 82 :340–359, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02031.x
Cantor,N F; Schneider,R I. (1967). How to study history. 1st ed. Wiley-Blackwell.
Carr,E H. (1961). What is history?. Vintage.
Chapman,A; Burn,K; Kitson,A. (2018). What is school history for? British student-teachers’ perspectives. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura 194 (788) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2018.788n2003
Collingwood,R G. (2005). The idea of history. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1946).
Corfield,P L. (2007). All people are living histories – which is why history matters. Making History: The changing face of the profession in Britain, https://archives.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/why_history_matters.html.
Counsell,C. (2004). Looking through a Josephine-Butler shaped window: Focusing pupils’ thinking on historical significance. Teaching History 114 :30–36.
Cummings,R D. (2019). Justice then and now: Engaging students in critical thinking about justice and history. The Social Studies 110 (6) :281–292, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2019.1652140
Durant,W. (2014). Fallen leaves: Last words on life, love, war, and God. Simon & Schuster.
Evans,R W. (2009). Parker,W(ed.), The social studies wars, now and then. Social studies today: Research and practice. Routledge, pp.317–321.
Fernandez-Sebastian,J. (2021). Waving the historian’s magic wand: Temporal comparisons and analogies in the writing of history. Time & Society 30 (4) :517–535, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961463X20944038
Flyvbjerg,B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2) :219–245, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Glassie,H. (1994). The practice and purpose of history. The Journal of American History 81 (3) :961–968, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2081435
Gökçınar,B; Dere,I. (2024). Is it possible to identify basic citizenship values and skills at a universal level? A framework attempt. Participatory Educational Research 11 (2) :97–116, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.24.21.11.2
Goren,H; Yemini,M. (2017). The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions of the relationship between global citizenship education and students’ socio-economic status. Teaching and Teacher Education 67 :9–22, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.009
Gray,P W. (2005). Why study military history?. Defence Studies 5 (1) :151–164, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14702430500097408
Grever,M; Pelzer,B; Haydn,T. (2011). High school students’ views on history. Journal of Curriculum Studies 43 (2) :207–229, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.542832
Harris,L M, Sheppard,M;Mand Levy,S AS A(ed s .), . (2022). Teaching difficult histories in difficult times: Stories of practice. Teachers College Press.
Haydn,T; Harris,R. (2010). Pupil perspectives on the purposes and benefits of studying history in high school: A view from the UK. Journal of Curriculum Studies 42 (2) :241–261, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270903403189
Hunt,T. (2011). The importance of studying the past. History Workshop Journal 72 :258–267, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbr055
Iggers,G G. (1997). Historiography in the twentieth century: From scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge. Wesleyan University Press.
Jay,L; Reisman,A. (2019). Teaching change and continuity with historical analogies. Social Studies Research and Practice 14 (1) :98–104, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-03-2019-0020
Kashatus,W C. (1990). ‘Forging a link with our past’: The responsibility of teaching American history. The History Teacher 24 (1) :113–119, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/494210
Keefe,T E; Berg,C W. (2022). ‘I want to touch the world’: Responsive curricular reform in post-secondary humanities. World History Connected 19 (2) :1–24, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13021/whc.v19i2.3303
Kerber,L K. (2015). Why history matters. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 36 (1) :6–11, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/fro.2015.a576865
Körber,A. (2016). Translation and its discontents II: A German perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 48 (4) :440–456, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1171401
Kreider,J I. (1937). Why study history?. The Social Studies 28 (6) :243–244, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1934.11016191
Kross,J; Giust,A M. (2019). Elements of research questions in relation to qualitative inquiry. The Qualitative Report 24 (1) :24–30, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3426
Lacquement,R A. (2019). Analogical thinking: The sine qua non for using history well. Parameters 49 (1) :59–68, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2863
Letizia,A J. (2016). Writing about the past is essential for the future: Fostering student writing for citizenship in K-12 and community college classrooms. The History Teacher 49 (2) :219–240.
Lévesque,S. (2011). Clark,P(ed.), What it means to think historically. New possibilities for the past: Shaping history education in Canada. University of British Columbia Press, pp.115–138.
Lim,W M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal 33 (2) :199–229, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
Lin,A. (2015). Citizenship education in American schools and its role in developing civic engagement: A review of the research. Educational Review 67 (1) :35–63, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.813440
Low,A D. (1948). Why study history?. Journal of Education 131 (9) :270–272, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002205744813100904
Lumen Learning Waymaker Courseware. (n.d.). United States History I, https://lumenlearning.com/courses/us-history-i/.
MacIntyre,I; Clark,A; Mason,A. (2004). The history wars. Melbourne University Publishing.
Masur,L P. (2019). Why history matters: Making a persuasive case. The Chronicle of Higher Education 65 (19) https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-history-matters/.
Martell,C C. (2013). Learning to teach history as interpretation: A longitudinal study of beginning teachers. Journal of Social Studies Research 37 (1) :17–31, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2012.12.001
McCully,G E. (1978). History begins at home. The History Teacher 11 (4) :497–507, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/492545
McNeill,W H. (1985). Why study history?. American Historical Association, https://www.historians.org/resource/why-study-history/.
Mehlinger,H D. (1988). The reform of social studies and the role of the National Commission of Social Studies. The History Teacher 21 (2) :195–206, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/493581
Miguel-Revilla,D. (2021). What is history education good for? A comparative analysis of students’ conceptions about the relevance of history. Journal of Curriculum Studies 54 (1) :70–84, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1896784
Miles,J; Gibson,L. (2022). Rethinking presentism in history education. Theory & Research in Social Education 50 (4) :509–529, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2115959
Miles,M B; Huberman,M A; Saldaña,J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 4th ed. Sage Publications.
Monte-Sano,C. (2016). Argumentation in history classrooms: A key path to understanding the discipline and preparing citizens. Theory into Practice 55 :311–319, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208068
Moussa-Inaty,J. (2015). Reflective writing through the use of guiding questions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 27 (1) :104–113.
Muertterties,C C. (2022). What kind of global citizen? A framework for best practices in world history civic education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 17 (2) :103–121, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17461979211038502
Nicoll,G D. (1969). Why study history?. The Educational Forum 33 (2) :193–199, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131726909338841
Nowell,L S; Norris,J M; White,D E; Moules,N J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 :1–13, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Nuttall,D. (2021). What is the purpose of studying history? Developing students’ perspectives on the purposes and value of history education. History Education Research Journal 18 (1) :89–108, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/HERJ.18.1.06
Patterson,T; Torsney,B. (2021). Does preparing citizens matter? Examining the value of civicmindedness in pre-service teachers. Journal of Social Studies Research 45 :211–226, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2020.12.002
Patton,M Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Sage Publications.
Paul,H. (2022). Historians’ virtues: From antiquity to the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.
Pettit,E. (2018). Why are students ditching the history major?. The Chronicle of Higher Education, November262018 https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-are-students-ditching-the-history-major/.
Rahman,M S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language ‘testing and assessment’ research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning 6 (1) :102–112, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Reisman,A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction 30 (1) :86–112, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.634081
Reisman,A; Wineburg,S. (2008). Teaching the skill of contextualizing in history. The Social Studies 99 (5) :202–207, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.99.5.202-207
Sandahl,J. (2015). Civic consciousness: A viable concept for advancing students’ ability to orient themselves to possible futures. Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness, Historical Cultures, and History Education 2 (1) :1–15.
Sandhu,S; Harris,R; Copsey-Blake,M. (2023). School history, identity and ethnicity: An examination of the experiences of young adults in England. Journal of Curriculum Studies 55 (2) :153–170, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2184212
Seixas,P. (2006). Sandwell,R(ed.), What is historical consciousness?. To the past: History education, public memory, and citizenship in Canada. University of Toronto Press, pp.11–22.
Seixas,P. (2012). Progress, presence, and historical consciousness: Confronting past, present, and future in postmodern time. Paedagogica Historica 48 (6) :859–872, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2012.709524
Seixas,P; Morton,T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Nelson.
Sheehan,M. (2011). ‘Historical significance’ in the senior curriculum. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 46 (2) :35–45.
Sloan,W D. (1993). Why study history?. American Journalism 10 (3–4) :6–10, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08821127.1993.10731528
Smith,C. (2022). How the word is passed: A reckoning with the history of slavery across America. Little, Brown, and Company.
Stearns,P N. (1998). Why study history?. American Historical Association, https://www.historians.org/resource/why-study-history-1998/.
Stice,E. (2023). With academic history in crisis, can departments pivot to reach interested audiences?. History News Network, January152023 https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/with-academic-history-in-crisis-can-departments-pi.
Stricker,F. (1992). Why history? Thinking about the uses of the past. The History Teacher 25 (3) :293–312, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/494242
Taylor,T, Guyver,RR(ed s .), . (2012). History wars and the classroom: Global perspectives. Information Age Publishing.
Teaford,J. (1973). Why study history?. The Social Studies 64 (4) :164–169, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1943.11019267
VanSledright,B A. (1997). And Santayana lives on: Students’ views on the purposes for studying American history. Journal of Curriculum Studies 29 (5) :529–557, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002202797183892
Van Straaten,D; Wilschut,A; Oostdam,R. (2018). Measuring students’ appraisals of the relevance of history: The construction and validation of the Relevance of History Measurement Scale (RHMS). Studies in Educational Evaluation 56 :102–111, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.002
Van Straaten,D; Wilschut,A; Oostdam,R. (2019). Connecting past and present through case-comparison learning in history: Views of teachers and students. Journal of Curriculum Studies 51 (5) :643–663, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1558457
Veidlinger,J. (2023). How to bring history to the masses – and why it matters. Liberal Education, :8–10. https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/humanities-in-the-public-square.
Ward,P L. (1974). Why history?. The History Teacher 7 (2) :183–191, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/491791
Whitehouse,J. (2005). Critical thinking in the humanities. Educational Practice and Theory 27 (1) :83–93, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7459/ept/27.1.06
Wineburg,S. (2018). Why learn history? (When it is on our phones). University of Chicago Press.
Wood,B E; Sheehan,M. (2021). Transformative disciplinary learning in history and social studies: Lessons from a high autonomy curriculum in New Zealand. The Curriculum Journal 32 :495–509, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/curj.87
Yin,R K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). 5th ed. Sage Publications.
Ylimaki,R M; Wilmers,A. (2021). Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges to education (Bildung) and citizenry in the modern nation state: Comparative perspectives on Germany and the USA. European Educational Research Journal 20 (3) :257–277, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14749041211004659