To get oriented to how maps can be used to teach history and begin exploring links to relevant websites, this newsletter can be a useful first stop. You will find links to videos of teachers using historical maps, checklists for what to focus on when teaching with maps, reviews of best practices, and links to teaching modules. The fundamental idea behind these resources is that geography can provide the context for sophisticated historical thinking if students are encouraged to actively think about what maps show and why they show it.

One of the clearest rationales for using maps to teach history that I have seen can be found in a recent book by David Rumsey(1) and Meredith Williams entitled Historical Maps in GIS. The authors argue that:

Historical maps often hold information retained by no other written source, such as place-names, boundaries, and physical features that have been modified or erased by modern development. Historical maps capture the attitudes of those who made them and represent worldviews of their time.

Geographic Information System (GIS) is an exciting new tool for history and geography educators that has been the focus of some recent research. If this is of interest you might begin your exploration of the benefits of using GIS by reading "Using GIS to Answer the 'Whys' of 'Where' in Social Studies" by Marsha Alibranadi and Herschel M. Sarnoff. In the article, the authors discuss not only the pedagogical and social benefits of using GIS, but also use real classroom examples to reflect on the challenges that the technology poses.

The most recent research on using maps to teach traditional geography that I could find was Ava L. McCall's "Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps in Elementary Classrooms" published in The Social Studies. The critical thinking that is promoted by this work is very similar to contextualized historical thinking. This is a key point. One of the difficulties in finding research on using maps in history education is that researchers often aren't looking for the dynamic recursive relationships between history and geography that are critical to both disciplines. For instance, studies might show how to develop map-reading skills, but they rarely show how to interrogate the map as a document as a means of determining why it was created and for whom, or how it helps us understand the past. There is very little research using this orientation to historical and geographical relationships.

Depending on your specific research interests, you may want to consult the following resources. You may not have access to all of the materials but if you see something of interest you can contact your librarian. Or you may try a trial membership. The large national database on educational research can be accessed here. Two journals (Theory and Research in Social Education and The History Teacher) devoted to history and social educational research can be accessed here and here. And finally, if you are interested in international research in geography education you may want to look at the Review of International Geographic Education Online or back issues of the journal Research in Geographic Education.

Good luck with your research and let us know if you discover anything.

Exploring multiple perspectives (which is known as "multiperspectivity" in parts of Europe) requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of a historical event. In recent decades scholars and educators have begun to question the validity of singular (one-sided) historical narratives. Instead of just focusing on dominant groups and communities, they recommend employing multiple perspectives. One reason for this stems from increasing diversity and cultural pluralism, since many groups—women, the poor, ethnic minorities, etc.—have been ignored in traditional historical narratives.

Another reason is disciplinary. After all, good historians don’t just settle for one perspective on a historical issue—they piece together many (sometimes competing) versions of a story to construct an accurate interpretation. As Ann Low-Beer explains, "In history, multiple perspectives are usual and have to be tested against evidence, and accounted for in judgments and conclusions."

Here's an instance of using multiple perspectives: When studying the voyages of discovery, students would not only learn about explorers like Columbus, but about the peoples who had been "discovered." Historian Jon Wiener, writing in American History 101 in Slate magazine, offers the following example:

In the case of Reconstruction. . . I focus [on] the three most significant [perspectives]: the Northern Radicals, who shaped federal policy and who wanted to bring the former slaves into the economy of the free market, as wage earners, and into the political system, as voters; the Southern planter elite, who wanted to preserve as much of the old plantation labor system as possible; and the former slaves themselves. Their understanding of freedom was, as Eric Foner has written, "shaped by their experiences as slaves." Freedom for them meant freedom to work for themselves—economic autonomy and access to land. This argument shows the freedmen defining their own interests, in conflict with the federal government, which claimed to represent them. Thus, instead of giving students a list of facts and dates to memorize, I would ask them to conceive of what's happening as a three-sided conflict over the meaning of freedom.

Consequently, for Wiener, "students end up learning not just about what happened during Reconstruction, but about how history itself gets reconstructed."

If not yet universal, this approach is widely accepted. In its most recent Position Statement, the National Council for the Social Studies in the United States recommended students learn to "think critically, and make personal and civic decisions based on information from multiple perspectives."

So what can a classroom teacher do? Try incorporating primary sources that represent a range of views on a historical issue. Then, ask students to spend some time thinking about why different groups may see the same event in different ways. Oftentimes a different story emerges when those multiple perspectives are put together. The result is enriched historical understanding.