Why study history?

An examination of
undergraduate students’ notions and
perceptions about history
Christopher W. Berg
Walden University, USA

ABSTRACT: History was once prized in public education but, over time, has slowly fallen to the
fringes of the curriculum. Many institutions have struggled to solicit and maintain student interest
in history majors and many students merely take “history” as a general education or liberal
arts elective. The reasons explored here for why students should study history are myriad and
include acquiring knowledge and critical thinking skills, developing citizenship, and providing
“lessons” for the present. The literature on “Why Study History?” almost exclusively focuses
on secondary education resulting in a gap in the literature exploring students’ attitudes and
beliefs about the subject. This article examines a sample of 26 undergraduate students’ notions
and perceptions about history through a survey questionnaire and open-ended questions. The most
significant themes were “Lessons of History” and “History has Questionable Value.” The findings
are discussed within the conceptual frameworks of McNeill (1985) and Stearns (1998).
Recommendations for future research are also explored.
KEYWORDS: Why study history; purpose of history; citizenship; distance learning; history
education; social studies education

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history”

—Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1862

“There is nothing to be learned from history any more. We’re in science fiction now.”
—Allen Ginsberg, qtd. in After the Wake (1980)

Introduction
A feature titled, “Major Renovations: Reviving Undergraduate History at Sam Houston State
University” ran in the November 2017 edition of the American Historical Association’s
Perspectives on History. The author, Brian Domitrovic, was former Chair of the history
department and, coincidentally, my former professor who served as an examiner on my
comprehensive committee. The challenge that Sam Houston State University (USA)
experienced was one felt by history departments across the country—a noticeable decline in
history majors. But the tide could shift back in their favor, they imagined, if they “engaged their
[students’] sheer fascination with history” (para. 5). The key Domitrovic and his colleagues in
the history department found was connecting with “students at their level of [historical] interest”
and showing, rather than telling, why history is a worthy academic pursuit (para. 13). By

PLEASE CITE AS: 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.
ISSN 2203 7543 | © Author | This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Publication Date: 15 August 2019 | Available Online: http://hej.hermes-history.net
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 55

opening lines of communication and dialogue through public outreach, redefining history
education, and recalibrating the department to align with evolving student interests and needs
led to increased enrollment figures. “It’s a great time to be involved in a history department,”
Domitrovic observed, “because there is a beautiful problem to solve: how to restore history to
its rightful, sturdy position among majors at our many institutions of higher learning” (para.
15).
Concern about one institution’s enrollment figures is, in and of itself, unremarkable, but, in
the above case, it is symptomatic of a larger problem—what value does history hold for twenty-
first-century students? This question—why study history?—is not new nor is it unique to the
United States. The study of history can be contentious and controversial, and, in a postmodern
age, historical matters are of the greatest importance as they infiltrate every nook and cranny of
public and private life (Evans, 2009; MacIntyre, Clark, & Mason, 2004; Taylor & Guyver,
2012). History matters but it is our duty and obligation to make the merits and virtues of
historical study accessible to students today. The problem is that history has slowly moved to
the periphery of the curriculum and, in many cases, is no longer a general education college
requirement. In some cases, history is listed as an elective and, often, a course in history is not
required for a college degree (Anderson, 2016; Belkin, 2014; Markowicz, 2017). This trend is
alarming because, as Sam Wineburg argued in Why Learn History? (When it’s Already on Your
Phone) (2018), critical thinking is conspicuously absent “in our Google-drenched society”
where information is passively accepted with a click rather than investigated or questioned (p.
3). The purpose of this article is to consider the scholarship on “why study history?” and explore
the beliefs and notions of a sample of undergraduate history students in light of the literature.
The research questions that guided this study were:
Q1: What learning outcomes or skills do students value in a historical education?
Q2: How does studying history facilitate effective citizenship?

Conceptual framework
The American Historical Association (AHA) commissioned two recognized historians to
ponder and reflect on why history is a viable course of study and a useful apparatus for the
public good. So profound and timely were their explorations on the subject that they have been
archived on the AHA’s website and are readily accessible through a general Google search.
William McNeill’s (1985) and Peter Stearns’ (1998) frameworks illustrate two complementary
perspectives. There is some overlap in how each historian categorizes their choices in each
respective framework, e.g., “collective identity” and “provides identity,” and “historical
understanding” and “moral understanding,” but, there are subtle differences in phrasing leading
to different emphases (micro- versus macro-historical scales, for example) and, potentially,
different conclusions and interpretations. Taken together, these frameworks provide a well-
rounded lens for analyzing and understanding scholars’ and students’ justifications and
rationales for studying history. Table 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of both frameworks.

Literature review
The documentation used in this review was retrieved from specific searches of JSTOR, SAGE,
and Taylor & Francis databases as they house journals dedicated to history and social studies
education. Several articles were accessed via Inter-Library Loan. A general Google search was
conducted for any open access articles that might be available but, unfortunately, none were
located. Descriptors and key phrases used in database searches included “why study history,”
“purpose of history,” “why history,” and “study history.” Two seminal texts that have become
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 56

classics in the philosophy of history are R. G. Collingwood’s The Idea of History (1946) and E.
H. Carr’s What is History? (1961). A discussion on the methods, purpose, and rationales for
studying history would be incomplete without their consideration.

McNeill (1985) Stearns (1998)

1. Collective memory 1. Understand people/societies

importance in our own lives
2. Historical knowledge and
understanding • History is beautiful
3. Level I: Personal-local • Storytelling
4. Level II: National History • Reconstruct the past
5. Level III: Global 2. Moral understanding
• Practical wisdom 3. Provides identity
• History for its own sake 4. Essential for good citizenship
• Novice to Expert 5. Skill acquisition
• Assess evidence
• Assess conflicting
interpretations
• Experience in assessing past
examples of change
6. Transferable skills

Table 1. McNeill-Stearns Framework

The American context: History, the Social Studies, and the politicization of history
Within the American context, the literature on why one should study history can be traced back
to the 1930s, often, following national crises, such as the post-Depression, World War II, and
the Vietnam War (Berg & Christou, 2017). The literature, especially from the mid- and late-
twentieth century, reveals that much of the debate concerned justifying the study of history
against its nemesis, the social studies, and reaffirming history’s preeminence in the public-
school curriculum (Berg & Christou, 2017; Evans, 2006; 2009; Kreider, 1937). The debate
between history and the social studies has spilled over into the political arena and the court of
public opinion. History’s purpose and substance is no longer a purely academic question
relating to classroom studies; rather, a firm understanding of history is deemed essential in
deciphering political discourse on the misappropriation of history by private interests,
redefining what history is for political purposes, and the threat they pose to public education
(Loewen, 2007; 2009; Wineburg, 2018).
Textbook controversies accompanied the History Wars in the United States since the
infamous Rugg controversy in the 1930s (Evans, 2006). History textbooks have garnered more
critical attention in recent years (Lee, 2013; Loewen, 2009; Martell & Hashimoto, 2012; Pearcy,
2011). Two influential studies, Anyon’s Ideology and United States History Textbooks (1979)
and Apple’s Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age (1993),
revealed the ideological framing and influence of American history textbooks. Several
significant studies followed Anyon’s and Apple’s lead and found the inescapable influence of
ideology (Neumann, 2012; Roberts, 2014), political propaganda (Lachmann & Mitchell, 2014),
and corporate influence (Neumann, 2014) has continued unabated in the content of history
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 57

textbooks. Some critics have called for the removal of textbooks from the history curriculum.
The language used in the titles of two of Loewen’s popular books - Lies my Teacher Told Me:
Everything Your American History Textbook got Wrong (2007), and Teaching What Really
Happened: How to Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks and Get Students Excited about Doing
History Again (2009) - are an overt attempt to politicize the flawed content of history textbooks
and create a grassroots movement for their removal.
In recent years, organizations such as the American Historical Association (AHA) have
made a concerted effort to address the importance and value of history as a school subject and
in practical life (McNeill, 1985; Stearns, 1998). Because the debate has taken on a significant
political dimension, understanding the purpose of history as a school subject and as a means for
living a good life have become more important. “Strange that an activity [history] receiving
such broad recognition as being fundamental should need such constant buttressing!” (Nicoll,
1969, p. 193). In recent years, educational governing bodies began recognizing the significance
of primary sources in history and social studies education by establishing historical thinking
benchmarks (NCSS, 2013) and Common Core literacy standards (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) directly
tied to exploring historical documents.

Virtues of historical study

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. One reason most
scholars agree on is the importance of history for promoting citizenship (Bentley, 2007; Fumat,
1997; McCully, 1978; Stricker, 1992). Cultivating and promoting an ethical and moral system,
whether as an individual or a corporate member of society, is another reason to study history
(Bentley, 2007; Andress; 1997; Kreider, 1937). The study of history as a means for providing
relevance in the present was noted in much of the literature (Carr, 1961; Gray, 2005; Nicoll,
1969; Teaford, 1971) as was history’s ability to teach students lessons (Durant, 2014; Glassie,
1992; Stricker, 1994) or analogies to “illuminate the present and guide the future” (Andress,
1997, p. 312).
History is an effective mechanism for promoting personal and collective/national identity
(Bohnstedt, 1971; Low, 1948; Hunt, 2011; McCully; 1978). Collingwood (1946) observed that
“history is ‘for’ human self-knowledge” (p. 10) and cultivating and nurturing good judgment,
understanding, and wisdom are a natural outcome of studying the past (Bentley, 2007; Kreider,
1937; Sloan, 1993). The revelatory outcome Collingwood noted requires an “imaginative
understanding,” as Carr (1961) described it, of the historical past (p. 20). “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). The study of the past should help us to live better
in the present and prepare for the future: “The function of the historian [or student of history]
is…to master and understand it [history] as the key to the understanding of the present” (p. 29).
The pinnacle of historical inquiry is “when [our] vision of the past is illuminated by insights
into the problems of the present” (Carr, 1961, p. 44).
What is more, a student’s creative center—their imagination—is exercised as they engage
in historical study (Carr, 1961; Collingwood, 1946; Low, 1948; McCully, 1978; Teaford, 1971).
As the medievalist Norman Cantor (1967) observed, “history is worth studying because it is a
creative act” that “demands…the exercise of a creative imagination” (p. 3). The study of history
is also fun, providing a sophisticated venue for entertainment (Glassie, 1992; Kreider, 1937;
Teaford, 1971). And, as many scholars argued, history is worthy of study for its own sake
(Bohnstedt, 1971; Gray, 2005; Sloan, 1993).
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 58

Barriers to history
Teaching methods and curricular choices have long been identified by many scholars as barriers
to the study of history (Collingwood, 1946). While there are exemplars of good history teaching
(Hunt, 2011), the literature suggests that history teaching is problematic (Berg & Christou,
2017). The emphasis upon rote memorization of dates and facts have led many to conclude that
history has little practical value outside of test-taking (Durant, 2014; Nicoll, 1969). A secondary,
but no less important, barrier is the history academy. Teaford (1971) recognized that today’s
students are tomorrow’s leaders and failing to inspire and model the merits of historical study
in meaningful ways only alienates an educated citizenry (Wineburg, 1991; 2018).
While historical organizations, such as the AHA, have heeded Teaford’s ominous warning
by establishing collaborative partnerships with teacher-training programs throughout the United
States, and government-sponsored initiatives, such as the discontinued Teaching American
History grant program providing professional development opportunities for K-12 teachers, we
are in jeopardy of, once again, sliding into a position of complacency and indifference (Berg &
Christou, 2017; Ragland, 2015). This is especially the case in higher education where, as Nicoll
(1969) observed, “the professor in the school of higher learning…has a significant place in the
scheme” of promoting historical appreciation and literacy (p. 244).
According to Nicoll (1969), instructors and professors alike are “indispensable” (p. 244) as
gatekeepers of historical knowledge, entrusted with unpacking the historical past in a way that
resonates with today’s student that, hopefully, extends beyond their time in the classroom (Fogo,
2015; Hong & Hamot, 2015; Levy, 2016). A third barrier is the Internet and its ubiquitous role
in teaching and learning today (Wineburg, 2018). With information only a click away, students
are confronted with an overwhelming amount of information but lack the critical thinking
apparatus to distinguish credible from questionable sources. “The Internet…presents challenges
so daunting,” Wineburg (2018) argues, “that…it can spin trained historians in circles and make
talented undergraduates look downright silly” (p. 175).
There is a gap in the literature looking at the higher education (post-secondary) setting and
why students should study history. The majority of the studies examined in this review
pertained to secondary education (grades 6-12) in the United States with only a few that
considered the higher education context (college/university). Furthermore, while there were
some studies that explored student perspectives from a secondary education perspective there
are no studies that this author is aware of exploring higher education students’ perspectives of
why they should study history. In order to become effective history teachers and empower an
educated citizenry to see the value of history in and outside of the classroom, we must
understand the evolving needs of our audience.

Methods
A qualitative design was used to explore the experiences and perspectives of college students
through an anonymous survey. Several questions of the survey collected background data on
respondents. Building on the contextual data gleaned from respondents’ background, the
remaining questions explored student perceptions and understanding of the value of history in
and outside of the classroom. Response data were analyzed and thematized using the McNeill-
Stearns framework on “Why study history?” listed in Table 1. Survey data and open-ended
questions were used to “provide meaningful additional detail to help make sense out of and
interpret survey results” (Patton, 2014, p. 230). The questions used in the survey were field-
tested by five experts in the fields of history, history education, and social studies education.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 59

The survey consisted of eleven questions. The first six questions (Q) of the survey requested
background data on respondents, such as how many online courses have been taken, gender,
age, traditional or non-traditional (adult) student, and current year in college. The last five were
semi-structured, and open-ended:
Q7: What comes to mind when you think of “History?”
Q8: To what extent does knowing history play a role (e.g. as a frame of reference) in everyday life
(when you watch the news, meet new people, encounter new experiences)? Likert scale response.
Q9: Why should we (i.e., human beings) study history? What benefit(s) do we gain, if any?
Q10: Does the study of “History” prepare you for citizenship? If so, how?
Q11: What value does the study of “History” hold for you: a) in your studies? Please explain.; b) in
your personal life? Likert scale response. Please explain.

Setting and procedures

Participants were drawn from two public state colleges in the southeastern United States. These
institutions grant associate and bachelor’s degrees and serve approximately 50,000 students on-
ground and online. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was received from both
institutions before students were recruited in July 2018. The IRB boards approved the
recruitment letter used as a Canvas (the learning management system) course announcement
and the form of an incentive to interested participants—ten bonus points applied to a discussion
forum of their choosing.
The recruitment sites were chosen because of the diversity and representation of online
students in the region as well as using my own classroom to conduct the surveys. The survey
was administered using SurveyMonkey. The Canvas course announcement of the recruitment
letter was posted in the following four online course sections in July 2018: one section of “U.S.
history until 1865” and three sections of “History of World Civilizations, ca. 1815-Present”
were sampled. These were all general survey courses and met the general education
requirements from both institutions. The U.S. history survey had approximately 30 students
enrolled whereas the rest had approximately 25 students for an approximate total of 80 initially-
registered students with a 32.5% response rate. The survey was closed during mid-July 2018.

Findings and discussion

For students to be considered for this study, they had to meet the following criteria: are 18 years
of age or older, affirmed Informed Consent, and participated in at least one online course. When
reviewing the data, one respondent’s responses were duplicated and only the first series of
responses were included in data analysis. All responses, aside from the duplication, were used
as data in the analysis stage.

What comes to mind when you think of “History?”

Student responses to this question were scattered. The most responses (n = 6) were themed as
the “Distant/Remote Past.” Responses ranged from “old times” to “the past.” The themes of
“Peoples/Cultures” (n = 3), “Great Man Theory” (n = 2), and “Miscellaneous” (n = 4) did not
reveal any substantive content and were often generic or one-word responses, such as Student
1’s “storytelling” and Student 16’s “wars.” The majority of students did not touch on factors
discussed in the literature or reference concepts from McNeill’s (1985) or Stearns’ (1998)
frameworks.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 60

Traditional history
One interesting, but minor, finding was the theme of “Traditional History” (n = 2) where
Student 14 noted “long readings” and Student 15 commented “dates, people, events, knowledge”
as representative of “history.” Traditional history has been the source of considerable scholarly
critique and debate and is often seen as a barrier to good history teaching (Berg & Christou,
2017; Martell, 2013; Schul, 2015; Virgin, 2014). Pulitzer-prize winning author Will Durant
(2014) eloquently argued:
History as it is typically studied in schools—history as a dreary succession of dates and kings, of
politics and wars, of the rise and fall of states—this kind of history is verily weariness of the flesh,
stale and flat and unprofitable. No wonder so few students in school are drawn to it; no wonder so
few of us learn any lessons from the past. (p. 156).

Lessons of history
Several students touched on “Lessons of History” (n = 3) as well as “Relevance” (n = 3) and
“Historical Understanding” (n = 3). These three themes corroborate those found in the literature.
Further, student responses tended to be more developed; for example, Student 3 said “Usually
WWII is the first thing that comes to mind, but also just life in general from the past, and how
much it’s changed now.” When some students thought about “history,” they often thought about
how history is a tool for learning from past experiences and/or mistakes and learning from them
(Andress, 1997; Durant, 1968/2010; Glassie, 1994; Stricker, 1992). A few students observed
that the purpose of the past is to inform the present (Carr, 1961; Gray, 2005; Nicoll, 1969). As
Student 6 offered, “When I think of the word “History,” I think of past events that affected my
present-day life” or, as Student 8 shared, “things that make us who we are today.” For these
students, history’s purpose is to help them better understand the world they live in and prepare
for the future (Seixas & Morton, 2013; Sheehan, 2011). This finding aligns with a national
online survey facilitated by the Historical Association (UK) which queried 544 teachers about
a proposed revision of the national curriculum and a shared concern amongst many respondents
was the relevance of material for students (Harris & Burn, 2016). Teachers are interested in
making history accessible and students, as this present study illustrates, are interested in
learning the means for appropriating history in relevant ways (Schul, 2015). A few responses
hinted at historical understanding, but one student showed mature historical reasoning: when
they thought of “History,” they thought about “everything in the past that has contributed to the
Earth and how it has evolved” (Student 9). Though each response themed as “Historical
Understanding” varied in its language, each of the responses demonstrated a heightened sense
of historical consciousness (Bentley, 2007; Carr, 1961; McNeill, 1985; Stearns, 1998).
Here, it is important to clarify certain terms that are commonplace in history education:
historical thinking, historical understanding, and historical consciousness. Laville (2004)
suggests that historical thinking “is a set of thought processes and attitudes, that taken together,
recreate the intellectual apparatus of the historian” (p. 173). Historical understanding,
meanwhile, is the process by which meaning and value are discovered and extracted from a
given historical artefact and are contextualized within the larger historical narrative (Laville,
2004). The term “historical consciousness,” however, has a “diversity of conceptual usages”
that are influenced by academic traditions and national contexts (Körber, 2016, p. 442). Seixas
(2006) could not “imagine a better definition” than the following: “the intersection among
public memory, citizenship, and history education” (p. 15). A broader definition is provided by
Wineburg (2007) and his colleagues who suggest historical consciousness is a result “of a
complex interplay between home, community, school, and the historicizing forces of popular
culture” (Wineburg, Mosberg, Porat, & Duncan, 2007, p. 44). We should seek to better
understand these various strands of historical consciousness rather than try to oversimply them
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 61

in a quest to neatly define the concept in universal terms, according to Körber (2016). In North
America, for example, historical consciousness diverges from its German counterpart:
Anglo-Saxon research and discussion about history teaching, however, is not based so strongly on
a complex theoretical concept as the German historical consciousness, but is rather pragmatically
focused on different aspects of student’s own historical thinking and on the question of progression
in historical learning. (Körber, 2016, p. 444).
What Körber (2016) is describing above is a concept articulated by Wineburg (2001) in
Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past, as
“mature historical thought” (p. 5), “mature historical understanding” (p. 7) and “mature
historical knowing” (p. 24). “Achieving mature historical thought,” Wineburg concludes,
“depends precisely on our ability to navigate the uneven landscape of history, to traverse the
rugged terrain that lies between the poles of familiarity and distance from the past” (p. 5).

To what extent does knowing history play a role (e.g. as a frame of reference) in everyday
life (when you watch the news, meet new people, encounter new experiences)?

This question was framed as a five-point Likert scale ranging from “none at all” at one end, to
a great deal” at the other end. The responses were evenly distributed between “a great deal” (n
= 13) and “a lot” (n = 13).

Relevance
All responses heavily acknowledged history’s pivotal role in everyday life. Stricker (1992)
argued that “the value of historical study must be an enduring question…” and the findings in
this study support that claim (p. 293). Responses recognized the importance of history in
everyday life, because, as Gray (2005) concluded, “knowledge of the past is an essential part
of our attempts to understand the present” (p. 155). The relationship between the “present” and
the “past” is reciprocal, according to Carr (1961), because “the past is intelligible to us only in
the light of the present; and we can fully understand the present only in the light of the past” (p.
69). The data suggest that knowledge of history is a practical asset in twenty-first-century living.

Why should we (i.e., human beings) study history? What benefit(s) do we gain, if any?

Lessons of history
In response to this question, respondents (n = 13) believed that history’s primary benefit was
providing lessons for living in the present. Student responses evidenced patterns in specific key
words, such as “learn”, which was used seven times, and “mistakes,” which was cited ten times.
Several responses transcended simple classification and were cross-listed, as appropriate. For
example, Student 22 commented, “We study history to learn from the past to help shape the future
and to have an understanding of self and where the society is coming from.” This response was
themed under “Self-Knowledge” and “Lessons of History.” The data revealed that students found
the theme of “Lessons of History” to be the most powerful benefit and rationale for studying history.
This finding aligns with the literature (Andress, 1997; Carr, 1961; Rüsen, 2004; 2007). But, as one
scholar has noted, gleaning lessons from the past 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 matrix or model for meaning-making in the present. Rüsen’s (2004;
2007) “disciplinary matrix” is arguably the most promising model, as Retz (2015) argued, for
exploring traditional historical consciousness, with its comprehensive set of criteria. The
complexity and focus of the model coupled with theoretical rigor and scientific presuppositions
might put it out of reach of ordinary college instructors who require a model that is accessible and
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 62

user-friendly (Berg, 2017). Promoting disciplined historical thinking and developing a conscious
recognition of the threat of presentism are two strategies for applying historical lessons in context
(Counsell, 2004; Fogo, 2015; Lowenthal, 2000).

Does the study of “History” prepare you for citizenship? If so, how?

Stearns’ (1998) conceptual framework draws attention to the role history plays in fostering and
sustaining citizenship. Responses from the survey, however, were a mixture revealing a
diversity of beliefs about history’s connection to facilitating citizenship. A considerable portion
of responses (n = 11) agreed that history plays a role in effecting citizenship. Several responses
(n = 5) misunderstood the question and a percentage (n = 4) provided neither a direct “yes” or
“no” to the question. Three responses used the phraseology “in a way…” to preface their
remarks, while two respondents believed that history did not produce tangible results in
citizenship and another response was uncertain.

History promotes active and engaged citizenship

One sophisticated response provided contextualization and a rationale for history’s communi-
cative power relative to citizenship:
The study of history does prepare me for citizenship because history taught me a lot about what it
means to be a good citizen. For example, woman [sic] back then couldn’t vote, but now woman [sic]
can. This shows me I should never be lazy when voting—that I always should because woman [sic]
back then fought for the right for me to vote. (Student 6).
Like Student 6, another showed a remarkable grasp of the interconnectedness of citizenship and
historical consciousness: “Yes, history prepares us to learn more about the past in the country
we live in,” Student 16 reflected, but, more importantly, “Citizens understand that we are a
product of a past but, at the same time, that we are building, from the present, our future.” A
deeper understanding of the interplay between historical study and citizenship, according to
Hunt (2001), is important because “If students are to mature into citizens, they need to know
their past…” (p. 263). Our understanding of the relationship between citizenship and historical
consciousness, however, remains unexplored and undertheorized in North American contexts,
e.g., the United States (Seixas, 2016). Seixas (2016) attributes this to a possible incompatibility
between the positionalities of German and Anglophone historical consciousness. In response to
Seixas’ (2016) claim, Körber (2016) argued that variants of historical consciousness are
peculiar to certain academic traditions, linguistics, and national contexts. These different
incarnations reveal, rather than obscure, emergent historical consciousness in diverse settings.
The scholarly literature is filled with admonitions for historical instruction to inculcate
effective citizenship training (Bentley, 2007; Fumat, 1997; Teaford, 1973). “What should
concern us more than the failure of school history,” McCully (1978) warned, “is the failure of
schools to educate and civilize our children” (p. 499). The primary function of history
instruction, for many scholars, is the development of engaged and educated citizens. Nicoll
(1969) concurred, noting, “Most Americans know that the goal of teaching history in our
schools is ‘the good citizen’” (p. 193). A “good citizen” is a desirable consequence of a good
historical education, Nicoll believed, but how should we define or recognize such an individual?
One suggestion, offered by Bohnstedt (1971), describes the culmination of a sound historical
education leading to the individual becoming a “Sophisticated thinker and citizen—a truly
educated person” (p. 65). The findings suggest that a notable percentage of respondents
believed there was a connection between studying history and citizenship, while a significant
percentage were less certain of that relationship or misunderstood the question altogether.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 63

What value does the study of “History” hold for you in your studies? Please explain.

This question, made up of Likert scale responses and elaborations on those initial Likert
responses, considered the value of history in students’ education, in general. A five-point Likert
scale ranging from “none at all” at one end to “a great deal” at the other end was used. Close to
half of the responses noted “a great deal” (n = 7) and “a lot” (n = 5) relative to value but the
largest claim among respondents was “a moderate amount” in terms of the value that history
provided them (n = 9). A smaller percentage observed that historical study provided “a little”
(n = 4) value and one response noted “none at all.” Themes included lessons of history and
history has questionable value with associated themes of understanding, relevance, and
perspective.

Lessons of history
A significant number of responses (n = 10) demonstrated the power of learning lessons from
the past and their value in the present. Many of these lessons, too, were professionally relevant
for students outside of history, including students studying criminal justice, public management,
and nursing. Student 24, for instance, said, “It helps me greatly because it will tell me things
that I never knew happened to law enforcement or criminal justice at those different times” and
“In my criminal classes, it is good to know the background of criminalities in my region and
others” (Student 19). Several students who were in the medical field commented that the study
of history was valuable to their understanding of medical developments over time. “I love
learning about the past and the events that have brought us to where we are now,” noted Student
15. They continued: “Medicine itself has a fascinating history which has taught us many things
over the centuries”. The applications include emergency management and disaster planning, as
Student 17 argued, “emergency management involves learning a lot from past disasters and
how to prepare better.” The literature contends that history is essential to educated citizens from
all walks of life and the eclectic responses to this question confirm that lessons can be culled
from all forms of life experience (Kreider, 1937; McCully, 1978). One of history’s myriad
purposes, therefore, is “for the development of a well-balanced individual” (Low, 1948, p. 271).

History has questionable value

This was a significant finding as a good portion of responses (n = 6) saw little practical value
in the study of history for their chosen major and/or profession. Several responses were
apathetic towards the value of history for their studies. One student, who was a marketing major,
felt history provided no real value, arguing, “I do not feel like I need to study history…”
(Student 10). Similarly, Student 6 agreed, noting, “In my studies, I don’t really see history
affecting it that much.” Some responses noted the benefits of knowing certain aspects of history,
such as Student 20, who observed, “I will need to know certain times when antiseptic techniques
were started, but not much” while others derived a passing degree of amusement: “I find it
interesting to learn about the past, but I do not feel like it is higher in my studies” (Student 12).
In the “Lessons of History” theme, several students found history applicable and, arguably,
necessary to their studies (e.g., criminal justice, medicine, and public administration) but
several of their peers in the present study found history’s value questionable (Students 12 and
20) or nonexistent (Students 3, 6, 9, and 10). The findings of “History has Questionable Value”
theme contrast sharply with the literature which argues that historical study can help students
refine their critical thinking skills (Bentley, 2007; Glassie, 1994; Low, 1948), deepen
disciplinary literacy (Bain, 2012; Girard & Harris, 2012), stimulate their creative energies and
imaginations (Collingwood, 1946; Carr, 1961), acquire transferable skills (Kreider, 1937), and
improve their communication (Sloan, 1993) and reading and writing skills (Monte-Sano & De
La Paz, 2012; Monte-Sano, 2011; Morgan & Rasinski, 2012). Historical study provides
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 64

substantial practical benefits to students that extend beyond the history classroom into other
disciplines and everyday life.

What value does the study of “History” hold for you in your personal life?

Themes included history facilitates personal identity and growth, learning history provides
relevance and entertainment, and, lastly, history has questionable value.

History facilitates personal identity and growth

Half of all responses (n = 13) identified personal connections or interest and identity as valuable
benefits in their everyday lives. One student explained the personal significance of
understanding specific wars to know more about their family history: “I have relatives who
have fought in war and knowing the demographics of where they were and what was going on
during that time is important to me” (Student 14). Student 15 found similar value for making
sense of their identity, remarking, “It teaches me about where I come from, and creates
connections to the past.” Student 22, on the contrary, was candid when they shared how history
shapes their evolving understanding of personal identity through the lens of race:
History in my personal life as a biracial person plays a huge factor. By learning about the past history
of my family it’s interesting because before I was born the different sides of my family hated each
other because of there [sic] physical differences. After learning that I don’t take anything for granted.
The data support the scholarly literature on the connections between historical study and
increasing levels of identity and personal growth. Bentley (2007) persuasively argued that the
study of history “enables human beings to understand themselves and their place in the world”
(para 2) while Fumat (1997) claimed that historical study led to “a better, more controlled,
understanding of his [sic] own culture” (p. 158). “Students should be introduced to the study of
history,” McCully (1978) suggested, “by introducing them to the empirical study of their own
experiences, of their immediate, personal interest” (p. 501). History is important, but it takes
on new significance when viewed through a personal lens.

Learning history provides entertainment and relevance

Several responses (n = 6) saw value in studying history as a means for providing enjoyment,
entertainment, and relevance. Student 9 revealed, “I enjoy learning about history and what has
happened throughout history. It intrigues me and I always catch myself researching past events.”
Relatedly, Student 8 observed, “I like to learn about history very much and would look up
certain things and where it started and where it came from.” One effusive response confessed,
“I just really enjoy learning about history.” The literature confirms the connection between
historical study and its entertainment value (Glassie, 1994; Kreider, 1937). Teaford (1973)
likened historical study to detective work reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes (p. 168). The study
of history, Teaford continued, is dynamic: “Despite its human shortcomings, history can serve
a vital role in the modern world, a role aimed both at enlightening and entertaining the vast
body of mankind” (p. 165). Though history is often considered a serious and solitary discipline,
Glassie (1994) reminds us that “entertainment is not the least of history’s purposes” (p. 966).
Relevance has been noted by scholars as a significant reason for studying history (Carr, 1961;
Gray, 2005; Nicoll, 1969; Teaford, 1973). Student 10 responded, “I like to learn about the past.
I feel that it helps you understand why the world is the way it is today.” Another response
mirrored those of Student 10, commenting, “I feel history is very interesting. I enjoy learning
about previous events that have happened and how we conquered the problems, bringing us to
who we are today” (Student 20). These responses demonstrate the value history brings to the
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 65

present, because, as one historian argued, “understanding the present is impossible without
history” (Stricker, 1992, p. 302).

History has questionable value

A number of responses (n = 4) questioned history’s significance in their personal lives. Student
12, for instance, remarked, “I don't use history in my everyday life, so I don't feel like it is
valued as high for me, but I know that there are some that highly value it and use it.” Even though
this student admitted that history held some value, they recognized that others valued it “highly.”
Student 13 expressed the same sentiment, noting, “i [sic] think it does play a role but a very minimal
role.” One response was specific in history’s limited conversational value, saying it held “Small
value since i [sic] dont [sic] refer to history very often in regular conversation” (Student 7). This
finding is problematic because it is not supported by the general consensus of the findings of this
present study nor by the literature (Bentley, 2007; Carr, 1961; Collingwood, 1946; Gray, 2005;
Hunt, 2011). The scholarly literature is unequivocal in its support of efficacious effects of historical
study. Scholars have imagined a world where history was not studied or valued, sometimes in grim
terms: “For a world without history is a world of narrow-minded intolerance and stifled imagination.
It is a world without knowledge of itself, a world of ignorance” (Teaford, 1973, p. 169). In his book,
The Lessons of History, Will Durant (1968/2010) and his spouse, Ariel, concluded by offering this
haunting, sage, and timeless admonition to future generations:
To those of us who study history not merely as a warning reminder of man’s follies and crimes, but
also as an encouraging remembrance of generative souls, the past ceases to be a depressing chamber
of horrors; it becomes a celestial city, a spacious country of the mind, wherein a thousand saints,
statesmen, investors, scientists, poets, artists, musicians, lovers, and philosophers still live and speak,
teach and carve and sing…If a man is fortunate he will, before he dies, gather up as much as he can
of his civilized heritage and transmit it to his children. And to his final breath he will be grateful for
this inexhaustible legacy, knowing that it is our nourishing mother and our lasting life. (p. 102).

Conclusions
Historians and students share common conceptions about why we should study history
(McNeill, 1985; Stearns, 1998). These include the study of history acting as a change agent in
our lives, that is, teaching us life lessons, encouraging active citizenship, learning more about
ourselves, who we are, and where we come from, and growing as individuals (Carr, 1961;
Glassie, 1994; Stricker, 1992). Several factors discussed in the literature, such as moral
understanding, historical imagination, and history for its own sake, for example, did not
resonate with students in this study (Bentley, 2007; Bohnstedt, 1971; Collingwood, 1946; Gray,
2005). Students overwhelmingly appreciated history as a means for transmitting past lessons,
in relevant ways, to inform the present and guide actions and preparations for the future. The
findings of the present study showed an appreciation and recognition of history’s purpose in
academic and public settings. The literature suggests that history is an excellent teacher
inculcating lessons and wisdom from the past but, within the school setting, traditional history
could be a potential barrier (Berg & Christou, 2017; Martell, 2013; Virgin, 2014). The study of
history enables students to live more purposeful lives through greater self-understanding and
personal growth, a finding supported by the literature (Bentley, 2007; McCully, 1978). There
is a certain fascination with the past that, according to scholars, is fundamental to the human
experience (Carr, 1961; Glassie, 1994; Kreider, 1937). The present study revealed the hidden
joys and entertainments modern-day students found in historical study and the enduring value
of historical relevance in an increasingly interconnected world.
Though the theme of traditional history was only noted by a handful of respondents, it is a
potential barrier to good teaching emphasizing passive, rather than active, learning through rote
memorization, which could adversely affect student learning and achievement (Martell, 2014;
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 66

Schul, 2014). Another barrier to good history teaching noted in the literature is the rift between
the history academy and colleges/faculties of education (Teaford, 1971; Wineburg, 1991; 2018).
The Teaching American History grant program, for example, helped address this problem for a
time but focused on K-12 professional development opportunities (Berg & Christou, 2017).
What about academics in higher education, conversely, who might benefit from pedagogical
training to reach an evolving, diverse student body? Then there is the matter of technology in
the classroom and the disruptive role of the Internet in accessing information and appropriating
it with a prudent eye to credibility and truthfulness (Wineburg, 2018). The implications of
ignoring these potential barriers to good history teaching could affect the future health and
prosperity of history departments across the country and lead to waning public and student
interest. But, more importantly, it would be a disservice to the present generation of students
who are deprived of the transformational experience of a historical education. One recurring
theme was the questionable value of history as an academic study or for practical living—a
finding the literature does not support (Durant, 1968/2010; Hunt, 2011; Sloan, 1993; Teaford,
1973). This troubling finding is cause for concern as a percentage of respondents in this study
found history to be of marginal importance. But, as Domitrovic (2017) reminds us, we have a
“beautiful problem to solve” so let us make good on this opportunity because our present, and
futures, depend on it (para. 15). Recommendations for future research include increasing the
sample size and scope by including several institutions from different regions of the United
States, surveying on-ground students relative to online students in a replication study, and
conducting a comparative, international study examining student attitudes and beliefs about
history in competing national contexts.

References
Anderson, N. (2016, July 7). A history degree without studying U.S. history? It’s possible at
top colleges like Harvard, Yale and Stanford. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/07/a-history-degree-
without-studying-u-s-history-its-possible-at-these-top-
colleges/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9302af3e07db
Andress, D. (1997). Beyond irony and relativism: What is postmodern history for? Rethinking
History, 1(3), pp. 311-326.
Anyon, J. (1979). Ideology and United States history textbooks. Harvard Educational Review,
49(3), 361-386.
Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New
York: Routledge.
Bain, R. B. (2012). Using disciplinary literacy to develop coherence in history teacher
education: The clinical rounds project. The History Teacher, 45(4), 513-532.
Belkin, D. (2014, Oct. 15). Study finds many colleges don’t require core subjects like history,
government. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieve from https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-
finds-many-colleges-dont-require-core-subjects-like-history-government-1413345842
Bentley, J. H. (Oct. 2007). Why study world history? World History Connected, 5(1),
Retrieved from http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/5.1/bentley.html
Berg, C. & 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.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 67

Berg, C. W. (2017). Exploring world history teachers’ beliefs and conceptions of historical
significance in practice and textbooks. (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
Bohnstedt, J. W. (May, 1971). Why study history? The History Teacher, 4(4), pp. 63-65.
Cantor, N. F., & Schneider, R. I. (1967). How to study history (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Wiley- Blackwell.
Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? New York, NY: Vintage.
Collingwood, R. G. (1946/2005). The idea of history. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Counsell, C. (2004). Looking through a Josephine-Butler shaped window: Focusing pupils’
thinking on historical significance. Teaching History, 114, 30-36.
Domitrovic, B. (Nov. 2017). Major renovations: Reviving undergraduate history at Sam
Houston State University. Perspectives on History. Retrieved from
https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/novembe-
2017/major-renovations-reviving-undergraduate-history-at-sam-houston-state
Durant, W. (2014). Fallen leaves: Last words on life, love, war, and God. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Durant, W. (1968/2010). The lessons of history. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Evans, R. W. (2009). The social studies wars, now and then. In Parker, W., Ed., Social studies
today: Research & practice. New York: Routledge.
Evans, R. W. (2006). This happened in America: Harold Rugg and the censure of social
studies. Curriculum History, 11, 15-21.
Fogo, B. (2015). The making of California’s history-social science standards: Enduring
decisions and unresolved issues. The History Teacher, 48(4), 737-775.
Fumat, Y. (1997). History, civics, and national consciousness. Children’s Social and
Economics Education, 2(3), pp. 158-166.
Girard, B., & Harris, L. M. (2012). Striving for disciplinary literacy instruction: Cognitive
tools in a world history course. Theory and Research in Social Education, 40(3), 230 259.
doi: 10.1080/00933104.2012.705183
Glassie, H. (Dec., 1994). The practice and purpose of history. The Journal of American
History, 81(3), pp. 961-968. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2081435
Gray, P. W. (March, 2005). Why study military history? Defence Studies, 5(1), pp. 151-164.
doi: 10.1080/14702430500097408
Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (March, 2004). The role of topic interest in survey
participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), pp. 2-31. doi:
http://woi/org/10.1093/poq/nfh002
Harris, R., & Burn, K. (2016). English history teachers’ views on what substantive content
young people should be taught. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(4), pp. 518-546. doi:
10.1080/00220272.2015.1122091
Hong, H., & Hamot, G. E. (2015). The associations of teacher professional characteristics,
school environmental factors, and state testing policy on social studies educators’
instructional authority. Journal of Social Studies Research, 39, 225-241. doi:
10.1016/j.jssr.2015.06.009
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 68

Hunt, T. (Autumn, 2011). The importance of studying the past. History Workshop Journal,
72, pp. 258-267. doi: 10.1093/hwj/dbr055
Hunt-White, T. (n.d.). The influence of selected factors on student survey participation and
mode of completion. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sitesusa/wp-
content/uploads/sites/242/2014/05/2007FCSM_Hunt-White-III-C.pdf
Körber, A. (2016). Translation and its discontents II: A German perspective. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 48(4), 440-456. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2016.1171401
Kreider, J. I. (Oct. 1937). Why study history? The Social Studies, 28(6), pp. 243-44.
Lachmann, R. & Mitchell, L. (2014). The changing face of war in textbooks: Depictions of
World War II and Vietnam, 1970-2009. Sociology of Education, 87(3), 188-203. doi:
10.1177/0038040714537526
Laville, C. (2004). Historical consciousness and historical education: What to expect from the
first for the second. In P. Seixas (Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 165-182).
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Lee, M. (2013). Promoting historical thinking using the explicit reasoning text. The Journal of
Social Studies Research, 37(1), 33-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2012.12.003
Lévesque, S. (2005). In search of a purpose for school history. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
37(5), pp. 349-358. doi: 10d.1080/0022027032000256198
Levy, S. A. (2016). Parents', students', and teachers' beliefs about teaching heritage histories
in public school history classrooms. Journal of Social Studies Research, 40, 5-20. doi:
10.1016/j.jssr.2015.04.003
Loewen, J. W. (2009). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the tyranny of textbook
and get students excited about doing history again. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Loewen, J. W. (2007). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook
got wrong. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Low, A. D. (1948). Why study history? Journal of Education, 131(9), pp. 270-72.
Lowenthal, D. (2000). Dilemmas and delights of learning history. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas,
& S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and
international perspectives (pp. 63-82). New York, NY: New York University Press.
MacIntyre, I., Clark, A., & Mason, A. (2004). The history wars. Melbourne, Australia:
Melbourne University Publishing.
Markowicz, K. (2017, Jan. 22). Why schools have stopped teaching American history. New
York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2017/01/22/why-schools-have-stopped-
teaching- american-history/
Martell, C. C. (2014). Building a constructivist practice: A longitudinal study of beginning
history teachers. The Teacher Educator, 49, 97-115. doi: 10.1080.08878730.2014.888252
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:
10.1016/j.jssr.2012.12.001
McCully, G. E. (Aug., 1978). History begins at home. The History Teacher, 11(4), pp. 497-
507.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 69

McNeill, W. H. (1985). Why study history? American Historical Association. Retrieved from
http://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-
archives/archives/why-study-history-(1985)
Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical
reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273-299. doi: 10.1177/1086296XI2450445
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and
write by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2),
212-249.
Morgan, D. M., & Rasinski, T. V. (2012). The power and potential of primary sources. The
Reading Teacher, 65(8), 584-594. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01086
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The college, career, and civic life
(C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-
12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, D. C.: National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Neumann, R. (2014). An analysis of the treatment of corporate influence on government by
United States history and American government high school textbooks. The Social Studies,
105, 57-68. doi: 10.1080.00377996.2013.820163
Neumann, R. (2012). Socialism in high school social studies textbooks. The Social Studies,
103, 31-38. doi. 10.1080.00377996.2011.566590
Nicoll, G. D. (1969). "Why Study History?" The Educational Forum, 33(2), 193-99.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE.
Pearcy, M. (2014). “We have never known what death was before” U.S. history textbooks and
the Civil War. Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(1), 45-60.doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2013.12.004
Pearcy, M. (2013). Textbook depictions of the fugitive slave act: A case for historical and
moral literacy. Ohio Social Studies Review, 50(1), 63-74. Retrieved from
http://edhd.bgsu.edu/ossr/journal/index.php/ossr/article/view/8
Pearcy, M. (2011). “We have never known what death was before”--A just war doctrine
critique of U.S. history textbooks. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida).
Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3286
Ragland, R. G. (2015). Sustaining changes in history teachers’ core instructional practices:
Impact on Teaching American History ten years later. The History Teacher, 48(4), 609-
640.
Retz, T. (2015). History, the philosophy of history, and history education: How thinking on
the nature of history has influenced its learning and teaching. Agora, 50(1), 4-11.
Roberts, S. L. (2014). A review of social studies textbook content analyses since 2002. Social
Studies Research and Practice, 9(3), 51-65. Retrieved from www.socstrp.org
Rüsen, J. (2007). How to make sense of the past – Salient issues in metahistory. The Journal
for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 3(1), 169-221.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 70

Rüsen, J. (2004). Historical consciousness: Narrative, structure, moral function and

ontogenetic development. In P. Seixas (Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 63-
85). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Seixas, P. (2016). Translation and its discontents: Key concepts in English and German
history education, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(4), 427-439, doi:
10.1080/00220272.2015.1101618
Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Toronto, Canada:
Nelson.
Seixas, P. (2006). What is historical consciousness? In R. Sandwell (Ed.), To the Past:
History Education, Public Memory, and Citizenship in Canada, (pp. 11-22). Toronto,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Schul, J. (2015). Pedagogical triangulation: The mergence of three traditions in history
instruction. The Social Studies, 106, 24-31. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2014.961184
Sloan, W. D. (1993). "Why Study History?" American Journalism, 10(3-4), 6-10.
Sheehan, M. (2011). ‘Historical significance’ in the senior curriculum. New Zealand Journal
of Educational Studies, 46(2), 35-45.
Stearns, P. N. (1998). Why study history? American Historical Association. Retrieved from
http://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-
archives/archives/why-study-history-(1998)
Stricker, F. (May, 1992). Why history? Thinking about the uses of the past. The History
Teacher, 25(3), pp. 293-312.
Taylor, T. & Guyver, R. (Eds.) (2012). History wars and the classroom: Global perspectives.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Teaford, J. (1973). "Why Study History?" The Social Studies, 64(4), 164-69.
Virgin, R. (2014). Connecting learning: How revisiting big idea questions can help in history
classrooms. The Social Studies, 105, 201-212. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2014.917065
Wineburg, S. (2018). Why learn history? (When it is on our phones). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Wineburg, S., Mosberg, S., Porat, D., & Duncan, A. (2007). Common belief and the cultural
curriculum: An intergenerational study of historical consciousness. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(1), 40-76. doi: 10.3102/0002831206298677
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of
teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between
school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495–519.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ted Christou, Karl G. Hammarlund, Katalin Morgan, and Stephen Morillo
for kindly reviewing the article at different stages of its development and sharing their expertise
as history scholars and teacher-educators. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their thoughtful suggestions for improving the scope and structure of the article.
Why study history? An examination of undergraduate students’ notions and perceptions about history 71

About the Author

Christopher W. Berg earned his Ph.D. in Curriculum and Teaching with a research focus in
history education from Northcentral University and a master’s in world history from Sam
Houston State University where he studied under two-time Pulitzer-prize nominee James S.
Olson. His research has been published in journals such as Curriculum History, SAGE Open,
Journal of Research Initiatives, Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education, Reviews in
History, a publication of the Institute for Historical Research, London, and De Re Militari, a
publication of the Society for Medieval Military History. His current book project under
contract with Palgrave Macmillan (co-edited with Theodore Christou), The Palgrave
Handbook of History and Social Studies Education, examines how historical thinking is
currently conceptualized and applied in secondary and higher education in international
contexts.