Right, sorry about that last attempt! I'll try to recall my question from yesterday...

First, what a beautiful and helpful talk you published. I really enjoy watching teenagers develop...and then answer...questions that come up in class. History is an endless topic!

Aside from the stems themselves that you present at ~7:10, perhaps my favorite piece of your talk is: "It is important for students to realize that history is contested. Historians and teachers are not omniscient in their presentation of historical narratives."

This, of course, implies that students are to question the narrative. Recently, however (and here comes my question), there is a phenomenon amongst many of my students (and I presume elsewhere in the US and around the world) to "question everything, always" almost to a point of absurdity and, in some situations, a point of potential danger. Of course, I would never say that to a student or class. How can we encourage healthy inquiry into history, disputed history, or complicated history? Is it a function of facilitating - and teaching - the proper questions? Is it modeling? Is it practicing asking the questions?

This is a great question and I would also say to students that whilst narratives change, there are always events that are similar. I have likened it to the school day before - there are set times/events, but the narratives of the day change depending on who we look at (teacher/students/administration/support staff). So I would suggest that whilst we may be able to point to certain events as having happened categorically, the experiences/significance/other events leading up to them will differ depending on the people we are looking at. This is where Trouillot's book is so helpful (highly recommended reading)! 

I think that it is important that students get to understand that there are *narratives* and not one truthful and all encompassing narrative and their job is to find out what contributed to the narrative we work with and also what other narratives get left out. This is where the disciplinary concepts (second-order in England, Big 6 in some North American institutions) allow you to tease out what is usually mentioned in the narrative under study and what is missed out. Deciding  what caused events allows for the revelation of narrative construction and a similar thing can be done with consequence. In terms fo change and continuity over time, this is something else that reveals the construction of narratives. Historical significance is another aspect as well as testing claims/using evidence. Good enquiry (inquiry for US colleagues!) is not to step into relativism where anything is up for grabs, but an invitation to get a sense of what people at the time thought about events, what people thought about it after, what other people thought was missing in thinking about the event. It is telling a *story* that generates questions.

I like to think of history teaching/history lessons as practice in informed scepticism/skepticism (there are lots of cultural differences in the use of English) and not a pass to use the phrase 'fake news' at every available opportunity. If they want to get philosophical about it, I usually tell them about Gorovitz and MacIntyre's (1976) paper on necessary fallibility (which is also mentioned in Atul Gawande's BBC Reith Lectures) and that we can never have *perfect* knowledge of things, as that would require omniscience. That is an interesting discussion to have in a classroom, I can tell you! So, I would say it is modelling, it is doing - it is all these things and that is what makes it fun, frustrating and rewarding! Hope that answers the question and if not, let me know!

This is a great question and I would also say to students that whilst narratives change, there are always events that are similar. I have likened it to the school day before - there are set times/events, but the narratives of the day change depending on who we look at (teacher/students/administration/support staff). So I would suggest that whilst we may be able to point to certain events as having happened categorically, the experiences/significance/other events leading up to them will differ depending on the people we are looking at. This is where Trouillot's book is so helpful (highly recommended reading)! 

I think that it is important that students get to understand that there are *narratives* and not one truthful and all encompassing narrative and their job is to find out what contributed to the narrative we work with and also what other narratives get left out. This is where the disciplinary concepts (second-order in England, Big 6 in some North American institutions) allow you to tease out what is usually mentioned in the narrative under study and what is missed out. Deciding  what caused events allows for the revelation of narrative construction and a similar thing can be done with consequence. In terms fo change and continuity over time, this is something else that reveals the construction of narratives. Historical significance is another aspect as well as testing claims/using evidence. Good enquiry (inquiry for US colleagues!) is not to step into relativism where anything is up for grabs, but an invitation to get a sense of what people at the time thought about events, what people thought about it after, what other people thought was missing in thinking about the event. It is telling a *story* that generates questions.

I like to think of history teaching/history lessons as practice in informed scepticism/skepticism (there are lots of cultural differences in the use of English) and not a pass to use the phrase 'fake news' at every available opportunity. If they want to get philosophical about it, I usually tell them about Gorovitz and MacIntyre's (1976) paper on necessary fallibility (which is also mentioned in Atul Gawande's BBC Reith Lectures) and that we can never have *perfect* knowledge of things, as that would require omniscience. That is an interesting discussion to have in a classroom, I can tell you! So, I would say it is modelling, it is doing - it is all these things and that is what makes it fun, frustrating and rewarding! Hope that answers the question and if not, let me know!