







































 Curriculum History 2018; 10-18 10 
 

Visiting the Past: Ernest Horn’s Conception of Historical Imagination  

for the Social Studies Classroom 
 

James Schul 

Winona State University 

Abstract 

 Ernest Horn, a curriculum professor at the 

University of Iowa, was known within the 

Progressive Education movement for his work on 

spelling education.  He was also well regarded 

within the community of social studies educators.  

Recent research has revealed Horn’s role within 

the American Historical Association’s 

Commission on the Social Studies, namely his 

contribution to its dialogue on the role of 

standardized testing in the school experience.  

This article focuses upon the social studies 

methods textbook that Horn wrote while serving 

within the Commission.  The text had a central 

theme of eliciting students’ historical 

imagination.  This theme of historical imagination 

is analyzed both contextually within the historical 

perspective as well as how Horn’s views relate 

with curricular adjustments made in history 

education throughout the twentieth century to the 

contemporary era. 

 

Introduction 

Hope attached itself in 1929 to the 

American Historical Association’s (AHA) newly 

conceived Commission on the Social Studies.  Its 

mission was to investigate the social studies in 

American schools and provide recommendations 

to teachers and other school leaders as to the 

purposes of the social studies to identify best 

practices for teachers to achieve those purposes.  

The Commission consisted of some of the most 

prominent figures in both education and the social 

sciences.  Headlining the cast of Commission 

members were the revered historian Charles 

Beard and the up and coming scholar of 

education, George Counts.  The Commission was 

a working body for five years, completing its task 

in 1933 that produced work both significant and 

extensive in scope.  However, the Commission 

became mired in a political controversy as it was 

sharply criticized by education critics for its 

radical stance on the American socio-economic 

environment.  Unfortunately, this criticism led to 

some historians (Ravitch 2000) to relegate the 

Commission as simply another failed effort 

within the social reconstruction movement.   

 Recent research on the AHA Commission 

(Schul 2013) shed light on the significance of the 

Commission itself.  This research exposed the 

Commission as being a pioneer in the debate over 

the use of standardized tests in the school 

experience, which continues today.  The purpose 

of this current research investigation is to shed 

further light on the work on the Commission, 

particularly upon the history classroom practices 

proposed by one of its significant members, 

curriculum professor Ernest Horn of the 

University of Iowa.  By relying heavily upon 

Ernest Horn’s 1937 book Methods of Instruction 

in the Social Studies that he contributed as a 

member of American Historical Association’s 

(AHA) Commission on the Social Studies, this 

investigation seeks to answer the following 

question: What was Ernest Horn’s conception of 

history teaching and learning and what is its 

relevancy for today? 

 

AHA Commission: Background and Context 

 The American Historical Association 

(AHA) formed a commission to investigate the 

social studies in American schools.  The 



11 
 

Commission commenced in 1929, remained an 

active body until 1935, and was supported by a 

grant from the Carnegie foundation.  The general 

purpose for it was to provide a uniform and 

comprehensive examination on the social studies 

that provided clarity on curricular guidance for 

the social studies that teachers and school 

administrators might use when mired in the midst 

of a society experiencing massive economic and 

social changes.  Capitalism within the nation and 

across the world was threatened by the collapse of 

the fiscal markets and a wave of political 

movements surfaced that promised to break the 

conventional socio-political climate as well as 

what constituted appropriate citizenship 

education.  According to Charles Beard (1932), 

author of the first installment of the AHA 

Commission’s work, A Charter for the Social 

Sciences, the early portion of the twentieth 

century saw a “need of a wise readjustment in our 

thinking and our educational program to a world 

that has become urbanized, mechanized, and 

interlocked in its social, economic, political, and 

cultural interests” (vi).  To add to these social 

changes, another external factor influencing the 

work of schools was the fact that high school 

enrollment had been increasing for the first three 

decades of the twentieth century: from 6.7% in 

1890 to 32.4% by 1920 (Kliebard 2002).  Tagged 

with the enrollment increase was a concern by 

school officials and curricularists toward 

transforming the school curriculum so that it met 

the needs of a growing general school population.  

The curricular readjustment came in the form of 

several committee reports, as explained by Beard 

(1932): “by 1922, nearly all of the great national 

associations had published committee reports 

suggesting more or less extensive remedial 

measures.”  

 

 

History Education: A Brief History 

The AHA Commission on the Social 

Studies emerged at a time when history education 

was undergoing a curricular adjustment.  In 1916, 

the NEA Commission on the Reorganization of 

Secondary Education published its Report of the 

Social Studies.  The Report of the Social Studies, 

often referred to as the document that gave birth 

to the broad field of social studies education, 

proposed that history be taught conceptually with 

an emphasis on current issues.  Ronald Evans 

(2004), curriculum historian, asserted that the 

Report “argued for selection of aspects that met 

the qualifications of ‘functioning in the present’” 

(37).  This conception of history education 

correlated with the one proposed by John Dewey 

(1916) where history is to be taught using patterns 

that reflect contemporary issues.  A wave of new 

history curriculum emerged in the wake of the 

Report.  The most prominent of the emerging 

curriculum was Harold Rugg’s popular textbook 

series for secondary social studies classrooms.   

 Rugg’s texts provocatively connected 

themes and concepts from the social sciences with 

contemporary issues and events.  For instance, 

Rugg’s text series included two key components: 

the use of what he called “dramatic episodes” and 

the problem-based workbook that served as a 

companion to the texts.  Rugg (1929) insisted that 

the use of dramatic episodes, or narratives that 

connected themes of the past with contemporary 

society was essential because, as he put it:  

 

If young people are to be brought to an 

understanding of our complicated 

civilization, it must be chiefly through 

the medium of words.  Hence, the 

imperative need of dramatizing the past 

and present story of American 

civilization and its relations to the 

modern world. (Rugg, v) 



12 
 

While Rugg sought to engage students into 

contemporary society with his texts, he intended 

that his workbook engaged students in a problem- 

solving process.  “The very center of this course 

in the social studies is the problem-solving 

activities of the Pupil’s Workbook,” Rugg (1929, 

vi) declared in describing his curriculum.  

According to Rugg (1929), the Workbook 

“constantly confronts the pupil with stimulating 

problems, insight into each of which is important 

for an adequate understanding of American 

civilization” (vi).  However, the actual practice of 

history teaching and learning in the schools was a 

mixed bag.   

Some history teachers did not always 

practice strategies that matched the proposal of 

the Report on the Social Studies nor what was 

contained in Rugg’s textbook series.  For 

instance, a 1935 study of a suburban high school 

in New York City revealed that 80% of teachers 

relied heavily on a textbook in their courses with 

the same percentage “engaged in traditional 

recitation” (Cuban, 1993, 71).  However, there is 

evidence that other teachers were indeed engaging 

students in stimulating and creative strategies to 

learn history.  The Historical Outlook, the premier 

practitioner’s journal for history teaching and 

learning in the 1920s, for instance, revealed many 

examples of teachers engaging students with the 

past through such means as current news 

magazines and primary archival sources.  In 1921 

Jennie L. Pingrey, a history teacher from 

Vermont, proposed her idea of teaching history 

by providing writing prompts that placed the 

student in a significant period or event of the past 

and requiring them to employ their imagination.  

For instance, some of the prompts included “My 

part in the French Revolution” and “When I 

helped Alexander the Great to conquer Asia” 

(Pingrey, 1921, 295).  This example illustrates the 

fact that historical imagination was something 

some history teachers were already emphasizing.  

It may be presumed, therefore, that Ernest Horn’s 

conception of historical imagination was 

influenced by the practices of such teachers that 

he either knew or read about when he wrote his 

methods text. 

 

Ernest Horn and the Progressive Era 

Ernest Horn was born in 1882.  He 

majored in elementary education at the University 

of Missouri and was appointed as principal of the 

university’s first laboratory elementary school at 

the completion of his junior year.  This was the 

genesis of what would be a long and successful 

career as a curriculum professor.  After some 

initial experience in the professoriate at Colorado 

State University, Horn moved toward advanced 

graduate studies at Columbia University Teachers 

College where he earned his PhD in 1915.  At the 

conclusion of his time at Columbia, he accepted a 

position as professor at The University of Iowa 

College of Education, where he would spend his 

remaining professional career (Stein, 1973). 

While at Iowa, Horn established The University 

of Iowa Elementary School, a school well known 

for nurturing inquiry-based instruction among its 

in-service and preservice teachers.  Horn’s 

research focused on spelling instruction where he 

aimed to decipher which words were most 

commonly used in life outside the school (Stein, 

1973).   

Although he was best known for his work 

on spelling education, Horn’s educational 

interests and influence spread wide, particularly 

with the area of social studies education.  A 

longtime member of the National Council for the 

Social Studies, Horn was greatly interested in the 

issue of moral education within the public schools 

(Schul & Hamot, 2011).  Horn believed that 

moral education should be taught through cases 

where the teacher would guide students through 



13 
 

the moral issues related to those cases.  These 

cases revolved mostly around issues of property 

rights and sought to position the student to 

consider the perspective, right, and responsibility 

of the property owner and property user.  Horn’s 

interest in social studies education led to his 

selection as one of the members of the AHA 

Commission on the Social Studies.  While Horn’s 

contribution to the controversy surrounding 

testing that surfaced around the AHA 

Commission has been investigated 

 (Schul, 2013), his explicit contribution to its 

work has not.  Horn’s direct contribution to the 

commission was a social studies methods book 

titled Methods of Instruction in the Social Studies 

(1937). The text reveals Horn’s meticulous 

concern for detail and his ongoing focus on the 

pragmatic with regard to public education. 

  

The Text: Methods of Instruction in the Social 

Studies 

 The methods text produced by Horn for 

the Commission was exhaustive on many fronts 

and could be the source of multiple research 

investigations.  It was underpinned theoretically 

with the connection between instructional method 

and social purpose, subject matter, and nature of 

the learner.  Horn included provocative sections 

about indoctrination and propaganda that asked 

such questions as: Shall the schools have a social 

program?  Shall controversial issues be taught? 

Shall the schools teach pupils how to think or 

what to think?  A section entitled “Reading in 

Relation to Learning in the Social Studies” 

examined issues such as the relationship of a 

students’ intelligence, interest, and experience to 

reading.  Additionally, the methods text examined 

the use of a textbook in correlation to other tools 

at a teacher’s disposal such as oral instruction, the 

radio, visual aids, museums, and dramatization.   

 Imbedded throughout the methods book, 

particularly with regard to the sections that 

emphasized reading and instructional strategies is 

the theme of imagination.  As a case in point, one 

of the latter sections of the book entitled “Devices 

for Stimulating the Imagination” emphasized the 

use of graphic aids, and dramatization as a means 

to evoke students’ imagination.  Within this 

section, a chapter entitled “The Imaginary 

Journey” focused on imaginary trips a teacher 

may position students to take, as a means to better 

understand the concepts of a particular geographic 

region or era of the past.  Rather than provide 

multiple examples of possible imaginary 

journeys, Horn (1937) spent the bulk of the 

chapter on warnings about employing such a 

strategy and he shared his concerns that many 

teachers tend to focus too much on the journey 

itself, as he explained is a misstep often made in 

geography courses: 

 

… the fundamental concepts are 

commonly obscured by the great amount 

of emphasis given to buying imaginary 

tickets, to making passports, to 

dramatizing the inoculation against 

diseases, to packing American flags in 

‘little imaginary suitcases,’ to ringing 

bells, to blowing whistles, to shouting 

and waving good-bys as the boat or train 

departs, to tipping the porter, to making 

paper trains that steam ‘joyously across 

the desert,’ to keeping diaries of the 

imagined trip, to writing letters home, 

and to carving souvenirs out of soap. 

(Horn, 1937, 466) 

 

Horn (1937) categorized such activities as 

“intellectual sloppiness” because it emphasizes an 

interest in the journey itself rather than “the 

interest developed in basic geographical and 



14 
 

social problems” (469).  Horn saw potential with 

instructional strategies that employed students’ 

imagination as long the teacher emphasized the 

teaching of subject matter with the strategy rather 

than the strategy having a life of its own.   

 A common theme throughout Horn’s 

methods book was its analysis of benefits and 

disadvantages of various classroom practices.  

One of Horn’s most significant analyses of 

classroom practices, which he provided in his 

text, was the use of the textbook in relation to 

other reading material that teachers may have at 

their disposal. 

   

Integrating Literature into the History 

Curriculum  

 Horn conceded that textbooks were going 

to remain in the school experience.  In his text, he 

cited research that revealed the dominance of the 

textbook in the American classroom.  However, 

he also recognized that the ideas of the 

Progressive education movement were gaining 

some traction in some classrooms: “There are, 

however, an increasing number of school 

systems, as indicated by the available courses of 

study, in which the textbook is regarded as an 

introductory manual to be used with classroom 

libraries and other equipment” (Horn, 1937, 209).  

Horn proceeded in his methods book to critique 

textbooks by providing numerous deficiencies of 

their use, including their poor reading quality, 

students’ own poor reading ability, a lack of 

visuals such as maps and pictures, and their lack 

of treatment of contemporary social issues.  Horn 

went on to provide guidance for teachers in how 

they should use the text.  He valued the text for 

providing an outline of the course of study for 

both teachers and pupils, their inclusion of lists of 

questions and supplemental reading suggestions, 

and the summary of a topic or time-period that 

students may use for review as they seek to better 

understand the concepts and generalizations 

taught to them by their teacher.  But, for the most 

part, Horn envisioned the textbook as a curricular 

resource and not the dominant influence in the 

curriculum.  Horn (1937) was skeptical of the use 

of workbooks in the classroom as he feared that 

most of them contained “many exercises that are 

little better than busywork” and that they often 

“increase rather than to offset the formalism and 

verbalism that, in the past, have pervaded the 

teaching of the social studies” (222).   

 Horn (1937) believed that “dynamic 

teaching centers upon ideas rather than upon 

books” (223).  With that said, Horn believed that 

no single text could effectively address historical 

and contemporary problems that students should 

seek to address in their courses.  It is for this 

reason that Horn believed teachers should include 

what he called collateral readings (although he 

was not comfortable with the term collateral 

since it signals a deference to the textbook).  

Horn’s rationale for employing collateral readings 

in the history classroom, as you will see, ran 

parallel with his reasoning with strengths 

associated with employing historical fiction in the 

classroom (see Table 1). He believed that 

additional readings were necessary with eliciting 

curiosity and students’ use of imagination in their 

learning about the past. Horn (1937) also 

suggested that employing literature in the history 

classroom offered a clear opportunity for history 

teachers to engage in interdisciplinary 

partnerships with literature teachers as “each 

enriches and supplements the other: literature in 

giving a sense of atmosphere, and history in 

providing authentic factual background of the 

period or conditions” (291).  The most prominent 

area of the methods book that emphasized the 

employment of students’ imaginations was the 

section entitled “The Use of Imaginative 

Literature.”   



15 
 

Table 1. Ernest Horn’s Analysis of Historical 

Fiction in the History Classroom 

 

Strengths Weaknesses 

Gives atmosphere Inadequacy of sources 

used to reconstruct the 

past 

Shows more vividly and 

intimately the bearings 

of past conditions upon 

the people 

The distortion and false 

color caused by 

interpreting the past 

from the point of view 

of the writer’s own 

time 

Enables the reader to 

enter imaginatively into 

the experiences of past 

times 

The bias of a limited 

point of view or 

purpose 

Stimulates an interest in 

historical study 

The necessity for 

meeting the demands 

of a well-rounded plot 

even though historical 

data are lacking 

 

Horn used this chapter to explain his conception 

of the relationship between history and literature, 

particularly fiction and historical fiction.  The 

following section illuminates Horn’s conception 

of what we will term the historical imagination. 

 

Horn and Historical Imagination 

 Ernest Horn’s interest with employing 

historical fiction as a means to teach history had a 

practical purpose.  “The intellectual diet of the 

average reader – either immature or adult – 

contains little social knowledge that is substantial 

or scholarly” combined with “the dominance of 

fiction in the leisure-time reading of both children 

and adults” (Horn, 1937, 265) made it apparent 

that fiction may be an effective means to attract 

students’ interest in the social problems in 

history.  Horn categorized fiction appropriate for 

the history classroom into two types: 

contemporary fiction and historical fiction.  

Contemporary fiction, according to Horn, was 

written by an author who “consciously or 

unconsciously, deals with what is going on in his 

own time” (269).  Horn provided Harriet Beecher 

Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin as an example of 

contemporary fiction.  Historical fiction, 

according to Horn, was written by an author who 

“reconstructs or refers to the events, persons, or 

manners of a former time” (269).  Sir Walter 

Scott’s Ivanhoe was provided as an example of 

historical fiction.   

 As was customary for Horn in his methods 

book, he spent a considerable amount of effort 

warning the teacher of pitfalls with employing 

literature to teach history.  For instance, Horn 

warned that bias of the author can sometimes be 

very strong in works of fiction and the reader 

must be on guard for this.  Horn later conceded 

that general histories also contain bias.  Horn 

(1937) went on to provide a series of guiding 

questions for those teachers who chose to employ 

“imaginative writing” into their classroom: 

 

He should have in mind especially the 

distinction between contemporary and 

historical fiction and should realize why, 

in general, contemporary fiction is 

preferred by the historian.  He should 

understand the difference between the 

purposes and methods of history and 

fiction.  He should know that portrayals 

may be vividly impressive and yet be 

false.  He should be aware that the 

language, the points of view, and the 

sentiments of a historical novel are likely 

to be of the time of the writer rather than 

of the period treated.  He should be 

critical of the limited horizon or the 

personal bias of the writer.  Above all, 

he should understand that the child, even 

more than the adult, is not in a position 



16 
 

to tell what is authentic and what is 

either imaginary or erroneous (291-292). 

 

Horn sought to provide a balanced overview of 

the strengths and weaknesses with employing 

historical fiction into the history classroom.  In 

many ways this analysis of the dichotomy of 

strengths and weaknesses encompass the 

aforementioned questions that Horn asked as a 

means to warn the teacher.  Again, the 

weaknesses espoused by Horn focused mostly on 

the inaccuracy and bias of the author much as he 

warned with his series of questions to teachers.  

The strengths centered on the lure of historical 

fiction to engaging the reader into experiences 

and issues of the past.   

A correspondence ensued between Horn 

and A.C. Krey, just before the publication of the 

methods text that focused on Horn’s inclusion of 

imaginative literature as a means to teach history 

in the social studies curriculum.  Krey (1936a), a 

prominent ancient historian from the University 

of Minnesota and the chairperson of the AHA 

Commission, praised Horn for providing 

“excellent concrete illustrations developed 

sufficiently for to give the teacher a realizing 

sense of what is involved.”  He praised Horn for 

his dichotomization of historical fiction and 

contemporary fiction.  Krey, however, wanted 

Horn to emphasize how the characteristics of 

historical fiction depart from the conventional 

history textbook in engaging students with the 

past:  

 

There is a certain value in the historical 

fiction, shared to some extent by fiction 

in general, which the ordinary textbook 

treatment of history fails to yield.  The 

latter is too generalized, too far away 

from the ordinary, practical details of 

life to give the pupil any sense of the 

reality or vitality of history (Krey 

1936b). 

 

Krey found a kindred spirit in Horn who sought to 

make students’ history experience engaging, 

meaningful, and impactful.  Krey went on to 

suggest pieces of historical fiction, such as 

William Stearns Davis’ A Day in Old Athens 

(1914) or his Life on a Mediaevall Barony (1923) 

as well as Rudyard Kipling’s Puck of Pook’s Hill 

(1906) as examples of historical fiction that 

“convey some impression of the culture pattern of 

the age with a vividness that helps to link the 

generalized material of the textbook to life in fact 

as the pupil actually knows it” (Krey 1936b).  

Horn included the lone example of Davis’ A Day 

in Old Athens into his chapter entitled “The 

Textbook and Collateral Reading” that actually 

preceded the aforementioned chapter entitled 

“The Use of Imaginative Literature” and served 

as a backdrop of how Horn envisioned teachers 

may practically fit supplemental (or collateral, as 

Horn called them) within their instructional 

repertoire. 

 

History Education Since Horn 

 Ernest Horn wrote about historical 

imagination in 1937 with a primary concern for 

the educational process that contributed to 

students’ interest in history and the affective 

objectives of history that would position the 

student to envision and explore the past.  In sum, 

Horn was interested in the life of the mind.  There 

have been numerous trends in history education 

since Horn wrote his methods book.  Curriculum 

reform in the 1950s was influenced by criticisms 

of the progressive movement, spurred by aspects 

of the Cold War, which led to a return to 

academic disciplines in social studies courses 

(Evans 2004).  This meant that history education, 

for instance, included less emphasis on 



17 
 

contemporary social problems and more emphasis 

on a distinct study of the narrative of the past.  

The New Social Studies movement emerged in the 

1960s with the aim to “transform … students into 

junior historians and social scientists” (Evans 

2004, 123).  At this time Edwin Fenton, a 

historian at Carnegie Institute of Technology in 

Pittsburgh, began developing curriculum that 

included an employment of primary sources in 

middle and secondary history classrooms.  

Teachers, influenced by Fenton’s work, widely 

used a popular series of primary source packets 

entitled JackDaws that were widely used across 

the nation.  The standards movement of the 1990s 

and 2000s placed an emphasis on the academic 

outcomes of teacher instruction.  History 

education, as a result, emphasized students’ 

learning of facts and a reemphasis upon the 

narrative of the past.  However, a reform 

movement entitled historical thinking, led by Sam 

Wineburg (1991) arose simultaneously with the 

standards movement.  Historical thinking, like the 

New Social Studies movement of the 1960s, 

emphasized student interpretation of primary 

sources as a means to learn history.  Disciplinary 

thinking became the objective of historical 

thinking.  History educators such as Keith Barton 

and Linda Levstik (2004) began to emphasize the 

affective objectives that learning history through 

primary sources may include, most notably the 

development of students’ historical empathy (an 

individual’s ability to understand the thoughts and 

feelings of those who lived in the past).  This 

contemporary emphasis on historical thinking as a 

means to develop empathy resembles some of the 

objectives that Horn envisioned with integrating 

imaginative literature as a means to teach history. 

 Horn’s emphasis on imagination as a key 

component of history teaching and learning has 

its roots in the philosophy of history.  R.G. 

Collingwood (1946), the renowned philosopher of 

history, said nearly a decade after Horn’s methods 

book that “every present has a past of its own, and 

any imaginative reconstruction of the past aims at 

reconstructing the past of this present” (247).  

Horn’s suggestion of employing historical fiction 

and other types of what he called “imaginative 

literature” positions students to reconstruct the 

past using their imagination.  Although Horn 

focused primarily on students’ consumption of 

fiction as a means to engage their historical 

imagination, a line can easily be drawn to how 

students writing their own tales of history may 

further employ historical imagination. 

Horn’s suggestion of employing fiction in 

the history classroom may have been thought of, 

at the time of the publication of the methods text, 

to be a strategy exclusive to garner interest in 

history for the student in school and less 

necessary for the serious historian.  However, in 

recent times, some historians have asserted that 

imagination plays a more central role in 

construction of the past than what other historians 

may be willing to admit.  History educator David 

Staley (2007), for instance, asserted that history is 

an “imaginative discipline, in that much of the 

work occurs in the ‘staging area’ or ‘workspace’ 

of the imagination, and is only then made external 

when we transcribe that product of our 

imagination into words” (101).  Staley (2007) 

elaborated further on the significant role that 

imagination plays in the construction of history in 

that it “allows our minds to recombine, juxtapose, 

invent, and create in novel ways” (102).  

Likewise, Horn envisioned students experiencing 

the past as a means to better understand it because 

it frees the students to reflect and create their own 

conception of the past– and subsequently apply it 

to issues surrounding the students’ contemporary 

times.  Horn deserves some credit for lining up 

his methods text, written nearly eighty years ago, 

with what some history educators are currently 



18 
 

striving to have unleashed more often in 

contemporary classrooms.  Horn’s emphasis on 

imagination in history teaching and learning is 

indicative of the progressive era’s emphasis on 

classroom practices that empower students to 

connect their own experiences to what they are 

learning.  Imaginative literature, according to 

Horn, fostered such experiences for the students 

and enabled them to have an encounter with the 

past that was lasting and useful in their life.  In 

many ways, this affective purpose for history 

teaching and learning that Horn had nearly eighty 

years ago is still relevant for history teachers 

today who aspire to foster a love of history in 

their own students’ lives. 

References 

Barton, K. C. and Levstik, L. S. 2004. Teaching 

history for the common good. New York: 

Routledge. 

Beard, C. 1932.  A Charter for the Social 

Sciences. Part I: Report of the Commission on 

the Social Studies. New York: Charles 

Scribner’s Sons. 

Collingwood, R. G., 1946. The day of History. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Cuban, L. 1993. How teachers taught: Constancy 

and change in American classrooms, 1890-

1990. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Davis, W. S. 1914. A day in old Athens.  New 

York: Allyn and Bacon. 

Evans, R. W. 2004. The social studies wars: What 

should we teach the children?. New York: 

Teachers College Press. 

Horn, E. 1937. Methods of instruction in the 

social studies.  New York: Charles Scribner’s 

Sons. 

Kliebard, H. M. 2002. Changing course: 

American curriculum reform in the 20th 

century (Vol.  8). New York: Teachers 

College Press. 

Krey, A. 1936a 20 January. Letter to Ernest 

Horn. American Historical Association 

Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, 

DC. 

Krey, A. 1936b 31 January. Letter to Ernest 

Horn. American Historical Association 

Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, 

DC. 

Pingrey, J. L. 1921. Imagination in the Teaching 

of History. Historical Outlook, 12(8), 295. 

Ravitch, D. 2001. Left back: A century of battles 

over school reform. New York: Simon and 

Schuster. 

Rugg, H. O. 1929. An introduction to American 

civilization: A study of economic life in the 

United States. Boston: Ginn& Company. 

Schul, J. E. 2013. Ensuing dog fight: the AHA 

Commission on the Social Studies' testing 

controversy. Journal of Educational 

Administration and History, 45(1), 1-27. 

Schul, J. E., & Hamot, G. E. 2011. An Engaged 

Pragmatist: Uncovering and Assessing Ernest 

Horn's View of Moral Education. Journal of 

Social Studies Research, 35(2). 

Staley, D J. 2007.  History and Future: Using 

Historical Thinking to Imagine the Future. 

Langham: MD: Lexington Books. 

Stein, F. J. 1973. Ernest Horn’s Ideas On 

Education Within the Context of the 

Progressive Education Movement in America. 

Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa. 

Williams, R. C. 2011. The historian's toolbox: A 

student's guide to the theory and craft of 

history. New York: ME Sharpe. 

Wineburg, S. S. 1991. Historical problem solving: 

A study of the cognitive processes used in the 

evaluation of documentary and pictorial 

evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

 83(1), 73-87. 


