Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Seeing historical injustice : a qualitative study into how students use historical photographs to make… Miles, James Anthony 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2013_spring_miles_james.pdf [ 1.42MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0073419.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0073419-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0073419-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0073419-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0073419-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0073419-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0073419-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

        SEEING HISTORICAL INJUSTICE: A QUALITATIVE STUDY INTO HOW STUDENTS USE HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHS TO MAKE SENSE OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLING IN CANADA   by   James Anthony Miles   B.A., University of British Columbia, 2006 B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 2007    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in  The Faculty of Graduate Studies  (Social Studies Education)     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)    December 2012   © James Anthony Miles, 2012 	
   Abstract   This qualitative study explored secondary social studies students’ ability to think historically using historical photographs of Indian residential schooling in Canada. Twenty-one Grade 10 students participated in task-based research that focused on how students utilized three historical thinking concepts: using primary source evidence, perspective taking and making ethical decisions. In small groups the students participated in various tasks and questions using contextual information, as well as six historical photographs on the issue of residential schooling in Canada. This study also employed theories of visual culture, trauma, and photography to address the ways students’ ways of seeing and looking practices influenced how they encountered and made sense of photographs of historical injustice. Findings indicate that historical photographs provide students and teachers with a useful entry point into historical thinking, and that they encourage complex thinking in dealing with historical evidence while simultaneously revealing other interpretations dealing with power, the body, and the unseen. Significant issues arose in defining what historical empathy and perspective taking looks like in the classroom, as well as the value of any form of affective engagement with historical actors. This study also sheds light on issues of student positionality when engaging in historical thinking concepts and making ethical judgments about the past.          	
   Preface   The research carried out for this thesis was reviewed by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board. This behavioral study, numbered H12-00854 and titled “Historical Photographs and Perspective Taking,” was approved June 4, 2012, with Dr. Penney Clark as the Principal Investigator.                               	
   Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ vi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1  1.1 Historical injustice in the classroom ..............................................................................1 1.2 Positionality and complications .....................................................................................3  1.3 Research questions .........................................................................................................5  1.4 Purpose and rationale .....................................................................................................7  1.5 Significance ....................................................................................................................8  1.6 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................10  Chapter 2: Literature Review .....................................................................................................13 2.1 History education in Canada ........................................................................................13  2.2 Historical thinking .......................................................................................................15  2.3 Historical perspective taking vs. historical empathy ...................................................19   2.3.1 Empathy, sympathy and conceptions of care ................................................21  2.4 The ethical dimension ..................................................................................................24  2.5 Primary source evidence ..............................................................................................25  2.6 Bridging historical thinking and visual culture ............................................................27  2.7 What do pictures want? ................................................................................................29  2.8 Seeing the body ............................................................................................................31  2.9 Visual culture and education ........................................................................................32  2.10 Images as primary source evidence ...........................................................................35 ` 2.11 The camera as an apparatus of the state .....................................................................38  2.12 Photography: Seeing the past .....................................................................................39   2.12.1 The studium and the punctum .....................................................................40   2.12.2 Photography and trauma .............................................................................42  2.13 Conclusions ................................................................................................................46  Chapter 3: Methods and Procedures .........................................................................................48  3.1 The research site ..........................................................................................................49  3.2 The participants ............................................................................................................50  3.3 The researcher ..............................................................................................................51  3.4 The photographs under discussion ...............................................................................53  3.5 The pilot study .............................................................................................................54  3.6 Procedures ....................................................................................................................55  3.7 Data collection .............................................................................................................58  3.8 Coding and analysis .....................................................................................................59  3.9 Limitations ...................................................................................................................60  3.10 Reliability, credibility & trustworthiness ...................................................................61 	
   Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion ...........................................................................................63 4.1 Evidence of historical thinking ....................................................................................63  4.2 Photographs as primary source evidence .....................................................................64  4.3 Evidence of historical perspective taking ....................................................................69  4.4 Empathy, sympathy and care .......................................................................................72  4.5 Evidence of ethical decision-making ...........................................................................75  4.6 Discussion: Historical thinking through photographs ..................................................79  Chapter 5: A Visual Culture Conversation with the Findings ................................................85  5.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................85 5.2 Students identify the official power of the camera ......................................................86  5.3 Evidence of the punctum .............................................................................................88  5.4 Reading bodies across the photographs .......................................................................92  5.5 Affective looking: Seeing trauma ................................................................................98  5.6 Discussion: What do these photographs want? Addressing the unseen. .....................99  Chapter 6: Conclusion ...............................................................................................................103  6.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................103  6.2 Contributions to knowledge .......................................................................................104  6.3 Implications for future research .................................................................................108  References ...................................................................................................................................111  Appendices ..................................................................................................................................122 Appendix 1: Residential schooling in Canada background information .....................................122 Appendix 2: Student discussion tasks and questions ...................................................................123 Appendix 3: Photograph A: Before and after ..............................................................................125 Appendix 4: Photograph B: Class photo 1 ...................................................................................126 Appendix 5: Photograph C: Class photo 2 ...................................................................................127 Appendix 6: Photograph D: Boy haircut .....................................................................................128 Appendix 7: Photograph E: Looking unto Jesus ..........................................................................129 Appendix 8: Photograph F: Nightly prayers ................................................................................130 Appendix 9. Data collection codes ..............................................................................................131            	
   Acknowledgments  I would like to acknowledge The Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia for the opportunities it has provided me to develop as a student and as an educator. Specifically, I would like to extend a special thank you to the thoughtful support and guidance of my supervisory committee. Dr. Penney Clark was a continual support through the entire process and I am grateful for her time, expertise, and advice she has offered in improving this thesis. Dr. Peter Seixas’ guidance challenged me to become a more adept historical thinker and a stronger academic writer. Dr. Donal O’Donoghue introduced me to an abundance of theory and research that encouraged me to reconsider the visual, and its role in curriculum and the classroom. Keeley Ryan deserves acknowledgment for all her careful copyediting, feedback, and patience throughout the process. I would also like to thank my parents, Chris and Geraldine, for their support and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank the student participants, without them this research would not be possible.           	
   Dedication  To Keeley, for all your love and support.  1	
   1. Introduction 1.1 Historical injustice in the classroom  Historical injustices are complex and often contentious; teaching and learning about these events requires both the teacher and the student to navigate a multitude of contemporary and historical forces. In representing and interpreting traumatic narratives of the past, the history curriculum and its teachers, tread on precarious ground. History curriculum is loaded; power is central when we decide what and whose stories are told, how these narratives are received, and how students make sense of the past through competing and complementary narratives. Entrenched narratives, cultures and identities are all at stake when historical injustices are presented in the secondary school classroom. The often controversial nature of historical injustice and its continual resurgence in debate in contemporary Canadian culture and politics, make it clear that this is a subject of importance and value. In the past 25 years the Canadian government has attempted to redress several historical injustices including the Chinese Head Tax, Japanese Canadian internment during World War II, and Ukrainian Canadian internment during World War I. In 2008, the federal government offered an official apology to the survivors and families of ‘Indian residential schools,’ with Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling the treatment of children, “a sad chapter in our history” (Office of the Prime Minister of Canada). This process of redress has also led to the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is attempting to collect and catalogue the narratives and stories of survivors to acknowledge the truths of residential schooling and to educate all Canadians on this injustice.  This movement to address historical injustice is not unique to Canada, and it reveals a direction many countries are taking to redress and acknowledge the often troublesome and unjust past. 	
    Addressing historical injustice in the classroom is of great importance, but also a problematic and risky endeavor for educators. This is true for several reasons. Firstly, it is argued that we can never fully understand or come into contact with the past (Lowenthal, 1985), and any attempts to do so ultimately fall short of explaining exactly how and why people acted in ways that seem so strange to us today. If this is true, it then becomes difficult to justify judging those of the past through a contemporary framework. Lowenthal (2000) argues that contemporary attempts to apologize for past wrongs “sows false hopes about setting history right” (p. 71). Secondly, in teaching about other cultural, racial and ethnic groups one must be aware that these identities still have presence and force today and should not be essentialized, or presented as if they only exist in the past.  Taking the perspectives of those from the past and making ethical or moral judgments about them still has consequences for many communities and identities today.  It is in this unsteady terrain of teaching historical injustice that this study attempts to find footing. A multitude has been written and researched on how to best teach the past (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Clark, 2011; Lee & Ashby, 1987; Portal, 1987; Seixas, 2006; Wineburg, 2001) and while no clear framework has been agreed upon, many appear to be embracing ‘historical thinking’ as a way to engage students with the past. Historical thinking is broadly conceived as helping students do the work a historian does and involves complex concepts such as perspective taking, historical empathy, and ethical judgments (Levesque, 2008; Seixas, 2006). This study utilizes this approach to history education to find new interpretations of, and possibilities for, historical photographs and the historical injustice of ‘Indian residential schooling’1 in Canada. 	
   1 The term ‘Indian residential schooling’ or ‘Indian residential schools’ will be used along with ‘residential schools’ from here on. While the term ‘Indian’ is no longer considered acceptable, being replaced with First Nations and/or Aboriginal peoples, it will be used to remain consistent 	
   The research also places special focus on the practice of looking at photographs, using visual culture theory to address possible gaps in the analysis of how students make sense of the past through images.   1.2 Positionality and complications As a teacher of social studies and history I am constantly searching for new methods to engage students in the past in an interesting, relevant and critical manner. I value the role critical inquiry can have in altering students’ perceptions of the past and questioning their relationship to it. While at first it appeared as if my approach to teaching was impactful and even empowering, the development of my teaching practice was interrupted. My graduate studies led me to question my role as a social studies educator, as well as to question the implications of the social studies curriculum writ large and specific resources that are prominent in the classroom (i.e. textbooks). At times I felt paralyzed in the classroom as I questioned my positionality and power, my inability to fully discuss issues of race, whiteness, gender, sexuality, privilege and my role in furthering certain understandings of history, society and culture. While paralyzed at times I began to look for outlets to position myself as a reflective and thoughtful educator and researcher.  In questioning and naming my positionality in both roles of teacher and researcher I can begin to address ways to interact with history curriculum without essentializing identities and simplifying history into grand narratives. One of my particular interests in social studies education is the teaching of Aboriginal issues in Canada because of its contemporary relevance, 	
   with the historical context and its usage among discussions led by First Nations peoples on this issue. 	
   its tendency to be ignored by teachers, and the present resurgence to incorporate these narratives into the curriculum more effectively and fairly. Without ignoring lingering systematic racism, colonialism, and prejudice in the schools and curriculum, I believe the sidelining of this topic to the margins of the curriculum is due, in part, to the daunting task of fairly representing or even approaching the significant issues without falling into simplistic frameworks that rely on stereotypes and cultural appropriation. I struggle with the best way to engage students in this topic as I realize my identity as a white, Euro-Canadian male places me in a position of privilege. While I believe identity to be fluid, I find that most often I am in a position of privilege and due to this position I cannot fully understand, or use, what Donna Haraway (1998) has called a “voice from below,” in my research or in my teaching. I cannot claim to speak for, or from, any position of marginalization. However I argue that does not mean I should not engage in discussions of what Deborah Britzman (1998) has called ‘difficult knowledge,’ in my classroom or as a researcher. This study is partially driven by my interest in finding a way to best represent and discuss issues that are political and involve historical injustice without essentializing a group as victim in the process.  More recently I have begun to integrate historical thinking concepts, as developed by Peter Seixas (2006), into the classroom as a framework and process for studying the past. These concepts, which I will discuss in more detail further on, ask students to interpret history as a historian might, by evaluating primary source evidence, determining significance, analyzing cause and consequence, identifying continuity and change, taking perspectives and finally making ethical decisions about the past. While not entirely unproblematic, I find historical thinking to be a useful way to engage students in a manner that allows for critical pedagogies, but also places the student’s positionality and context into view. I find historical thinking 	
   particularly valuable for inquiries into historical injustices. This study is located at the intersection of historical injustice and perspective taking.   In my practice as a teacher, I utilize historical images in my classroom in numerous ways.  Images complement the curriculum and textbooks, add an entry point for classroom discussions and occasionally may serve as the focus for an entire lesson on analyzing images or photographs. They are an indispensible part of my teaching practice and as students, schools and curriculum become more digitally focused they will undoubtedly continue to be a source of inquiry and engagement in the secondary school setting. A cursory glance at any recent recommended textbooks for social studies in British Columbia will reveal that images have become essential and omnipresent, in resources that were previously dominated by written text. As my understandings of curriculum theory around history education have been extended, I have begun to problematize how we look at visuals in the social studies classroom. It has led me to question what all these images that students are confronted with are doing and how students are making sense of the images, especially those that provoke an immediate and at times emotional response. To help answer these questions I turned to theories presented in the field of visual culture, which give us a discourse for understanding the ‘practices of looking’ (Cartwright & Sturken, 1998).  1.3 Research questions  Taking into account the teaching of historical injustices, historical thinking, and theories of visual culture the following research questions were developed on the topic of “Indian residential schooling” in Canada: 	
   1. How do historical photographs extend, complicate or contradict student understandings of residential schooling in Canada? 2. How do students use historical photographs to take historical perspectives and show historical empathy? 3. How do students use evidence in historical photographs to support an ethical position regarding residential schooling in Canada? 4. How does the practice of looking at historical photographs reflect the visual cultures2 of students?  These research questions reflect the purpose of the study and are each addressed in the findings. As is often the case with research, one’s findings do not clearly answer all of the questions, and in some cases provoke more questions that need to be asked. This is not to say, however, that little was learned through the study as the discussions the students brought to bear raised many interesting possibilities for further explorations of historical thinking and visual culture.  The study produced a great deal of data that revealed much about the ability of students to think historically using historical photographs. Research question one yielded significant findings on how students understand photographs as tenuous and complicated traces of the past. Question two also brought to light new and useful data on the relationship between looking at photographs and taking perspectives, especially with regards to conceptions of empathy, care and affective engagement. These findings, while revealing, also raised many questions about the best way to conceive of student interactions with historical actors. The ethical dimension was an area 	
   2 The term ‘visual cultures’ will be used throughout to refer to the impossibility of speaking of one singular or unified visual culture, instead accepting that each participant in the study may have a distinct way of seeing. 	
   of the research that also provided interesting findings that revealed students willingness to make judgments about the past, with students using both the contextual information and the photographs to decide upon the difficult ethical implications involved. Finally, the study’s findings add to the literature by bringing forth a discussion on how student’s visual cultures are implicated in their historical understandings. The study will make clear that photographs are a useful tool for the history classroom as they encourage new possibilities for developing historical thinking and exploring the relationship between photography, history and the visual cultures of students.  1.4 Purposes and rationale  The overall purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between historical photographs and student understandings of historical injustices. More specifically this study aimed to discover what role historical photographs play in how students understand traumas of the past and how they help or hinder a student’s ability to take perspectives of those experiencing collective traumas in the past. Using student task-based qualitative research I have analyzed how students make sense of the past and how they construct meaning from photographs. It was essential to work with students to begin to understand their thought processes in confronting images of collective trauma or injustice. Students are coming from different backgrounds, contexts and positions of privilege than myself in the position of teacher and researcher. They most likely have different experiences and understandings of images of historical injustices and therefore their understandings have great value. A final intent of this research was to put theories of visual culture into conversation with historical thinking in the 	
   hopes of addressing what I see as potential weaknesses in the current research and literature of helping students to do the work of historians.  1.5 Significance  Recently, much has been written on the best ways to teach history to secondary age school students (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Clark, 2011; Osborne, 2006; Seixas, 2006; Seixas & Morton, 2013; Wineburg, 2001) While no consensus has been reached, the field in the Canadian context appears to be settling upon an understanding of history education in which students use the skills a historian might to understand the past. Theories of visual culture in the history classroom have also been theorized by Walter Werner (2002, 2004a, 2004b) who outlines in great detail how visual culture can be integrated into the social studies classroom. Studies have also taken place, which involve photographs and historical thinking (Foster, Hosch & Roge, 1999; Levstik, 2001); however, no studies explicitly focus on students’ practices of looking and its relationship to historical injustices.  In terms of historical empathy and perspective taking, Davis, Yeager, & Foster (2001) have collected research regarding perspective taking in their book, Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies, setting the stage for more specific research. Recently, Peter Lee and Denis Shemilt (2011) have reopened the debate on perspective taking and empathy in the history classroom in an article subtitled “Should empathy come out of the closet?” Barton and Levstik (2004) have also written extensively on historical empathy in their book, Teaching history for the common good. Others in the field (Blake, 1998; Brooks, 2011; Colby, 2007; Cunningham, 2009; Endacott, 2010) have also recently published findings on student and teacher understandings and uses of historical empathy and perspective taking. In particular, and of 	
   interest to this study, Endacott (2010) focuses on the uses of affective engagement in historical empathy. It is clear from these recent studies that the topics being researched in this study are relevant and situated within current scholarship in the field.  The significance of this research is that it addresses specifically the ‘practice of looking,’ in relation to photographic images of historical injustice. By this I mean the role images play in changing, situating or reinforcing historical awareness or consciousness and students’ abilities to take perspectives. Societal investment in images has given them a certain power and sway, often leading students to an affective or emotional response. I aim to add to the discussion by examining what many in visual culture have called the ‘ocular-centrist’ nature of contemporary western culture (Jay, 1993) in relationship to history education.  In terms of social studies curriculum in Canada this study has significance as it looks to understand ways students make sense of historical injustices and historical photographs that are currently in use in the social studies classroom. Residential schooling, as a topic of inquiry in the curriculum, has increasingly become recognized as a topic that should be discussed in secondary classrooms. This is shown by recent changes in both the most recent editions of the Grade 10 and Grade 11 textbooks in B.C., both of which have devoted more space and photographs to this issue. This study does not offer clear alternatives to the current curriculum; however it could be used to help alter and shape new curricula that are centered on concepts of historical thinking, as well as including theories of visual culture to improve pedagogical strategies for how students look at photographs in the social studies context.    	
   1.6 Theoretical framework  This study attempts to find space between critical pedagogy approaches to curriculum and post-structural approaches. As I have developed and reflected on my teaching practice, theories of critical pedagogy engaged me in the classroom and as a graduate student. The work of Paulo Freire (1970), Michael Apple (1990), Henry Giroux (1988) and Peter McLaren (1995) influenced my ideas on teaching social studies and history. These critical pedagogues call for social justice, and their solidarity against oppression and marginalization appealed to me. I particularly felt empowered by their declaration that education could be transformative for students in the classroom and for society. The critical pedagogy approach to education, sometimes referred to as a social reconstructionist framework, has goals which I often support and align myself to. McLaren (1995) even goes as far as to claim that critical pedagogy is, “unabashedly utopian” (p. 12). Pedagogies of social studies that included critical inquiries into power and the inclusion of subaltern narratives seemed to be the best method to engage students in the political nature of all curricula. In the classroom, I asked students to question the dominant narrative, as we focused on what I considered was a more equitable version of the curriculum, using sources and narratives from topics and voices that had traditionally been brushed aside, or left in the shaded green section in the margins of the textbook.  In working through critical pedagogy as a student and as a teacher, my philosophy of education began to shift to more post-structural understandings of curriculum. While I do not fully reject critical pedagogies, or a social re-constructionist framework outright, I find their theoretical framework lacking as I have been exposed to other theories and concepts, which for purposes here I will refer to as post-structural theories in education. This change was partly a result of my feeling that critical pedagogy too often relies upon binaries of victim and oppressor 	
   and leaves little actual room for engagement and empowerment despite its goals. I began to think that by teaching the narrative of the other, I was also reifying certain identities as other in the process. I also began to wonder if I was appropriating certain voices in the curriculum or simply misrepresenting them. Elizabeth Ellsworth’s (1989) article “Why doesn’t this feel empowering: Working through the myths of critical pedagogy,” was particularly pivotal for me as an educator and student. Her harsh critique of critical pedagogies furthered my interest in post-structural theories in education. Further inquiry into this field of thought led me to the work of William Pinar (1991) and Chet Bowers (1987, 1991) who also make compelling critiques of critical pedagogy. Feminist, post-structuralist theory in the field of education, as developed by theorists such as Ellsworth (1989), Haraway (1988) and Lather (2007), attracted me, as it problematized the essentialism often present in critical pedagogy and moved research and theory to focus on ‘discourses,’ and ‘regimes of truth,’ as theorized by Foucault (1980). I began to question my role, position and privilege in the classroom and in the curriculum I was teaching. This break did not end my interest in critical pedagogies, but instead further complicated it, leading to the desire to research further how history curriculum can inhabit a complicated space that addresses inequality and yet does not fall victim to the weaknesses I perceived in critical pedagogy frameworks.  In bridging critical theories with those of visual culture, which is often based upon post- structural ways of knowing, I rely upon much of the work of critical pedagogy in explaining the political role of the curriculum. However, I also maintain that it too often simplifies the conversation into binaries and does not allow for more complex and often contradictory understandings of curriculum that promote fluid, partial understandings that are based upon one’s context. That is not to fall completely into a relativistic framework, but to address the 	
   frustration of simplifying the identities and roles of students and teachers. Specifically regarding this study, I asked students to critically ‘look’ at representations of race, gender and power in regards to Canadian history. However I also asked of them and myself to explicitly consider their context and identity in the construction of meaning during the research process. In my literature review, I will address how I will use these greater understandings of curriculum theory to address more specific theories of historical thinking, and visual culture.  The framework of the analysis will utilize two specific theories that have been applied to education: historical thinking and visual culture. The first, historical thinking, will largely be based upon Peter Seixas’ (2006) conception of historical thinking, with other conceptualizations, most notably ones that address historical empathy, taken into account. Furthermore, a discussion on the use of images as historical evidence will take place that utilizes Peter Burke’s (2001) book, Eyewitnessing history: Using images as primary source evidence as a framework and contextual guide for thinking about photographs in the history classroom.  The secondary layer of analysis is based upon theories of visual culture, where I will discuss instances of the complex ways in which students make sense of the visual aspects of their worlds. This layer of analysis is subsumed into post-structural ways of knowing. I also add another level of analysis that draws upon theories of photography and trauma utilizing the work of Susan Sontag (1980, 2003), Roland Barthes (1977, 1980), Judith Butler (2010), Jill Bennett (2005) and Michael Roth (2011). Roth has most recently used trauma as a lens regarding collective historical memories and injustices. These theories will be added to the approaches of visual culture as an additional discourse for discussing historical injustices in the social studies classroom.  	
   2. Literature Review  There are two divergent literatures underpinning my thesis and each will provide the basis for a chapter of analysis. Thus, this literature review is divided into two sections. The first is set in the context of history education focusing on the development of a conceptual and disciplinary model of ‘historical thinking’ for history education (Seixas, 2006). The second theoretical field is that of visual culture and its uses and application in the field of education. An overview of this field will be provided; however, due to its expansive and interdisciplinary nature, I will concentrate on theories of photography, as this study directly deals with how students, and curriculum, make sense of photographs. My analysis will attempt to bring these two theories together into conversation to add to the current research on history education and visual literacy in the Canadian history and social studies context.  2.1 History education in Canada  History education in Canada remains a contested and complex terrain of research and theory. While a controversial subject since its inception, Canada’s history wars (Sandwell in Taylor, 2012) seem to have really gained traction in the 1990s, with the publication of the Dominion Institute’s report (1997) on youth knowledge of Canadian history, which gave the youth of the nation a failing grade (34%) on basic history questions. In addition, Jack Granatstein’s (1998) polemical book entitled, Who Killed Canadian History? began pointing fingers at who was to blame for an apparent loss of collective memory of the history of Canada. Granatstein and the Dominion Institute argued that special interest groups, social and cultural historians, feminist historians, provincial education departments and schools had diluted and ruined traditional ‘nation building’ history. In the place of a grand narrative history, encouraging 	
   a ‘collective memory,’ convoluted and specific histories had risen to prominence. According to Granatstein and the Dominion Institute, this led to a dangerous lack of public knowledge of Canada’s historical trajectory and achievements. Of course these ‘history wars’ are not unique to the Canadian context and similar controversies can be found in many countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.  In response to arguments about how and what to teach in history, Peter Seixas (2000) argues that three main approaches exist for history education: The first approach is one that focuses on building a collective or shared past, often employing the use of grand narratives to this end. Seixas refers to this approach as one that attempts to find the “best story,” and is powerful at “enhancing collective memory” and nation building (p. 20). The disciplinary approach advances the study of history in schools using the methods of a professional historian. This approach builds on the work of David Lowenthal (1985), and advances a pedagogy in which students learn how to “question a historical account, understand the evidentiary base upon which it rests, and assess it in relation to competing accounts” (Seixas, 2000, p. 24). Robert Parkes (2011) has called this a ‘deconstructionist’ approach, which avoids choosing narratives, instead exposing students to the raw materials of history, so that they might understand the interpretative nature of history and the dilemmas involved in constructing narratives based on available evidence. A third approach appears to draw its inspiration from critical theory and postmodernism and is termed by Seixas, the post modern approach. Seixas discusses tenets of postmodernism and their relationship to history particularly narrativity, positionality, the limitation of progress and the textuality of sources (p. 27). This discussion leads Seixas to suggest that there are two possibilities for postmodernism in history education. First, that postmodernism is flawed and that we must proceed upon one of the first two approaches or 	
   second, that postmodernism is valid and thus all knowledge is relative. This possibility then extends to suggest that any approach can be used to serve the purposes of the day (p. 34).  In either case, Seixas is quick to clarify that he envisions the interplay of all three of these approaches, benefitting from each of the approach’s insights, yet not falling victim to their weaknesses (p. 34).  The disciplinary approach has been developed and articulated by historians, and history educators, into a usable and approachable framework commonly referred to as a ‘historical thinking’ approach. There is much evidence to show that this movement is gaining traction among many teachers and curriculum developers. Several related projects in Canada began in the 2000s with the creation of the Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness at UBC under the direction of Peter Seixas (2001) and the creation of the History Education Network (THEN/HIER) under the direction of Penney Clark (2008). These changes signal a move in the classroom and in the curriculum to the integration of ‘historical thinking’ into history education in Canada.  2.2 Historical thinking  Historical thinking is a conceptual framework for history education that has attempted to address perceived weaknesses and inadequacies in the teaching of history in schools. It is based upon the idea that for students to become competent in the field of history, more is needed than rote memorization of information or skills development. This new framework for history education posits that school age history students should be introduced to the work that a professional historian might do. This disciplinary approach, it is argued, encourages a greater 	
   depth of understanding, more opportunities to critically think and generally a greater appreciation and understanding of how history is researched, constructed and written.  While historical thinking is not necessarily a new idea, the framework and process it offers provides a strong example of where history education in Canada appears to be heading. Finding its roots in scholarly history, Tom Holt (1990) suggested applying the work a professional historian does to the classroom, urging students to be exposed to what he termed the ‘raw materials of history’ or in other words, primary source evidence. In Holt’s Thinking Historically (1990), an influential work aimed at an audience of teachers, he posits that history is about narratives, but that those narratives are not the sole domain of historians. He argues that the process of writing history can be reversed or relocated, with the students becoming the creators of narratives, after they are introduced to the practice of using documents. Holt suggests that through the process of doing the work of historians students will develop the skills and content associated with the academic discipline of history (p. 10). In Holt’s view, history teaching then becomes a place of debate, conversation and invention, rather than a boring list of facts and dates (p. 13). This conception of history teaching, while further developed, refined and modified, is a major basis for historical thinking in the classroom.  In the United Kingdom, much groundwork has also been laid for a new framework for history teaching. Working under the influential Schools History Project, that began in 1972 and produced a refocused history curriculum, as well as the Concepts of History and Teaching Approaches Project (CHATA), Rosalyn Ashby and Peter Lee (1987), Denis Shemilt (1987) and Christopher Portal (1987) mapped a series of progressions for second order or higher level thinking in history learning. These conceptions of what history in the classroom ought to be were influential in North America and provided another foundation from which this new movement 	
   could be conceptualized.  Further theorization was undertaken in Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives (Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg Eds., 2000), with Seixas discussing three key approaches as considered above. Wineburg (2001) further developed and theorized students’ and teachers’ ability to think historically in his book Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. As Wineburg’s title suggests, helping students do this work of historians is not an easy or comfortable task; however, he argues that in the process of developing this ‘unnatural act,’ students will gain understandings of the past which will better help them situate their present world.   In Canada, the project was undertaken by Peter Seixas to create a clear and usable conceptual framework in what became the Benchmarks for Historical Thinking (2006), and which has more recently become known as the Historical Thinking Project (2011). This project, which is centered at the University of British Columbia under the auspices of the Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness, has currently settled upon six concepts for students and teachers to engage with the past. These concepts are: establish historical significance, use primary source evidence, identify continuity and change, analyze cause and consequence, take historical perspectives and understand the ethical dimension of history. This conceptual framework has been introduced to teachers and students in a variety of ways, especially in the Canadian context. Early versions of these concepts have been expanded upon in a book designed for teachers entitled Teaching about Historical Thinking (Denos & Case, 2006). Also, the Historical Thinking Project (2006) offers a website with further explanation of the concepts and exemplar lessons and graphic organizers encouraging further use of the concepts. Recently, Seixas and Morton (2013) have written a guide for teachers, The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts. This book introduces teachers to the underlying theories of the historical thinking 	
   concepts through the discussion of popular historical accounts and fiction, as well as offering teachers ideas and suggestions for incorporating these six historical thinking concepts into the classroom.  Other scholars in the field have developed slightly different frameworks of concepts. For example, Stéphane Lévesque (2008) has devised five concepts for historical thinking based on Seixas’ first conceptual framework, combining perspective taking and the ethical dimension into a concept he terms historical empathy. Samuel Wineburg and Roy Rosenzweig (2007) also created a similar project online in the United States entitled Historical Thinking Matters, which focuses on encouraging students to read documents as historians might. Furthermore, the Stanford History Education Group, which Wineburg is affiliated with, has produced resources of importance, adding to the literature on teaching historical thinking, including the teacher’s guide, Reading like a Historian (Wineburg, Martin, & Monte-Sano, 2011). Of course the historical thinking approach has not been adopted by all Ministries of Education and should not be considered an all-encompassing framework for history education in Canada; however there are many inroads into prescribed curriculum being made. Notably the most recent edition of Counterpoints (2010), the recommended and most commonly used textbook for the Social Studies 11 curriculum in British Columbia, adopts a framework of what it calls critical thinking that uses six elements which are very similar to the Historical Thinking Project: significance, patterns and change, evidence, perspectives, cause and consequence, and judgments.  In the context of this study I will focus more in-depth on three of the historical thinking concepts: primary source evidence, historical perspective taking and understanding the ethical dimension of history. Primary source evidence was selected as essential to this study as the 	
   research methods directly deal with photographs and their use in the construction and understanding of history. Secondly, perspective taking and the ethical dimension were chosen as they each offer interesting opportunities for students to discuss the complex issues that surround historical injustices such as Indian Residential Schooling in Canada, which was the topic of inquiry during the research procedures.  2.3 Historical perspective taking vs. historical empathy  Much past research has also been undertaken regarding students’ abilities to take perspective and empathize with actors of the past. Sarah Brooks (2009) has compiled a review of this literature and offers suggestions for further research. While there has been considerable interest in this area, Brooks makes clear that there is no consensus on how historical empathy or perspective taking might be defined. Davis, Yeager & Foster (2001) compiled much research and theory on the topic in Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies. This book includes several chapters that are of importance to my research including Linda Levstik’s (2001) that involved students looking at pictures of significant events in New Zealand’s history, as well as Bruce VanSledright’s (2001) chapter on how positionality and context are related to taking historical perspectives.  While there is no consensus on the difference between perspective taking and historical empathy, I will begin to distinguish them using Peter Seixas’ understanding of historical perspective taking as a starting point.  Seixas states that taking historical perspectives “means understanding the social, cultural, intellectual, and emotional settings that shaped people’s lives and actions in the past” (The Historical Thinking Project, 2006). This conception of historical perspective taking focuses more on the cognitive ability to complete a complex task of trying to 	
   understand how settings, contexts and world views explain historical actions and events. As Seixas & Peck (2004) explain, “historical perspective-taking is not, in this context, an affective achievement. Rather it is the ability to see and understand the world from a perspective not our own” (p. 113). Likewise, Downey (1995) describes perspective taking to be “concerned with explaining actions, attitudes, and concepts which are alien to our own,” and specifically states that students should not try to identify or sympathize with a historical actors feelings or emotions. In other words, students using perspective taking are attempting to adopt unnatural and perhaps uncomfortable perceptions of the past and those acting in it using ‘rational,’ and ‘intellectual’ thinking. A familiar saying that is often used to illuminate this concept, is novelist L.P. Hartley’s line, “the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” This oft used quote, by historians such as David Lowenthal and the Historical Thinking Project, illustrates the key aspect of perspective taking as it encapsulates the notion that to take the perspectives of past individuals and societies, we must not project our present day values, beliefs and understandings of the world onto them.  Others in the field, including Stéphane Lévesque, building on the work of Seixas, choose not to use the term perspective taking, instead using the concept of historical empathy. It is important to note that while they have much in common they cannot be considered the same concept. Lévesque (2008) defines historical empathy as the use of three conceptual tools: imagination, contextualization, and moral judgment (p. 131). The inclusion of imagination as well as moral judgement clearly distinguishes this concept from that of Seixas’ perspective taking. These two conceptions will be used as a basis to discuss the two concepts; however there is still much debate on what constitutes historical empathy as well.  	
   2.3.1 Empathy, sympathy and conceptions of care  The contested understanding of historical empathy is rooted in the difference between more cognitive, rational uses of the concept, as opposed to more affective, sympathetic or emotional responses to historical events or actors that students may have. While this may appear to set up a false binary of cognitive vs. emotional, clinical psychology research has divided empathy into these two categories (Barrett-Lenard, 1981; Davis, 1982) As Endacott (2010) discusses, more recent research (Hashimoto, 2002) has suggested that while both forms of empathy exist neither is mutually exclusive (p. 7). Psychologists appear to disagree on a definable understanding of empathy and this debate is paralleled by history and social studies educators who do not agree on historical empathy’s definition, or use in the classroom.  This discussion is taken up by Bryant and Clark (2006), who investigate empathy in the CBC/Radio Canada television series, Canada: A People’s History. Bryant and Clark differentiate between what they call ‘historical empathy’ and ‘emotive empathy’ with the latter being closer to what is often understood as sympathy. Others such as Davis (2001), Yeager (2001) and Foster (1999) maintain that historical empathy is primarily a cognitive act that is part of historical method and can be defined as what it is not, including imagination, sympathy, or identification with historical actors (Brooks, 2009, p. 216). This understanding of historical empathy which has much in common with Seixas’ perspective taking, directly contradicts Levesque’s use of the term as it suggests imagination and personal identification with past actors and judgments should not be considered part of this conceptual tool. Finally, Foster (1999) argues that empathy can only depend upon “cautious inquiry and close examination of available evidence” (p. 19), which narrowly defines how historical empathy can be conceived.  Foster goes on to state that 	
   identification and imagination should not be used as “no historian or student of history has the ability to embrace the persona of another from a different place in time” (p. 19).  There has been considerable rejection of Foster’s understanding of empathy by Blake (1998) and VanSledright (2001), as well as Barton and Levstik (2004) who have begun to re- conceptualize an understanding of historical empathy that includes aspects of affective engagement (Endicott, 2010). Blake and VanSledright are both concerned with notions of positionality. Blake (1998) rejects the rigidity of following a historical discipline by suggesting that students should not disregard feelings, sympathy and identification as they take into account one’s present or positionality in understanding the past. VanSledright (2001) adds to the discussion by arguing that an analysis of one’s self and one’s present bearings, or positionality, is essential for understanding how one’s present worldviews and contexts impact how one understands positions of the past through an empathic lens. He adds that the foreignness of the past is unattainable to us and despite efforts, can only be approached, never met and because of this impossibility of comprehension “we have no place to stand outside our present bearings” (VanSledright, 2001, p. 60). This argument firmly suggests that without a careful analysis and acceptance of one’s present vantage point, historical empathy becomes an impossible task.  Barton and Levstik (2004) have also written extensively on the concept of emotive empathy in history through what they call the concept of ‘care.’ They distinguish the ability of students to take historical perspectives, which they consider to be an intellectual or cognitive tool, with the student’s ability to feel empathy or care for actors or actions of the past, through the making of a personal connection  (Barton & Levstik, 2004, p 241).  Barton and Levstik argue, that it is unreasonable to enforce the idea that students should have a sterilized view of the past in which they disregard emotional reactions and contemporary concerns because it is not 	
   ‘good’ history. This is because some argue that having students consider their own feelings and world views can be labeled a presentist approach and therefore “un-academic and immature” (p. 221). Barton and Levstik reject this criticism and use four concepts of ‘caring’ to distinguish between the more cognitive perspective recognition and the more affective emotional response. These four concepts of caring are: Caring for, caring to, caring about and caring that.  Each of these four concepts as outlined by Barton and Levstik (2004) deal with how students make personal connections to history, which include taking into account personal interests, making moral judgments about history, considering the desire to help past actors, and looking at the willingness to learn lessons from the past (p. 241-242). Much of this understanding of historical empathy as caring overlaps with Seixas’ (2006) conceptualization of the ethical dimension of history; however, this is not to say they are the same. The distinction between students ‘feeling’ for the people in photographs, rather than actually taking perspectives and showing historical empathy is of great importance in the analysis of the data generated during the study.  More recent research has inquired into the topic of historical empathy in the classroom. In Italy, Berti, Baldin and Toneatti (2009) writing in the field of educational psychology, have investigated historical empathy and understanding in children and adults in relation to the Middle Ages concept of Ordeal. They found that as students got older they increasingly relied upon a notion of ‘backwardness’ to explain the past and its actors. Deborah Cunningham (2009) researched how teachers conceptualize and teach historical empathy, finding in a study of teachers in the U.K. that the strategies used to conceptualize and teach empathy were diverse and that the concept often provoked unresolved dilemmas in the classroom. Cunningham (2009) suggests that raising awareness among students of the multiplicity of conceptions of historical empathy may be helpful for teachers and students as opposed to a more rigidly enforced 	
   definition (p. 704). Other studies on the topic include Colby’s (2009) research, which focuses on how students use primary source documents to achieve historical empathy. Colby’s findings suggest that using primary documents to generate historical empathy was challenging, requiring extensive time and opportunity; however, she firmly argues that teaching for historical empathy enriches students’ understandings of both themselves and society (p. 81). Finally, Lee and Shemilt (2011) have reentered the debate, in an article subtitled “Should empathy come out of the closet?” that discusses problems of addressing perspective taking in the classroom, tentatively stating that further research and experiments with the concept must be undertaken to understand its importance or usefulness in history education.  2.4 The ethical dimension  What may be considered the culminating concept in Seixas’ (2006) conception of historical thinking is the ethical dimension (previously known as moral judgments). The ethical dimension of history asks students to make value judgments regarding the people and events from the past. Understanding the ethical dimension of history might be the most complex and problematic historical thinking concept. It asks students to step back from the reasoned disciplinary approach requested of them previously, to make ethical judgments based on their present beliefs and values. The worry here, as explained by Seixas (2006), and Denos and Case (2006), is that it opens history to anachronistic or presentist interpretations. David Lowenthal (2000) addresses the problematic nature of applying present day values in coming to terms with “historical guilt” (p. 70).  He contends that the vogue for “restitution and repentance fog historical understanding” (p. 70).  While this argument demonstrates a potential weakness of this concept, it does not necessary mean that ethical judgments should be avoided. Lowenthal is 	
   primarily arguing against the contemporary need to redress the unjust past rather than the ability to make ethical judgments. As the Historical Thinking Project (2006) states, “meaningful history does not treat brutal slave-holders, enthusiastic Nazis, and marauding conquistadors in a ‘neutral’ manner.” This argument is further extended to claim if a historical narrative has value then ultimately an ethical judgment is involved. It should also be noted that there is overlap between some conceptions of historical empathy and the ethical dimension; however, the lines are blurred and cannot be easily compared to one another. Some conceptions (see Lévesque, 2008) include moral judgments as part of the historical empathy process while others; including Seixas (2006), Foster (1998) and Yeager (2001) appear to disagree.  2.5 Primary source evidence  As this study asked students to look at historical photographs, it was imperative that they discuss how photographs are used as historical evidence. The concept of primary source evidence attempts to get students to utilize the traces or sources of history to build their understandings of the past. Denos and Case (2006), who have further elaborated upon Seixas’ conceptions of historical thinking for the classroom, refer to primary sources, using Holt’s (1990) phrase, as the ‘raw materials’ of history. This of course is not new to the discipline of history. Most modern history, as an academic or even scientific discipline, is largely based on the German historian Leopold van Ranke’s empirical ideas of historical narratives resting upon primary sources. While Ranke’s ideas have been much debated and criticized in the field of history, this basic premise still underlies the use of primary source evidence in the conceptual model of historical thinking and historiography writ large. 	
    The inclusion of primary source evidence as an essential component to historical thinking does not simply assume such evidence is the only suitable source of historical information. Instead it refocuses attention not just on what new information can be acquired but also on questioning the sources’ reliability, purpose, value, and limitations. The use of primary source evidence, as explained by Lévesque (in Clark, 2011), is encouraged “not because it will lead novices to become mini-historians, but because of its great potential for fostering historical understanding” (p. 130). In this context understanding is not necessarily what information or facts one can learn from a source, but more importantly what does it reveal about its author, the context in which it was created in, its purpose, and if it is corroborated by other sources (Lévesque, 2011).  Historical thinking educators generally divide sources into two categories: accounts and traces (Denos & Case, 2006). Accounts generally deal with the telling or narrating of an event, such as an eyewitness report or official report, while traces tend not to contain narrative information, instead leaving remnants or clues from the past, such as photographs, or artifacts. Sources are also often commonly divided into primary and secondary sources. Primary sources were created or originate around the time of events under study, while secondary sources, generally narratives, are based upon primary sources and created later. The historical thinking process does not necessarily suggest one is definitively more valuable than the other, but instead encourages that each should be considered for its interpretation, trustworthiness, value, author, intent, limitations and so on. Photographs, like most images, tend to be considered primary source trace evidence of the past.  I argue that photographs offer unique and complex understandings of the past, as I will show that they can provoke an immediate emotional or affective response in the viewer. 	
    2.6 Bridging historical thinking and visual culture  The ‘practice of looking’ is an essential part of analyzing evidence in history, whether that evidence is a photograph, a political cartoon or a diary. This practice, while seemingly a simple process is problematized by the field of visual culture.  The literature on visual culture offers this study a second framework for analyzing and thinking about the use of images in the teaching of history.  The field of visual culture emerged fairly recently out of cultural studies and art history, drawing from, and operating between, fields such as anthropology, sociology, political science, critical theory, gender studies, queer theory, film studies and philosophy (Mirzoeff, 2002). It poses important questions when analyzing images, artifacts, exhibitions and museums. Much of the debate in this field is whether or not the ‘postmodern Western world’ has become increasingly visual or in Martin Jay’s (1993) term ‘ocular-centristic.’ Mirzoeff (1998) argues that if the postmodern is a visual culture, then it is not simply because there are more images, but instead that the connection between seeing and knowing has been stretched or even broken (Rose, 2012, p. 4).  This contested understanding of the visual comes partly out of new digital media that offer society new ways to view, alter and manipulate images. The act of looking, or what Sturken and Cartwright (1998) have called the ‘practice of looking,’ has become a focus for much writing and research, as many claim the world has become visually saturated (Werner, 2004). If a visual turn has indeed occurred, the field of visual culture has arisen to bring forth understanding on how practices of looking are culturally, socially and historically mediated.  Visual culture has multiple definitions all of which are concerned with the visual, yet no singular description of the field exists. Sturken and Cartwright (2001) maintain that the field owes much to the work of John Berger (1972) and his influential work Ways of Seeing, which 	
   examined not just what we see in images, but the kind of seeing certain images invite. This starting point led to a complex and interdisciplinary field of visual culture, visuality and visual studies with multiple points of intersection and difference. Irit Rogoff (2002) defines visual culture, as more than simply the study of images, but an intertextual discussion of the meanings and interpretations of the visual (p. 24). In another attempt to outline the field, Hal Foster (1988) explains that visual culture is not simply a study of vision or imagery, but instead can refer to ‘visuality.’ Foster defines visuality as “how we see, how we are able, allowed, or made to see and how we see this seeing and the unseeing therein” (1988, p. ix). It is clear using Foster’s definition that the act of looking, and in the case of this research, the act of looking at historical photographs, must be made problematic, and the field of visual culture offers some conceptual tools for that discussion.  The field of visual culture is interdisciplinary in nature and uses a wide array of theories and practices. Due to its expansive and complex background this field can be utilized in various areas and I believe it can be put to work with conceptions of historical thinking to further analyze the role of the visual in the history classroom. Visual culture is consistent with post-structural theories of understanding in education, in allowing flexible use across disciplines and a focus on a multiplicity of ‘ways of knowing.’ While this study explicitly deals with images and the relationship between those images and the viewer, it is also concerned with how student’s visual worlds encounter the social studies curriculum. It also begins to problematize the relationship between seeing and knowing. In this case, whether seeing leads to knowing or if knowing itself enforces how we see.  Stuart Hall (1997), writing out of the Birmingham school of cultural studies, argues that all visual images we analyze have multiple interpretations and meanings; depending on your 	
   approach of analysis, all are constructed (p. 24). This suggests that all images have an associated intention, author and subject. Yet others, such as Mitchell (2005), have gone on to argue that images may function in multiple ways and do not always conform to the author’s intentions. Hall (1997) maintains that the intention of the image is tied to a particular context of interpretation, or the need to interpret as a function of time and place. As Hall further explains, when looking at visual representations we have to take into account three approaches in understanding meaning. The first approach claims that the meaning can exist in the object of the visual itself. Hall’s second approach states that the meaning is in the intention of the author or creator, and the third approach explores the idea that the viewer constructs the meaning and that all visuals are interpretations of the viewer. While these approaches are not mutually exclusive, I believe that Hall’s third approach of visual representation is particularly useful when examining primary source evidence such as photographs. This is partly because this approach looks at the space between the object, (the image) and the subject (the viewer), placing emphasis on not only interpretations of the visual object, its author, intention and audience, but also taking into account the positionality and identity of the viewer (Mirzeoff, 2006).  2.7 What do pictures want?  One of the foremost theorists in the field is W.J.T. Mitchell, whose works, Picture Theory (1994), Iconology (1987), and What do pictures want? (2005) provoke questions and controversy on how best to approach images and pictures. In Picture Theory, Mitchell (1994) refers to the term, image/text to discuss how images and language are entangled and cannot simply be delineated. This suggests that we read images just as we might read the written word and that those meanings may be fluid and ever changing. Many others (Barthes, 1980; Elkins, 	
   2008; Werner, 2004) appear to agree that images should be considered texts and that we must seek to learn and to teach a ‘visual literacy.’ Mitchell (2005) complicates the use and discussion of images when he asks us in the title of his book, What do pictures want? Mitchell contends that pictures have always been with us and that we must not just ask what pictures or images mean, but, “what claim do they make on us and how do we respond?” (p. xv). He further argues that there can be no ready-made interpretative guide for understanding what images mean, instead suggesting that images function in multiple ways depending on their place, time, and the viewer.  The question, what do pictures want?, has created much discussion and controversy over whether Mitchell is actually arguing for pictures actually wanting and desiring things from us. In other words, are pictures animated, or sentient, beings with agency? Jacques Rancière (2009) takes up this argument in his article, Do pictures really want to live?, questioning if Mitchell has endowed images with too much ‘will’ (p. 131). Similarly, Janet Wolff (2012) discusses this claim by pointing out that Mitchell himself states, “the idea of pictures as animated is really a ‘constitutive fiction,’ employed to urge us to take them seriously” (p. 8). Rancière attempts to correct Mitchell’s formulation by stating that, it is not that pictures want things, but instead, “pictures behave as if they wanted all this” (p. 131). One of Mitchell’s main arguments is that images are not waiting to be decoded or critiqued with language as it simply reduces them to information, denying their emotional and affective power.  Instead as Rancière explains, Mitchell insists on an image’s vitality, explaining that by endowing it with desires it does “justice to their life without forcing them to be alive” (p. 131). Furthermore, Mitchell’s argument has similarities with Judith Butler’s discussion of Susan Sontag (see chapter 2.12.2) by stating that “photography is a record of what we see or a revelation of what we cannot see, a glimpse of what was previously invisible” (p. 274). The 	
   notion of invisibility or obstruction of representation in the photographs will be a complicating factor in the analysis process of this research, as it offers a way to discuss what the selected images ignore, make invisible or other possibilities that are not obvious or intended meanings of the photographs seen by the research participants.  2.8 Seeing the body  A common area of analysis within visual culture is how we see or look at bodies. Much of this theory, beginning with the work of psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1977) has arisen out of the discussion of what is termed the ‘gaze,’ The gaze has multiple meanings and often has connotations of desire, power and fantasy, such as the belief that advertising or popular film is often orientated around a ‘male gaze’ (Sturken & Cartwright, 1998). In this context, theories of the gaze are concerned with how the practice of looking has power to normalize and regulate bodies. Donna Haraway (1991) builds on concepts of the male, Eurocentric gaze to suggest that contemporary western ways of looking promote notions of ‘seeing everything from nowhere’ or what she terms the ‘god trick’ (p. 188). In the context of bodies, Haraway can be understood to be explaining that, in Western culture we see bodies from the perspective of power, in this case the white, Anglo-European male, despite the fact that we may not occupy that position. Haraway contends that this maintains the act of looking through a supposed scientific or technological lens, which assumes a role of universality and truthfulness. Rose (2012) explains, in her discussion of Haraway, that this way of looking produces “specific visions of social difference - of hierarchies of class, race, gender, sexuality and so on - while itself claiming not to be a part of that hierarchy” (p. 9). In seeing from nowhere, we may see differences, or at least difference may 	
   be reinforced, and this is why Haraway (1991) has argued for a seeing from somewhere, a plea for partiality, positioning and locating oneself when looking (p. 491).  Looking at bodies in the photographs can also be understood through a semiological lens in which signifiers refer to culturally determined categorizations of the body (Barthes, Image- music-text, 1977).  In other words, signs within the image function to symbolize understandings of culture. Signifiers that are often used to identify or categorize bodies are: hair type, weight, hygiene, height, facial expression, skin color, and clothing. Examples of semiological readings could be clothing and hair type, such as a ‘dress’ and long hair, functioning to indicate gender, in this case female. These distinguishing features are often used in advertising or media studies to provoke certain readings of images. In this reading of the representation of the body, meanings tend to be more fixed or structural and some visual culture theorists would reject the rigidity of this approach, instead provoking the conversation that images can be read against or in contradiction to their intended meaning or construction.  2.9 Visual culture and education  Visual culture studies are utilized by several scholars within the field of art education (Duncum, 2006; Freedman, 2003; Garoian & Gaudelius, 2008; Tavin, 2000) interested in bridging pedagogy, politics and curriculum with the field of visual culture. Paul Duncum (2010) has put forward a clear framework for how theories of visual culture might be applied to education in, “Seven principles of visual culture in education.” The seven principles Duncum offers are: power, ideology, representation, seduction, gaze, intertextuality and multimodality. Duncum’s work primarily builds upon aforementioned theories of visual culture (Mirzoeff, 2006; Rose, 2012; Sturken & Cartwright, 2001) to theorize how images and curriculum might come 	
   together in the field of education. Using Duncum’s principles as a framework for analysis of images we can begin to see how the realm of the visual can be brought into different forms of curriculum. Duncum’s dissemination of his seven principles overlap discussions already made in the previous sections; however, his main argument is that in the 21st century classroom using the principles designed for the early 20th century classroom is no longer sufficient. He contends that educators need principles for the contemporary classroom that address the visually complex and constantly shifting postmodern world (p. 10).  In relation to history and social studies education, Walter Werner (2002, 2004a, 2004b) has also written extensively on how students might read visual texts and how principles of visual culture might be added to the curriculum or classroom. Werner (2004a), like many visual culture theorists, argues that our postmodern world has become increasingly saturated by visuals and the “relentless traffic of images” (p. 64). Werner further contends that while images are important across the curriculum, it is especially so for social studies as it carries and interprets the social. Werner states that: Pictures frame the events, issues, and values of our collective experience. They show  us what to believe and do, and who our heroes and friends are supposed to be. They  entertain, inform, comfort, disturb, and cajole. So do the images within social studies  textbooks, and understanding how this works is part of learning to interpret the broader  social world (2004a, p 64).  Werner (2004b) argues that visual literacy must be incorporated into the history and social studies curriculum. Specifically he suggests discussing issues of intertextuality (2004b, p. 202-211). Intertextuality here is understood as the idea that no images are read in isolation. Evans and Hall (1999) further explain that there is no self-referential image, free of context or 	
   untainted by other images. Instead readings of images are often developed through the images placement in a text, the captions describing it or another image it is placed next to, or read against. Furthermore, intertextuality explains that images are read in relation to other images that readers have seen elsewhere, or come to expect to see in certain contexts. In the case of this study the images have been removed from their original curricular source; however this does not leave an intertextual discussion of the images unnecessary. Instead the photographs being used are part of a set of six photographs accompanied by questions, tasks and background information. Just as images set in galleries or museums are not read individually neither are the images used in this study, which play off and against each other.  Werner (2004b) also discusses the importance of questioning the viewer and debating multiple reading of images (p. 202-211). Problematizing the vantage point of student as viewer relates to issues of positionality and power. Werner argues here, using theories from visual culture, that students must take into account how their position and identity influence how they look at images in the curriculum. Finally in regards to multiple readings of images Werner explains that meaning is not fixed, it is not a ‘Where’s Waldo’ search for singular meaning (2002, p. 66). Werner argues that there are multiple ways to read images including narrative readings, editorial readings, instrumental readings, indexical readings, aesthetic readings, iconic readings, oppositional readings and of interest to this research, empathic readings (2004b). Empathic readings of images which discussions of Barthes, Sontag and Roth below will elaborate upon, ask the viewer to imagine or relate to the emotions, desires and experiences of those represented in an image (p. 203).   	
   2.10 Images as primary source evidence  Images have not traditionally been favored source material for historians. They are often seen as offering the historian less, in comparison with other textual primary source documents, such as letters, official reports, telegrams or diaries. Peter Burke (2001) argues that for too long images have been looked down upon by historians, who often treat them as illustrations depicting a narrative or text, instead of complex texts unto themselves (p. 10). However due to the proliferation of photography as a way of inventing and recording the world and what W.J.T. Mitchell (1992) has called the ‘pictorial turn,’ the use of images, particularly photographs, has become more present in historical disciplines. Roth (2011) argues that at first photographs may have seemed like the perfect technology in the age of a modern historiography, offering the historian a view of realism. The camera provided the historian, in Roth’s words, “the perfect ally” to see the past as it was (p. 176). The sense that photographs documented events as they were, or captured moments, is grounded upon, and furthers, the belief that a photograph does not lie.  More complex discussions that provoke new understandings on the historical use of images have taken place since early perceptions of the realism of the camera. In his monograph, Eyewitnessing: The use of images as historical evidence, Burke (2001) contends that the status of images should not be limited simply to ‘evidence’ (p. 13). In this argument he explains that while images can provide evidence of the past to analyze, they offer other and new possibilities to historians. Here he explicates the arguments of Francis Haskell (1993) and Stephen Bann (1990) to posit that images: allow for historical imagination, put the viewer face to face with the past and provide historians with “non-verbal experiences or knowledges of past cultures” (p. 13). This understanding furthers the idea that images can function to create emotional or affective 	
   responses in the viewer. Burke’s main argument is that images have much to offer the discipline of history, although he is quick to add that the testimonies of images do raise problems for the historian.   Images traditionally were considered the realm of art historians, while today the analysis of images has branched into various disciplines, such as visual culture. Erwin Panofsky (1939), one of the most influential art historians, developed a complex interpretation scheme that has three levels of understanding that are useful for all analyses of images: Primary or natural understanding is simply the ability to identify objects and/or events in the image. The secondary level, or iconography, addresses conventional cultural knowledge in producing meaning, such as recognizing Picasso’s Guernica as relating to the Spanish Civil War. Finally tertiary understanding, or iconology, is concerned with intrinsic meanings, or underlying principles, historical and cultural contexts of the images (Burke, 2001, p 35-36). Using Guernica as an example again, iconology is concerned with being able to identify not just the historical context, but also common or accepted interpretations of the image. In this case the most common analysis would be to discuss the painting’s protest against the violence, atrocities and traumas carried out against the people of Guernica and Spain by the Nationalist forces, with the help of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.  These three levels of analysis began to allow images to be of greater value and use to historians and others interested in the meanings and interpretations of the visual. Of course images themselves only provide historians with so much and most historians would argue that an iconographic or iconological analysis of images would be used in conjunction with other pieces of evidence and other types of analysis.  The invention and proliferation of photography had profound impacts for the discipline of art history, which in turn have influenced the discipline of history. The influential German critic 	
   and theorist Walter Benjamin began the discussion on how the mass reproduction of images in industrial modernity was radically changing art. Benjamin (1936) famously argued that in the age of mechanical reproduction, the ‘aura’ of a piece of visual art is lost, due to the removal of authenticity in the process of its reproduction. While Benjamin’s view on the ‘aura’ of an image is contested by some, including John Berger (1972), it still signals the beginning of a new age of the visual. The arrival of photographic imagery and the mass reproduction of those images allowed images to be widely shown not just to a small group of elites, as with great works of art, but on a greater exhibition scale. Furthermore, it allowed for the inclusion of iconic images and previously unseen (by the vast majority of the world) artworks to be included in books around the world.  This mechanical change, associated with the industrial revolution, allowed for a much greater cultural change in how people became exposed to great quantities of imagery. Furthermore in more direct relation to the discipline of history, Francis Haskell (1993) has posited, photography has led to a “radical reorientation of historians towards images as a means to understand the past” (Hunt & Swartz, 2010, p 259). This reorientation can be attributed to the considerable amount of documented information that photographs can provide historians, but also their reproducibility and ability to be quickly experienced and interpreted by many people. This history of the relationship of photography to History must be taken into account when deciding upon the evidential force of a photograph to truthfully portray the past in any way.  The question of authenticity of photographs has long been debated.  Film historian Siegfried Kraceur (1997) points out that photographers, just like historians, select aspects of the world to portray and in doing so frame and filter events through their own lens or bias (Burke, 2001, p 23). Here Kraceur explains that a photograph is imbued with such a fragmented reality or bias of the real world, that it cannot be taken as unquestioned factual evidence of an event, even 	
   though television media or newspapers might use it as such, just as with all historical sources or traces, criticism of the photographer and the photograph are essential in validating significance or usefulness to that image. However, somewhat contrastingly Kraceur (1997) also argues that photography has an “outspoken affinity for un-staged reality” (p 18). As Hunt and Swartz (2010) explain though, few would support that view today, yet it does raise the important and constantly re-emerging question of the extent to which photographs have to represent the world as it is.  2.11 The camera as an apparatus of the state  The proliferation of photography also began to change the ways in which nation-states kept official records. Photography functioned as a means to record the practices of a state, as well as its successes and failures. John Tagg (1988) argues that this process of photographic recording made the camera into an ‘apparatus’ of the state. Tagg’s (1988) important work on photography and history, The Burden of Representation, takes a Foucaldian discourse analysis approach to explain how photographs were used by governments and became imbued in state institutions and the recording of their practices. This process and change in thinking required what Foucault might call a new ‘regime of truth.’ This new ‘regime of truth,’ that was based on evidential fact or ‘truth,’ that most modern capitalist nations adopted, saw photography as way to catalogue and record the emerging institutions of the new state regime: schools, prisons, asylums, and hospitals.  The state’s ability and desire to record and catalogue the activities of its institutions is significant to this study for several reasons. Firstly, this extensive photographic recording allows historians access to a huge amounts of source material on the official activities of government in approximately the past 160 years. This in itself is a great resource for producing historical 	
   accounts. Secondly, and more importantly to my research, this evidential recording exposes the ways the state joined repression and surveillance in order to maintain control and social order. The photographs in this study of residential schooling will attest to this, as most are official records of this schooling carried out by the state. It also speaks of the interconnectedness of knowledge and power in Foucault’s sense, in the development of schooling, surveillance and colonialism in Canada. Tagg (1988) further explains that “like the state, the camera is never neutral...yet the power it wields is never its own” (p 64).  Here he argues that it is the state itself that wields the power of the camera and through its lens it can guarantee the authority and authenticity of images and register them as truthful representations of the activities of the state’s institutions (p. 64). This new use of photography to officially record or produce ‘evidence,’ raises many questions for the historian trying to understand their value and implications, and it is often precisely these images, which are then reproduced in the textbooks of the schools themselves. Tagg explains, “photographs are never ‘evidence’ of history; they are themselves the historical” (p. 65), illuminating the idea that photographs are not evidence which prove a corresponding narrative is accurate, as suggested by many textbooks, but worthy of historical inquiry alone, in that they may function separately and with different or contradictory intentions than provided by captions, narratives and titles.  2.12 Photography: Seeing the past  Roland Barthes’ (1980) Camera Lucida and Susan Sontag’s (1977) On Photography provide a discourse for understanding the tenuous authenticity of photography and its inability to authentically represent or depict subjects. Both Barthes and Sontag can be credited with changing how photographs were understood and their theories are still debated today. Both 	
   Barthes and Sontag take on the question of to what extent can photographs picture reality. Sontag is especially concerned with how photographs allow us to remember, or recall the past. Her problem, as might be the problem of using historical photographs in the classroom, is that “it is not that people remember through photographs, but that they remember only the photographs” (Sontag, 2003, p. 89). Examples of this could be Robert Capa’s (1936) famous photograph entitled Falling Soldier, during the Spanish Civil War. While this photograph has been much scrutinized and its authenticity has been questioned, it remains an iconic and memorable image of that war. Another well known example of a photograph potentially replacing an event is Dorothea Lange’s (1936) portrait entitled Migrant Mother, which for many epitomized the plight of the American rural poor during the 1930s and since has become one of many images that has become part of the collective memory of the Great Depression. Through this understanding it becomes clear that historical photographs have the potential to interpret and situate the past in ways narrative text may not. In other words, the images themselves can move beyond picturing or representing reality and to becoming or replacing that reality in the mind of the viewer.  2.12.1 The studium and the punctum  Barthes most famous discussion of photography came in 1980 with the posthumous publication of Camera Lucida. While Barthes had already written essays on photography (Image-Music-Text, 1977), this work fully outlined his theories on photography. He argues that the connection between reality, or what is depicted or referred to (the referent), and the photograph are naturally connected. Furthermore he suggests that it is impossible to separate them and this is what separates photographs from other types of images. This understanding of photographs gives them much weight as historical evidence. If, as Barthes argues, photographs 	
   show what was once there, then this elevates them to mute eyewitnesses of the past. This is not to say that photographs can not be altered or that they are not influenced by the context with which they were created, but instead Barthes argues that the “the power of authentication exceeds the power of representation” (1980, p. xx) Of course much writing since then has gone on to criticize this notion of authenticity and this discussion will be taken up again.  Along with Barthes’ general thesis on photography, he also introduces two key terms that are useful for understanding and interpreting photographs: the studium and the punctum. Both of these concepts are essential to this study as they can both be used as explanations for how students make sense of photographs. The studium is a disciplined semiotic reading of a photograph in which the viewer looks at a photograph, like a text, and finds signs that produce its meaning. This of course does not imply that there is only one correct reading, but instead relies upon semiological understandings of language that suggests that one’s prior knowledge and culture will enforce certain understandings or meanings. The studium is similar to Stuart Hall’s (1997) discussion on representation as outlined above. On the other hand, the punctum is not about attention to detail or meaning produced from signs; instead it is the unquantifiable feeling of the photograph that provokes emotion in the viewer. Gillian Rose (2012) explains the punctum as “a sensitive point in an image which pricks, bruises, disturbs a particular viewer out of their usual viewing habits” (p. 122). The use of the punctum disrupts the structural system of signs that in some ways opens up space for discussion using poststructural understandings of photographs. Although according to Rose (2012) it should be noted that Tagg (1988) rejected Barthes’ notion of the search for the punctum in photographs as merely “a search for a photograph that would remind him of his mother after she had died” (p. 234). Others, including Susan Sontag, have argued for the transitive ability of photographs to relay affect. 	
    Susan Sontag’s On Photography, also greatly influenced discourses of photography and offers a more critical look at how photographs represent reality. Sontag differs from Barthes in that she argues that reality and the photograph aren’t merely naturally connected, but instead that the photograph has in some ways replaced reality in contemporary society. Sontag further argues that the act of photographing is many ways the act of appropriating the thing being photographed. By this she means that in a heavily media influenced postmodern world; our perceptions of reality are determined by photographic imagery. This theory does not posit that photographs mirror or replace reality authentically or truthfully, but that the interpretations they offer are not interpretations of reality but interpretations of photography. Sontag further states that photographs are selective in nature and that they need captions, analysis and context to be fully interpreted in any particular way. This is one of her main arguments that photographs alone cannot offer a full interpretation or understanding. Like Barthes, she also argues that photographs have the power to affect, shock or haunt us, which in many ways is what Barthes would term the punctum. This is significant for this study as the photographs students are exposed to in history or social studies classrooms rarely stand alone: they are shaped by their placement in the textbook, curriculum and lesson. They are rarely benign, but rather may capture partial imprints of historical trauma, sacrifices and injustices. I will discuss and problematize this notion of photographs as partial imprints of the past in the following section.  2.12.2 Photography and trauma  Photographs of trauma or suffering are of particular interest for the history classroom as the curriculum is constantly addressing conflicts, wars, genocides and injustices. Much has been written on the theories of trauma in history (LaCapra, 1994, Caruth, 1996) and several theorists 	
   have gone further to address the role of photography in communicating and interpreting suffering and trauma. Susan Sontag’s (2003) final book Regarding the Pain of Others questions if photographs have the ability to communicate the suffering of others to a level that it forces action or response upon the viewer. In her argument Sontag explains that photographs often have a deeper impact than videos or films. She argues this is because unlike the nonstop imagery of film, photographs provide “a quick way of apprehending something and a compact form of memorizing it. The photograph is a quotation, a maxim or proverb” (p. 22). This argument is important as this study is based upon the theory that photographs may have a significant impact on how we make sense of past events. While Sontag still posits almost three decades after On Photography that photographs can haunt us and shock us, she states that they lack the narrative continuity to truly impart understanding upon the viewer, instead preferring to think of photographs as partial imprints waiting to be interpreted by text, captions and analysis.  Judith Butler (2010) takes up Sontag’s argument about the power of photography and disagrees with several of her arguments.  In her discussion of Regarding the Pain of Others, Butler argues that photographs can be thought of as “structuring scenes of interpretation” (2010, p 67). By this she means that not only do the photographer and the viewer have control over interpretation, but so does the photograph itself as its own entity, one that might offer interpretations contrary to one’s will or desire. (Butler’s argument here echoes Mitchell’s question asking us ‘what do pictures want?’) In other words, the photograph acts on us in a way that we may not expect it to (p. 68). Butler further disagrees with Sontag’s contention that photographs represent a partial imprint or selective reality. Instead she claims that when photographs frame events, they are in fact creating an interpretation of them. Furthermore, Butler (2010) argues that photographs that develop iconic status, due to their reoccurrence in culture 	
   and media, no longer occupy a single time or space, instead only occupying the context they are viewed in. Referring to photographs that show the torture or prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Butler states “the photograph, shown and circulated, becomes the public condition under which we feel outrage and construct political views to incorporate and articulate that outrage” (p. 78). If we accept that photographs are doing more than representing moments in history this complicates the entire process of the practice of looking in history.  Jill Bennett’s (2005) work Empathic Vision: Affect, Trauma and Contemporary Art, makes an important contribution to trauma studies, and is also of interest to this study by arguing the ability of the visual to have affective qualities. In a chapter subtitled ‘Seeing Feeling,’ Bennett writes that little has been researched on the role imagery, art, and the visual have in relation to trauma. She contends that there has been a long tradition of affective engagement in imagery, stating that much visual art “evokes that possibility of ‘being a spectator of one’s own feelings” (p. 23). While Bennett is dealing primarily with ‘art,’ her arguments can be extended to the visual, or images, more generally. She goes on to argue that art that deals in affect, sensation and traumatic memory “cannot be reduced to a form of representation” (p. 23). This is of importance to this study as it argues that the potential trauma shown in the photographs is possibly doing more than representing a historical injustice.  The conception of the images to have the transitive ability to relay affect, as introduced by Sontag and further discussed by Bennett (2005), must be further explained for its relevance here. Bennett states that trauma related imagery is best understood as “transactive rather than communicative” (p. 7). By this Bennett puts forward the notion that the image may touch us, but does not reveal a “secret” of personal experience.  Using the work of Deleuze, Bennett refers to this experience as an encountered sign, which describes what is felt rather than perceived 	
   through cognition (p. 7). For Deleuze and Bennett, this is not the end in of itself, but that a feeling encountered in the visual is a “catalyst for critical inquiry or deep thought” (p. 7). In relation to this study, this catalyst found in photography could potentially lead to deep historical understanding  Bennett also discusses the influential work of Dominic LaCapra who has written extensively on trauma and the Holocaust. LaCapra (1994) argues for a critical and self reflexive engagement with images of trauma in which he delineates empathy in the viewer from the primary experience of the trauma. As Bennett (2005) writes, in her discussion of LaCapra, he proposes an empathic unsettlement to describe the aesthetic experience of simultaneously feeling for another and becoming aware of the distinction between one’s own perceptions and the experience of the other (p. 8). This delineation that LaCapra offers between empathy and perspective recognition mirrors the conversations that have been undertaken on perspective taking in history education.  This articulation of affective engagement with the past offers this study another way of seeing historical trauma. In Bennett’s conceptualization, empathy is characterized by a combination of both affective and intellectual operations (p. 10). In the field of history, building on the work of LaCapra (1994) and Caruth (1996) as well as addressing Sontag (1979) and Barthes (1980) in the area of photography, Michael Roth (2011) dedicates a chapter in his most recent book, Memory, Trauma and History, to looking at the role photography plays in relation to historical traumas and their representation, with respect to photographs of the Holocaust. Roth writes that photographs have a special connection with the past offering at times the feeling of “re-experiencing the past, or of experiencing the past for the first time without a subjective intermediary” (p. 179). Here Roth evokes both Sontag’s notion 	
   that photographs substitute for memory and experience, as well as Barthes notion of the punctum and the ability of an image to pierce one’s sensibility. Roth concludes that the power of photographs lies in the tension between the feeling of ‘present-ness’ with the reminders of absence or temporal distance, which he claims, “intensify the photographs affective and cognitive value for the beholder” (p. 184).  Roth (2011) goes on to discuss the value of photography to history as a whole. Working through George Didi-Huberman’s (2009) book on four photographs from the Holocaust, Images in Spite of All, he considers the difficulty of representing events that have often been deemed ‘unrepresentable,’ due to their overwhelmingly traumatic nature. With much similarity to Mitchell (2005) and Butler’s (2009) discussions on representation, he cautiously states, “images veil, they don’t reveal” (p. 194). In doing so Roth argues that photography is not the missing piece of evidence needed for dealing with traumatic events, nor does it provide the testimony or evidence necessary to unveil the meanings of traumas (p. 195). This is not to say that Roth rejects the use of photography in history, as he positions its worth as similar to other types of evidence. As he concludes on the matter,  photography functions neither as a pure trace of the past, nor as a mere invitation to  spectacle. In spite of all, photographs remind us of what cannot be seen, and that is why  they matter to the theory of history (Roth, 2011, p. 204).  2.13 Conclusions The key concepts taken from this diverse literature of historical thinking, visual culture and photography can be concentrated into two main problems that this study will address. Firstly, that historical thinking conceptions of perspective taking and historical empathy need further 	
   investigation and theorization to make clear the usefulness of engaging students in such activities. This study hopes to further this conversation by exploring the potential value in identifying with, and caring for, those seen in historical photographs. In other words, what does historical empathy look like and should it be rejected, embraced or simply better defined? Secondly, the literature reveals that photography, as a form of historical evidence, is far more complicated than face value suggests. The discussion above has shown that various functions and interpretations of photographs must be considered, such as an image’s ability to relay affect, to provoke, to haunt, and to reify power structures. Posed as a problem, this literature asks us how do photographs act upon the viewer, in this case, the students. It also asks, how do students’ ways of seeing act on photographs? The study hopes to bridge these questions into a singular area of inquiry in which the interplay of visual culture and historical thinking address the weakness of each to provide a more complete framework for investigating photographs of historical injustice. 	
   3. Methods and Procedures In this qualitative study, twenty-one students participated in small group task-based discussions on the topic of ‘Indian residential schooling’ in Canada.  The students looked at how residential schooling has been represented and interpreted by photographs that are common in social studies curriculum in Canada. Groups of four to five students completed tasks that included organizing the photographs by theme, a series of open-ended questions, and a final task of selecting one image as most revealing and writing its caption, as a textbook writer might. These activities were designed to allow the students to explore the photographs in a variety of ways, with possibilities offered for students to create their own meanings, while giving them some guidance, as they might experience in a typical classroom setting.  The classroom setting and group activity used in this research are commonplace in contemporary social studies courses. The design also utilized constructivist pedagogical strategies promoted in teacher education programs in British Columbia, in this case, student-led group work. Although it is important to note that this exercise has been researcher constructed and it was not a ‘regular’ class, it did take place in the students’ social studies classroom during instructional time. As the methods used were closely aligned with commonly used pedagogical classroom strategies in a familiar and comfortable setting, the research is closely aligned to “naturalistic inquiry,” as outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985).  The naturalistic inquiry methodology is relevant to this study, as the task given to students used ‘realistic’ procedures that could be found in a classroom setting where research is not taking place. Furthermore the students participating in the research were already familiar with the classroom and their peers, as they had been engaged in the class together for approximately nine months when the research took place. It is important to note that limitations of the authenticity of any naturalistic inquiry 	
   still exist; however the research was designed to replicate an ordinary social studies classroom activity in as many ways as possible. Finally, despite my presence as a passive spectator participant (Spradley, 1980), I, as the researcher, still influenced the study through its design, its questions, my presence during the procedures, and lastly my analysis of the data generated.  3.1 The research site The research site is a secondary public school in an affluent suburb of Vancouver enrolling approximately 1600 students covering Grades 8-12. The school’s name has been anonymized as Creekside Secondary for purposes in this study. Creekside Secondary is a diverse school that attracts students from other school districts in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver and other parts of the world. The school boasts a large international student population (approx. 15%) with students from all over the world immigrating to study at this school. It also offers specialized programs such as International Baccalaureate (I.B.) designed to offer students an enriched curriculum, including some courses in which students can earn university credit. Creekside Secondary also offers an alternative program, a technical education program and an English Language Learner program. In 2011, it had a graduation rate of 98%. It is also important to note that I teach at this school and have done so for the past five years; however, none of my current students participated in the study. The participants were recruited through classroom visits from the researcher to various Social Studies 10 classes in the school. Students were informed of the purpose of the study, the instructional time they would have to give up, as well as the procedures and activities they would take part in, should they choose to participate. One teacher of Social Studies 10 expressed his interest in the study, as well as the majority of his students. This class was selected to be the primary site of the research as it 	
   allowed for a group of students familiar with each other and the setting to participate in the study during class time.  It was made clear that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could choose not to participate with no penalty or negative consequences. Of the 27 students in the class, 21 obtained signed parental consent, and gave their own signed assent to be part of the research. The remaining students without consent or not wishing to participate were given this time to work on other classroom work during the research period.  3.2 The participants The participants involved in the research were 21 Grade 10 students aged between 15 and 17 years old. These students were enrolled in a course called Social Studies 10 Pre-Diploma Program (P.D.P.). This course covers the B.C. provincial curriculum and its prescribed learning outcomes; however it is somewhat adapted to prepare students who are considering entering the International Baccalaureate (I.B.) program the following year. In this respect, the class is considered an enriched class where extra emphasis is placed upon essay writing.  Out of the 21 students who participated, 12 students identified themselves as female and 9 identified themselves as male. No data was collected on race or ethnicity or other potential identity markers. Some of the students were former students of mine; however I did not accept any current students. The students all had a familiarity with the issues being discussed, as it is part of the prescribed curriculum of Social Studies 10 in British Columbia. The research took place the second last week of the school year, and therefore the students had covered the government’s prescribed learning outcomes, which include Aboriginal issues in Canada during the time period of residential schooling and assimilation practices of the federal government of Canada in 	
   regards to minority groups such as those officially designated as ‘Indian’ (First Nations, Métis and Inuit). While the students themselves had all been enrolled in Social Studies 10 for approximately nine months, it is unknown how much knowledge of the issues being discussed the students had beforehand, nor if their personal backgrounds or schooling had any impact. This is one of the limitations of this study.  3.3 The researcher  As the researcher I believe it is important to discuss my positionality in regards to this inquiry because, as noted by Kvale (2006), all research serves the purposes of the researcher. I am a white, able-bodied English-speaking male who has taught at the school where the research was carried out for five years.  I have a history background and although I am interested in encouraging the teaching of Aboriginal issues in the social studies classroom, I find it difficult to do so un-problematically. I have a goal to encourage students to challenge their assumptions about the past and to de-center how much of Canadian history has been taught to them, and First Nations issues in particular. In this context, de-centering history education would focus on problematizing dominant narratives present in history curriculum, and questioning what and whose history is enforced and whose is denied or silenced. These values undoubtedly influence the topic and the analysis of this research.   My prior relationships with the students also impacted this study. While I was not teaching any of the students at the time of the study, some had been part of my class in past years, some may be students of mine in the future, and others I am familiar with from extracurricular aspects of the school, such as sports I am involved in coaching. This connection to the students is a limitation of this study, but also possibly a benefit as the students were 	
   familiar with the researcher, which may have let them participate in the research more comfortably than with a stranger.  As the researcher, I maintained what Spradley (1980) has called the ‘passive participant observer’ role by positioning myself on the margins of the student activity, where I remained as much as possible. While my influence was still felt in the research through not only my physical presence, but also my presence in its design, my only overt role was to introduce the procedures and supervise the students as they completed the tasks and questions. I chose this data collection technique because it allowed me, as the researcher, to somewhat distance myself from the process while still being present to observe and interact if necessary. It also allowed the students to explore the images without my constant intervention or questioning. This was evident as during the research process no students asked questions of the researcher. All research involving teachers and students is connected to relationships of power; in this case my role as teacher and researcher may have affected the student responses due to my motivations and the students’ assumptions or intent to respond to those. Furthermore, as a teacher in the school in which the students attend, my role of power or authority can never fully be relinquished despite attempts to avoid such issues. I encouraged students to direct and lead the group tasks following my guiding questions, but I did not stop them if their discussion went into divergent lines off topic. If students were particularly interested in one image or one question, then they were given the time to explore the images they found more interesting. If the student discussions moved off topic no intervention was made.    	
   3.4 The photographs under discussion The six images (Appendices 3-8) used in the study were taken from government approved textbooks and other curricular resources, including a recently developed teacher and student online resource entitled, “Where are the children: Healing the legacy of residential schools” funded by several government of Canada agencies and containing curriculum resources designed for students and teachers.  These images were chosen for this study not because they necessarily best represent the issue either symbolically or comprehensively, but because they have become legitimized knowledge in their official role of supporting the curriculum. They are legitimized by their state approval through Canadian provincial ministries of education, including British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, and federal government funding in Canada. Therefore the images were not chosen to be a full or complete representation of the issue, but instead as a collection of the resources available for classrooms across Canada. No textbook photographs of this issue were rejected, with the exception of replicas or images that were deemed too similar, and thus deemed less useful, due to their lack of ‘originality.’ This is because the study attempted to use as diverse a set of images as was allowed by the constraints of using official curriculum resources, instead of accessing other photographic archives that may or may not have included more effective or powerful images. The photographs were made into sets of six with each page containing one photograph with an abbreviated title and a large letter for reference during discussion. For example, Appendix 3 shows a before and after photo of Thomas Moore taken during his time at the Regina Indian Industrial School. This image has appeared in several curricular resources including textbooks, an online curriculum resource on the topic of residential schooling, as well as a poster illustrating one of the concepts of the Historical Thinking Project (2006). In order to limit the 	
   amount of framing, confusion, distraction and construction of meaning done by captions and titles and source information, this image was given to students with the brief title Thomas Moore, Before and After and in large font the image was labeled Photo A, for easy reference for the students. No information was given regarding who took the photos, where they have appeared, and the purpose for which they were taken. These alterations were largely made as the focus of the study was not necessarily to inquire about the students ability to intertextually read photographs in relation to their textbooks, but the students’ abilities to use photographs to take historical perspectives, employ historical empathy and make moral judgments about the past. Furthermore due to logistical constraints of this research it would have proved ineffectual to have students try and look at the images in their original source material (i.e. textbooks, online, posters).   3.5 The pilot study  Before the main research was conducted, a small pilot study was carried out with two grade 10 students from Creekside Secondary. This pilot study was conducted with one group of two students to check the feasibility of the study, as well as to test the design of the activity and questions that the students would have to answer. As Teijlingen and Hundley (2001) argue, pilot studies are valuable because they identify potential problems with research design and assess the possible success of the main study. In this case it appears that the pilot study was helpful in identifying issues to ensure the procedures of the main study were fluid and clear.  The procedure of this pilot study closely followed the same procedure as the main research, as outlined below. The two students were also enrolled in Social Studies 10; they were not my students, nor did they participate in the main research study. This was done to ensure the 	
   data collected in the main study was not contaminated by participants who had already been exposed to the photographs and the procedures. The pilot study itself was more informal and researcher driven than the main study. Changes made to the process of the pilot study were done in order to make the main research study as a whole more valuable. Students worked through the tasks while the researcher asked questions to check for comprehension and any possible confusion. After each question or instruction the two students who participated were asked two questions: Firstly, if they understood what the question was asking them and secondly, if they had any confusion with the phrasing or vocabulary being used. Most of the questions remained unchanged following the pilot study; however there were some minor changes including how the photographs were displayed and organized on each page and also some of the language used in questions was simplified for clarity and accessibility. The pilot study, which was not audio- recorded, was valuable as it ensured the main study was conducted in a feasible, clear and fluid manner.  3.6 Procedures  A variety of different methods were used in this study to collect a broad set of data in a short period of time. Students participated in discussions on the topic of residential schooling in various ways. During the research, the participants were exposed to both written text (Appendix 2) and six photographic images of ‘Indian’ residential schooling in Canada (Appendix 3-8). The methods used to answer the research questions included asking the students to check for understanding of the written text, categorizing the photographs, answering questions and discussing the photographs, and finally selecting one photograph and captioning it. These methods, which will be elaborated upon below, created written data in the form of student 	
   responses, as well as audio recorded data of the student discussions over the questions and tasks given.  Prior to the task, students were given a few basic instructions, reminding them that the study was voluntary and that they should try to refer to photographs by their given label (e.g., “Photo A”) to avoid confusion on the audio recordings. Students were divided up at random prior to entering the room into five equal groups of four students, (with the exception of one group of five). Each group was given one booklet that contained instructions for each task and questions to be answered with space provided (Appendix 1), background information (Appendix 2) and one set of six photographs (Appendix 3-8). Each group was asked to choose one individual to be that group’s recorder and reader. This person’s role was to read out the questions and write down the group’s answers.  This position was voluntary and could be shared. The recorder/reader did participate in discussions as well. Students were presented with the possibility of writing their own answers; however no students requested their own answer booklet.  Students were also informed that these questions would not be marked or graded. Finally, no guidelines were provided for how much each student should contribute to the process, leaving the process up to the students themselves to decide.  The student’s first task was to silently read one page of background information on Indian residential schooling in Canada (Appendix 1), which has been published online by the Critical Thinking Consortium (2012) as part of a set of historical documents on the topic intended for classroom use. The background information was provided to students to ensure that when they entered the group activity they would share some common basic information on the issues at hand. The first questions the students were asked to answer dealt directly with this background information to check for understanding and to give them the opportunity to discuss 	
   with their peers if they had not understood any aspect of the background information, before starting the questions involving the photographs. The background information was slightly altered from its original form to only discuss residential schooling in a historical capacity, which meant deleting recent developments such as the federal government’s apology in 2008, and the ongoing Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  This was done because the research questions deal with understandings of the past and not discussions of contemporary governmental, Aboriginal or other possible political or social developments on the issue. In giving the background information to students prior to the group activity, it did possibly create limitations, as students could choose to rely upon this written text instead of analyzing the images. The research tried to avoid this problem through asking specific questions about the photographs themselves; however, contradictions and divergent responses did emerge that will be discussed in the findings chapters.  The small group task and discussion consisted of an introductory task of organizing the images by themes created by the students, followed by eight open-ended questions and then one final group activity (Appendix 2). Before groups began the questions, they were encouraged to look through the images for as much time as they needed to become familiar with them. During the tasks one student (the recorder/reader), read the questions out loud and then the group discussed the answer and attempted to come to a consensus. If group members disagreed they were informed that they did not necessarily have to come to a consensus on all answers and that providing more than one answer was acceptable.  The first task was for the students to categorize the photographs into thematic categories of their own design (Appendix 2). The students were informed that they could have at least two and no more than three categories for the six photographs. The students were allowed to give 	
   their categories any name they wanted, but were encouraged to verbally explain why they had chosen those categories.  The open ended questions (Appendix 2) the students worked through dealt with the three historical thinking conceptual frames the research chose to inquire about: primary source evidence, perspective taking/historical empathy, and the ethical dimension. Each concept was allotted 2-3 questions in an attempt to reveal students’ understanding of these topics throughout the activity.  The final task involved the group picking one image that they thought best represented the issue of residential schooling. The students then had to caption the image as if it were being included in a history textbook. The students were also asked to give reasons as to why they chose that image and explain why it was particularly revealing of residential schooling for them. Finally, following the completion of the tasks students were asked by the researcher if they had found any sections confusing or if they had any further questions about the images or the research. Students were also asked to comment on the research process and the photographs as well. These questions were a form of member checking in order to ensure the students were content with the research process and the responses they had given. In total, the research procedure took approximately 75 minutes.  3.7 Data collection  Data collection took two forms. Firstly, the audio recordings of the student group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Secondly, students’ written responses to the questions and the final task (captioning) were also collected and utilized as data. In total five audio recordings were made ranging from 17 minutes (one audio recorder stopped working mid task) 	
   to 45 minutes. Each of these recordings was transcribed using professional software to ensure they could be as accurate as possible. The student’s written responses often were mimicked in the oral discussions transcribed from the audio files; however often important and divergent discussions took place before arriving at written answers, which made the audio transcriptions and the written answers valuable as a complementary set of data. The written responses were useful in determining what the students deemed significant and relevant in their discussions; or in other words what the students assumed to be ‘good’ or ‘correct’ answers to the questions asked.  3.8 Coding and analysis   Following data collection and a thorough reading of the transcriptions and the answers, a set of codes (Appendix 9) was developed to help identify similarities, differences, patterns and clusters (Seidel & Kelle, 1995). As Foss and Waters (2003) remind us, analyzing qualitative data is not discovering a story, but co-creating a story. In regards to these data, codes were developed that identified if the students were using various conceptions of historical thinking (as discussed in Chapter 2). These codes were split into three categories, each titled under a concept of historical thinking (as outlined by Seixas, 2006) focused on in this study. These separate student discussions, on each of the three historical thinking concepts (primary source evidence, perspective taking and ethical judgments), were isolated for further analysis. The corresponding codes were designed to identify if the students were using historical thinking strategies, such as critically examining primary source evidence for its purpose, origin, value and limitations, taking unnatural or foreign perspectives from the past and making ethical decisions about that past and its actors. They were also designed to find if their responses contained examples of presentism, 	
   anachronism or emotional or sympathetic responses, similar to Barton and Levstik’s (2004) conception of ‘care.’  A secondary form of coding was employed using a more grounded theory approach (Weston et al., 2001), which allowed for codes to emerge out of the data that did not necessarily meet the criteria of concepts of historical thinking, but were still of interest (see Appendix 9). The majority of themes emerging were coded using a theoretical framework of visual culture and taking into consideration the practice of looking as an important and significant area of inquiry. As this study was interested in the act of looking at images of the past and its people, and the influence of those images, student responses that referred to their own identity in looking (positionality), what was unseen or invisible, difference (gender, race, age, bodies) and finally contemporary connections to the photographs were coded for analysis using the lens of visual culture. These codes were not predetermined, but instead emerged out of the data itself as it was analyzed, which kept this analysis technique in line with a grounded theory approach.  The students’ written responses were also used to correlate with the transcribed discussions to see if the themes created, written answers, including the captioning task, provided more information that could be coded as well. Finally the choice of the photograph that each group made was also analyzed and discussed for similarities and differences in what students considered the most significant or revealing photograph and for how they chose to explain that image.  3.9 Limitations  There were several limitations to procedures and methods employed in this study. Firstly, in working with students at a school I teach at I am in a position of power and this may shape 	
   student’s answers. I alleviated some of the ethical issues by avoiding doing research with my current students. Of course, as Kvale (2006) notes, all qualitative research serves the purpose and interests of the interviewer. This power dynamic needs to be addressed and carefully positioned in analyzing student responses. However in this case the research possibly also benefitted from the comfort level students may have had in knowing and being aware of who the researcher was.  Secondly, due to the nature of this Masters level research and my restrictions as a full time student and teacher, the size of the study had to be relatively small (21 participants) and the length of the study relatively short (75 minutes). A larger, and possibly more diverse, group of students may have provided a more reliable set of data. Furthermore, a more comprehensive study would have ideally had more time for member checking and follow up interviews with the participants. This would have made the data more reliable, as it would have given the participants the time to consider the process and look at their responses in order to see if they agreed with the trends or themes that emerged.  3.10 Reliability, credibility and trustworthiness  This study attempted to access students’ understanding of historical thinking and photographs in a variety of ways in order to enable a more reliable and diverse set of data. The pilot study, the use of written answers, audio recorded discussions, the results of the thematic organization task and the textbook captioning task were employed in order to achieve credibility through methodological triangulation. Each of these methods used in the process was intended to elucidate student understandings that will be crosschecked in the analysis to ensure that conclusions are more reliable. 	
    The credibility of this study is based upon using established and commonly used qualitative research methods. The close alignment to the methodology of naturalistic inquiry and the procedures of small group discussions and activities are well established and commonly used in the field of education (Agostinho, 2005). Furthermore many studies (Foster, Hoge, & Rosch, 1999; Levstik, 2008, Barton, 2008) have utilized images and photographs as ways to elucidate student understandings of history. Ensuring this study was within the contexts of commonly used methods and well-established methodology is responsible for claims to credibility. Finally this study underwent review from my supervisory committee, the review of the University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Ethics Board, as well as the School District’s ethical review process.            	
   4. Findings and Discussion  The findings and discussion of this study are communicated in two chapters. The first will address evidence of historical thinking in students’ responses to the photographs, contextual information and methods of the study. This chapter will be subdivided into sections identifying and considering how students enacted, or failed to enact, three concepts of historical thinking. The second chapter brings theories of visual culture to the conversation on how students look at historical photographs. This chapter will use theoretical frames of photography, semiology, and trauma to discuss other possibilities for understanding how students make sense of historical photographs. The first chapter addresses the research questions more systematically and explicitly, while the chapter on visual culture explores new approaches or ways of thinking about the research questions. All student names used in these chapters have been anonymized to protect the privacy of the participants.  4.1 Evidence of historical thinking  This chapter discusses how the participants of the study used the historical photographs to make sense of a historical injustice, namely ‘Indian residential schooling’ in Canada. Its organization follows that of the research questions, which were designed to align with three historical thinking concepts, as articulated by Peter Seixas (2006).  The first research question is interested in how the students made sense of the historical photographs as primary source evidence. The second inquires about perspective taking and the third addresses the concept of making ethical decisions about the past. Each question will be addressed in sequence although it must be noted that at times the findings are complex and may blur the constructed lines, with discussions overlapping each other. After each question is 	
   addressed individually, a holistic discussion will take place on evidence of historical thinking that emerged during the study, as well as links between this study and other related research. Finally, it should be noted that while questions were specifically asked on each of the three concepts, students often returned to concepts later in their discussions or overlapped concepts for different questions. Mimicking student group activity that takes place in a regular classroom, the discussions were messy, interesting, revealing and often humorous.  4.2 Photographs as primary source evidence  In this section of the study students were asked three questions on the nature of the photographs as evidence of a historical issue, commonly referred to and accepted as an injustice in Canada’s past. Firstly, they were asked why the photographs were taken, secondly they were asked if they thought the photographs were staged, and thirdly, they had to consider if the photographs changed how they thought about residential schooling (i.e. what meanings were enforced, or what were denied in the photographs). Most students referred to the nature of the sources in other questions as well, with many of the most interesting discussions arising in different sections of the research procedure. As a result I will analyze these comments here, but also in later sections as they arise.  Using historical thinking as the basis for understanding the thinking processes associated with primary source evidence, the pre-developed codes were used to search for themes or clusters of students’ understanding the photographs as traces of evidence, with intended purposes, audiences and multiple interpretations. The transcriptions and responses were also analyzed for discussions on the authenticity of the images and if the students understood photographs as tenuous traces of the past. 	
    Students more often understood the photographs as traces of the past with only a few responding with notions that the image was a factually complete representation of residential schooling. It should be explained before continuing that this study uses the terms authentic, truthful and factual to refer to student interpretations in which they accept certain images to: not lie, represent what actually happened, or reveal the truth. The use of the term traces refers to the historical thinking conception that views a primary source trace as a partial, or incomplete, piece of evidence that must be interrogated, and then corroborated by other sources. There was evidence for ‘authentic’ or ‘truthful’ student readings, with several examples of students interpreting the photographs as unproblematic images of residential schooling that need no further interrogation. In other words, these images were understood with the underlying belief that photographs do not lie. Erica explained, “Photo E and F reveal what the education was like.” Ali argued that Photo A was the most revealing photograph because “it shows them being totally stripped of all the Indian conventions.” Both of these examples reveal that some students saw the photographs as representing what ‘actually happened.’ They read the images as being truthful, or factual snapshots of the past, that tell us what the schools were really like. This is not to suggest that these images do not tell us anything about the realities of residential school, but that a historian would most likely approach these photographs with a more critical and cautious eye, contextualizing them among other available evidence.  The majority of students did not read the images as truthful or authentic representations; however, these other interpretations of the photographs proved to be inconsistent in questioning the problematic nature of images as evidence.  Students in one group talked about how some were truthful representations and other were not. For example Alex, in an insightful discussion on the images’ purposes and intentions stated that: 	
   That’s like the propaganda one (Photo A). This one’s pretty helpful (Photo D), you can see what they’re doing, it’s pretty helpful because they’re depicting what they actually do at the school, the other ones you don’t know what they’re doing they’re just standing there, posing. This passage is revealing of how the students understand that the images do more than simply tell us what residential school may have looked like. On the other hand, the student is looking at certain images uncritically, taking some for truthful depictions, while others are looked at more skeptically because the student has judged them to be propaganda.   All groups developed two main categories of images, which were mirrored in the first activity of the procedure of organizing the images into themes. The first most common category included images that were considered staged, faked, and posed group shots, frequently deemed official propaganda or promotional photographs by the students. Photographs A, B and C were often used as examples of this category. In the second category the thematic organization was repeatedly called “candid shots,” “action photos,” “daily life” and “practices of residential schooling” and included the photographs of the children praying, children practicing handwriting and the boy getting his haircut (Photographs D, E, F). In dividing the photographs into two categories students began to identify some images as more authentic than others, and in doing so declared that some images were more valuable or useful to them as sources because they revealed evidence of what residential school was really like. While the term authenticity was not itself used by the students, I use the term here to mean the images perceived ability to truthfully or candidly reveal what residential school was like as discussed above. In other words, these photographs were found to be more useful for students as they were considered to show realities 	
   of residential schooling. This is in contrast to what students considered staged or faked images that were more manufactured for certain governmental or official purposes.  In terms of the perceived purpose and audience of the images students mostly took a critical approach. As mentioned above, terms such as ‘propaganda’ and ‘promotional photograph’ occurred several times in different discussions, with one student even arguing, “this could be an advert for residential school.” It was clear students had a grasp on how images can be used to persuade and change minds. Most groups identified that authorities took the photographs for their purposes. The purpose of the photographs was, in the words of students: “to prove we have children here,” “to show people in the government, like, we’re doing a good job,” “[they’re] pretty much designed to the make you think that nothing is wrong,” and finally “it obviously has to be the teacher who took it.” It was clear that the students all recognized that the photographs were from a ‘European’ or ‘White’ perspective. Andrew explained, “it’s completely from a European perspective to show how you can tame…to show their attempt to tame a Native. It was completely staged.” They also tended to respond with interpretations that the images were constructed to show the success or progress that the residential schools were making.  Sophisticated discussions that used historical thinking did take place regarding the potential amount of understanding gained from the photographs, again supporting the notion that students mostly understood the images as primary source traces of the past. Several students stated that it is difficult to understand much just by using the photographs. Many made qualifying statements that brought into question what could be gained from the photographs. Yasmin stated that “based on the photographs we wouldn’t know anything. I mean the nun looks really happy,...but still you can’t really tell that they were mistreated or whatever...based on the 	
   background information yes, but not based on the photos.” Here the student is making a connection between the intertextual relationship between the photograph and the background information provided. She is perceptively questioning the contradictory nature of the photograph in relation to the background information and refusing to make a judgment because of a lack of evidence. This was a theme that emerged in many other discussions. One student, Chris, stating quite clearly, “it makes me wonder, if we didn’t read the background information what would we think?” These quotes from the students reveal the importance of contextualization in the process of historical thinking, as without the background information these images may have been interpreted completely differently.  As the photographs shown to the students did not explicitly reveal any overt mistreatment, abuse or neglect, students questioned the intertextual relationship between the background information and what they could actually ‘see’ in the images. Andrew argued that “based on the photos they look like they are educated and what not, they don’t look like they were abused in any way.” A fellow student agreed with Andrew, replying, “it doesn’t look that bad. Even looking at the staff and they don’t look like they abuse them.”  It was clear that most students saw the images as contradictory to the background information and their personal understandings of residential schooling. Yasmin stated, “these photos contradict from the background information and the textbook, these photos are extremely positive and not nearly as gruesome as what the background information and the textbook depicts.” Student understanding of the complicated nature of an image’ ability to represent any historical issue was confusing and contradictory at times as many saw ‘positive,’ ‘happy,’ ‘success stories,’ in the photographs while reading about injustice, trauma and suffering in the contextual information.  	
   4.3 Evidence of historical perspective taking  If perspective taking means considering how the context and setting of the past influenced different values, beliefs and attitudes, several students did achieve this particularly unnatural act when looking at the photographs. Andrew, a student who added greatly to his group’s discussion, provided much to think about regarding a student’s ability to take perspectives. For instance in referencing the foreignness of the past he stated,   I think that the people running the schools thought of themselves as a success and they  wanted to show [with the photographs] their success to the federal government. Today  we look at this as the complete opposite of success, but at the time that’s what they  considered what they wanted to do. Here the student noticeably uses historical perspective taking to address the fact that the contemporary views on residential schooling are very different from those most likely held by the teachers, sisters (nuns) and priests who ran the schools. He considers both the motivations of past actors and the difference to what most people consider today to be the intent of residential schooling. Similarly, Annie in reference to the photograph of children praying on their beds stated that “it’s a very peaceful practice [praying], especially at that time and anyone looking at it would think that what the Christians were doing was very good.” Both students here recognize that at the time the photographs were taken, the European perspective on the issue was most likely that the actions of the churches and the federal government were beneficial and necessary for Aboriginals and Canada in general. Of course taking the perspective that residential school was a force for good is unnatural and uncomfortable for those who have knowledge of its often traumatic individual and social consequences for Aboriginal communities, but this is precisely what historical perspective taking asks of students. It should be noted too that in asking students 	
   to recognize and identify past perspectives, it does not mean the students are being asked to agree with that perspective.  The final conceptual tool of historical thinking deals directly with those judgments regarding past perspectives through understanding the ethical dimension of history.   There were other instances of perspective taking; however, students often used simplifications as they attempted to make sense of the strangeness of the past. Yasmin explains Photo F (Appendix 8) as “showing that they’ve taught them all how to pray, since back then everyone was really religious. It was more of a success story of getting the natives to be religious at school.” Here the student has attempted to describe the different beliefs and values of the past to explain the actions of those in the photographs. While her explanation does rely on a generalization, (“everyone was really religious back then”) it does attempt to explain actors of the past by addressing how their values, beliefs and their context shaped their actions. Another student attempted to use perspective taking to try to come to terms with the apparent cramped, or over crowded, living conditions in the schools, as shown in the photographs. She states, “that’s what dorm rooms were like at that time. It’s not just in the residential school dorm rooms. At that time they were all completely communal.” The student makes no mention of where this information or explanation is originating from, and I do not argue that it is necessarily historically accurate; however, her statement does suggest she is attempting to explain the photographs by seeing the past as a foreign place in which she cannot apply all of her contemporary frames of reference to what education, schooling and social interaction might look like.  Holistically speaking, evidence of historical perspective taking was present, but limited in regards to how students used the photographs to make sense of the past. Many students 	
   continued to apply a presentist perspective to explain the actions of those involved or attending residential schools during the time period depicted (1896-1960). Students also tended to refer to the past using notions of backwardness, or a deficit model. Often the teachers, sisters (nuns) and priests were described as ‘evil,’ ‘scary,’ and ‘mean.’ The general theme reoccurring was that those in authority at the schools knowingly acted maliciously against Aboriginal students. This is not to suggest that no malicious acts took place against the students, as there is much evidence to suggest the contrary; however, few students took the uncomfortable, or using Wineburg’s (2001) term ‘unnatural,’ perspective that the teachers and nuns may have believed they were doing what was ‘best’ for the children. This perspective taking is ‘unnatural’ because it attempts to take into account the strangeness of a Canadian past that considered residential schooling as a necessary and beneficial system. Instead students often adopted the presentist perspective that the authorities, teachers and nuns all knew what they were doing at the schools was ethically wrong. The students characterized the adults in one of the photographs, in the words of one student, as “horror movie nuns.” This reading of the images relies partly on the mistreatment described in the background information, but also essentialized notions of oppressor and oppressed in history. In this instance, the students essentialized all of the adults in the photographs as guilty, evil and unethical actors of the past because of their position of power and race, without considering the historical context and their potential motivations. The children are placed in binary opposition to the adults as innocent, passive victims of the past, which is not to say they weren’t in many cases, yet this simplistic explanation of residential schooling denies and ignores the complexity and foreignness of the past, while simultaneously promoting a past in which people roles and motivations can be understood using contemporary values and ethics.  	
   4.4 Empathy, sympathy and care: “I think it shows his feelings”  Much evidence for empathic and sympathetic readings of the photographs was present in the student discussions. I will discuss the student responses regarding this issue here, but also at length in the following chapter, in regards to affective looking.  The images provoked many discussions on the emotional state of the children, teachers, priests and nuns shown in the photographs. These discussions mostly were initiated as students were explicitly asked to discuss the experiences of those attending the schools based on the photos. They were also prompted to discuss how those experiences might be compared and contrasted to the experiences students have today. In many cases the students directly identified with the residential school students, explaining how that student must be feeling or thinking about their situation. This type of emotional involvement or identification with historical actors tends to assume similarity and therefore is potentially dangerous territory for finding evidence of historical thinking. Often students projected their own perspectives on to the children shown in the residential schools, failing to recognize or possibly discuss the problematic nature of projecting one’s present context on to people of the past. These findings suggest both a presentist flawed use of historical thinking, but also of other interesting connections developed by students that shows a personal engagement with the individuals from the past through the photographs.  One revealing example of students discussing the emotional state of the children was carried out by Yasmin and Annie:  Yasmin: In Photo D, this guy kind of looks upset.  Annie: Yeah he’s kind of glaring into the camera  Yasmin: Yeah, he’s getting his head shaved  Annie: Yeah he’s like: the second I get out of this place I’m killing all of you! 	
    Yasmin: Ha-ha, so I don’t think they were particularly happy.  Annie: Of course not. Further on in their discussion this group addressed the issue again:  Yasmin: [reading question] In the schools, do you think they were fairly treated and how   do you know?  Annie: The unhappy looks on their faces.  Yasmin: Also, if you see photo B no one is smiling and photo C no one is smiling...The   kid in the right side and at the end of photo C, he looks absolutely miserable.   ... The majority of us do smile at school, while these kids, I doubt they’ve smiled   in months. Both of these excerpts from the group discussions show that the students believe to some extent as if they can judge how the students feel and think based upon the photograph. The comment in which Annie states, “Yeah he’s like: the second I get out of this place I’m killing all of you!” reveals that the student has taken on the role of speaking for the boy pictured, assuming she can read his thoughts and intentions for the future. This finding is echoed by recent research carried out by Seixas, Peck and Poyntz (2011), who refer to such speaking for a historical character, through the use of ‘mock quotations.’   Another student, discussing the boy getting his haircut, explained, “its kind of obvious what’s going through his mind.” That photograph in particular (Appendix 6) was very compelling for students in developing sympathetic or affective reactions. Another student, Sandra, stated, “he looks scared. You can see fear in his eyes.” Many commented on how they themselves disliked getting their haircut when they were younger, identifying with the boy in the photograph. The students tended to make use of their own notions of what school is like to find 	
   similarities or differences in the images. In other words they simplified the complexities of understanding the past by not “sensitively considering individual’s contexts, background, beliefs and worldview” (Foster, 1999, p. 19). While there are many continuities of schooling throughout its existence, students uncritically applied their understanding of contemporary schooling to Indian residential schools of the past, which can be seen as a misuse of the historical thinking conception of perspective taking understood as a cognitive and reasoned practice.  While Photograph D (Appendix 6) was compelling for students and provoked identification through emotion, many of the ‘staged’ photographs were seen as more benign by the students and at times even positive. Ali commented that, “Photo C looks like a private school today. Everyone’s in uniform, everyone’s better off than they would be.”   One student referring to Photo B stated, “they look pretty happy” with another student replying, “Yeah, they look cute.” It became clear that several of the photos, notably the group class shots (Appendix 4 and 5) were less likely to provoke emotional responses than the photographs of the children praying and of the boy getting his hair cut. However some students explained the unhappy faces as a regular part of childhood: “Kids always look sad when they get a haircut. It doesn’t look that bad.” This reaction was the exception, as most students appeared to read this photograph, in conjunction with the background information, as showing a forcible action taken by the teacher to alter the boy’s culture and advance assimilation. This reading of the image as an unpleasant and unethical practice on display encouraged students to see through a sympathetic lens, taking the side of the boy.  It is apparent that the students developed a ‘caring’ eye towards some of the children in the photographs, and came to the understanding that while much was unseen, these children were not happy. Instead, as one student claimed, “all the kids look kinda depressed.” Annie exclaimed 	
   that the photographs “show that the kids are pissed [angry].” Most groups decided that the photographs themselves did not do a very good job at representing residential schooling and contended that the images in some ways contradicted the background information despite the sad, angry faces they described. Furthermore, students explained that certain photographs were far more valuable than others. In most cases certain photographs were considered benign or favorable representations of residential schooling. Cindy explained, “these photos are extremely positive and not nearly as gruesome as what the background information and the textbook depicts.” Andrew agreed however with a well stated caveat:  I think most of them are positive, except D, but I think they also show conformity and  subjugation. Whether you see that as positive or negative depends on whether you think  they are better off now or what they were. And I don’t think the Natives had a choice. As the researcher I found this incredibly insightful of this student to recognize the conformity and subjugation being represented in these photographs of schooling, as in common with many photographs of schooling; however, this student’s analysis was not representative of the broader group of student participants.  4.5 Evidence of ethical decision-making  This concept of historical thinking invites students to make reasoned judgments and decisions regarding actors and actions of the past. In this case, students were asked if they thought the children shown in the photographs were being treated fairly, and if anything can be done today to redress the injustices of the past. In looking for evidence of this concept of historical thinking, the transcripts and responses were coded for examples of students making judgments and declaring responsibility regarding residential schooling, building arguments for or 	
   against reparations in some form, and commenting on the temporal distance and the ability or inability to fully come to terms with historical injustices.  The majority of groups came to the consensus that residential schooling was ‘unfair,’ ‘unethical,’ and ‘wrong.’ This most often was done through their previous knowledge and the background information. The photographs were of less use for this activity, in comparison to the previous concepts, as several students stated: “they probably didn’t take any photos of the bad stuff,” “they wouldn’t take horrible photos,” and “the photos fail to reveal mistreatment and abuse.” The lack of ‘abuse’ and ‘mistreatment’ in the photos did little to influence the students from making strong judgments and decisions regarding residential schooling.  Across all groups, students made the somewhat straightforward judgment that from a contemporary perspective, residential schools should be looked back upon negatively and generally should be considered unethical. When looking at the results more closely there were many divergent lines of thinking among the students as how to best respond to this historical injustice today. Certain groups discussed who was responsible and how they should be made accountable for what happened. One student, Andrew, was aware of the official federal government apology in 2008, commenting, “I think it’s really important we all recognize what they’ve gone through.” This statement was not representative of most discussions, but does give evidence of a student using his understanding of collective responsibility for historical injustice, which is a key component of this aspect of historical thinking. Other groups did make judgments and comments on the unfairness of the treatment; however, they mostly did not explicitly consider the responsibility of any contemporary individual or group. Often groups used language such as ‘we’ and ‘the government’ to loosely refer to some form of collective responsibility, without outright naming who might be held responsible or implicated today. 	
    Often students argued for redress for the injustice on the basis that survivors of the schools endured and still deal with traumatic experiences. Students also discussed the difficulty of compensating for collective traumas. Cindy commented that “we can’t erase memories,” with another student adding “it’s impossible to give them what they lost,” and “they can’t get their youth back.” Students such as Yasmin and Annie discussed what they saw as the lasting impacts of attending such schools, often in relation to themselves. Annie stated that,    If it was me personally, I think coming out of these schools probably like, they would  probably scar me for life, for what I see schools to be, and how other people treat you. When confronted by another student who suggested, “I don’t know if you can do anything,” Yasmin replied by arguing for the continued presence of the injustice in today’s world,  Yeah but at the same time you have this trauma to live with. This really heavy burden to  carry. Maybe they witnessed an abuse, or maybe they saw their friend die. That kind of  trauma you can’t deal with. I know right, but that’s reality right. Both of these examples show the students have carefully considered the lasting impacts of the past and used that thinking process to make an ethical judgment on the topic.   In terms of what sort of reparations could be made, each group came to different conclusions. One group stated that counseling services should be offered to survivors, another group suggested creating a memorial and a third group asserted that an official apology was warranted. It should be noted that while students were asked what could be done to address this injustice today, no suggestions or examples were offered to the groups by the question prompt or the researcher during the procedures. Most groups did agree that in some form monetary reparations should be made to either the survivors or their families. Interestingly, the topic of education came up in several groups, but proved to be a point of contention. Three of the groups 	
   debated whether the offer of free or subsidized university education could be a possible way to compensate survivors of residential schooling. The debate was largely over whether education would be wanted or accepted by survivors who may have a negative perspective on westernized education because of their previous experiences. Cindy stated “I don’t think they would want to learn anymore because of the trauma.” Similarly, as quoted above, Annie described how she thought that the residential schools would have scarred her for life in the way she would look at schools. Most groups chose not to include this form of reparation, as they could not come to a consensus on the matter.  David brought up the problematic nature of a group of students deciding what is the best way to deal with another group’s collective injustice. He argued that “we aren’t even familiar with them...It’s like a white guy teaching native culture.” David’s point is very revealing of the difficulty in making ethical decisions about the past especially in reference to groups the students may not identify with or have little knowledge of. His comment also suggests the complicated nature of teaching and learning about a group of people that has often been essentialized and racialized by official curricula and schools (Montgomery, 2005; Clark, 2007). His statement offers much to think about in using historical thinking concepts in the social studies classroom with respect to issues of the representation of race.  It was apparent that students were aware of the problematic nature of temporal distances in addressing injustice as well. Some groups argued that only direct survivors of the residential schools should receive any compensation. Three students came to disagreement about the issue and the value of addressing injustices of the past:  Andrew: Should anything be done for them?  Yasmin: It’s too late for them… 	
    Annie: I mean what could we do?  Yasmin: We’ve already gone through this whole exaggerated (trails off). They grew up.  Annie: Yeah, but it still remains.  Andrew: Provide them better opportunities, provide their families better opportunities.     We have to recognize the past. Yeah, I think it’s important to not dwell on the     past as much as recognizing what we should do in the future. This conversation in particular is a good example of students considering the benefits and deficits of addressing historical injustices through an ethical lens. In this example, the students thoughtfully considered the ethical dimension of historical thinking and questioned the value of remembering and recognizing injustices of the past.  4.6 Discussion: Historical thinking through photographs  This study provoked interesting conversations through the opportunities created for students to utilize various conceptions of historical thinking through looking at photographs. While studies have been undertaken using photographs and historical thinking (Foster, Hoge & Rosch, 1999, Barton, 2004, Tally & Goldenberg, 2005) as well as studies involving historical empathy and perspective taking (Ashby & Lee, 1987, Cunningham, 2009, Downey, 1995, Levstik, 2001,VanSledright, 2001, Endacott, 2010, Brooks, 2011) this study bridged these two areas of inquiry to add to the field of historical thinking research. It is clear from this study that photographs are an accessible form of primary source evidence, but require much skill and caution to be utilized to promote higher levels of historical thinking. The students involved in the study provided new understandings that situated the study, as adding to other research done involving photographs, historical thinking and more specifically historical empathy. 	
    As evidence of an historical issue that still has a large presence in contemporary Canada, the photographs provoked much discussion that provided sufficient data for analysis. This study’s findings support Foster, Hoge, and Rosch’s (1999) assertion that visual images offer the history classroom “a powerful vehicle from which to gain insight into the development of students’ historical thinking” (p. 180). This research also begins to address the gap of how students think historically in relation to photographs. Students involved in this study confirmed research that background and contextual information are incredibly important in developing students’ understandings of photographs (Foster, Hoge & Rosch, 1999, p. 202). Furthermore, Colby’s (2009) findings, that using primary source documents to develop historical empathy took much time and contextualization, were also supported by this study. It became evident that the background information was essential for developing student engagement in the task. Establishing the historical context of an issue was further determined as essential for developing more critical and higher level processes of thinking when looking at photographs.  In terms of historical perspective taking this study contributes to the debate on how to best engage students in historical thinking and understanding. Several students did entertain the viewpoints and attitudes of those depicted in the photograph without attempting to sympathize or feel for those individuals. This difficult task of escaping one’s own attitudes was only achieved by several students, which supports Yeager and Foster’s (2001) contention that perspective taking is one of the most difficult and problematic tasks for students using historical thinking (p. 15). While the photographs did offer opportunities for students to use this habit of mind, the study also revealed that the majority of students had tended to use more presentist and affective engagements with the individuals in the photographs. 	
    The findings also reveal the use of what Seixas, Peck and Poyntz (2011) have referred to as the ‘mock quotation.’ The mock quotation, as defined by the previous study, is “the words that the historical actor may have spoken to express their views, if they had spoken in 21st century teen argot” (p. 51). The comment in which Annie states, “Yeah he’s like: the second I get out of this place I’m killing all of you!” reveals that the student has taken on the role of speaking for the boy pictured assuming she can read his thoughts and his intentions. This research undertaken by Seixas, Peck and Poyntz concluded that while at first this seemed to be a form of perspective taking, it in fact was not correlated with sophisticated historical thinking as expressed by other indicators. This study does not support nor reject these finding because there was only one major instance of a student using a mock quotation as described by the previous study thus not providing any solid evidence of its value to perspective taking.  Findings of this study added to how affective engagement in history might be used in the classroom. Participants utilized perspective taking as a cognitive and rational thinking process in their discussion on the photographs, as well as engaging emotionally and sympathetically with the individuals of the past by attempting to know or recognize their feelings, thoughts and experiences. Of course the value of engaging students in identification and imagination with past actors is still debatable and problematic.  Some scholars (Downey, 1995, Foster, 1999, & Seixas & Peck, 2004) maintain that imagination, identification and sympathy should not be considered part of historical thinking. While not in full disagreement with that assertion, this study does suggest that possibilities of historical understanding are to be found in what Jason Endacott (2011) has called an ‘affective engagement.’ As Barton and Levstik (2004) write,  Limiting empathy to a purely cognitive endeavor limits its contribution to pluralist  democracy. To engage in meaningful deliberation with those whose ideas differ from our 	
    own, we must do more than understand them, we must care about them and their  perspectives (p. 207). While Barton and Levstik’s argument does relate to this research, the student responses also remind us that emphasizing ‘affective engagement’ can lead to essentializations about actors of the past based on presentist notions of who is right and who is wrong. An example of this was when students identified the photographed teachers, priests and nuns of the residential schools depicted as an evil, scary, and mean group of people, with little specific evidence used to formulate that conclusion.  This inference appears to have developed out of the background information, which situates this issue into a binary discussion of oppressed and oppressor. This perceived simplification of the issue limits the possibilities for more sophisticated discussions on perspective recognition and taking. This weakness is supported by Foster’s (1999) argument that “emotional involvement with historical characters detracts from the fundamental purpose of history” (p. 19). However the responses analyzed in this study do suggest that affective engagement has potential value in history classrooms. For instance, the students considered emotions in debates over whether one can understand another’s experience through their facial expressions or body language. Rarely did the students take facial expressions as factual information instead they considered other’s perceived emotions as a trace of evidence that should be considered and evaluated. The discussions on sympathetic, affective and caring responses to the individuals in the photographs represents to me one form of higher level thinking in which the students are considering both the perspectives of those in the photographs, but also the nature, reliability and value of the evidence. Perhaps, such engagement and identification with the past can be used as long as certain precautions and restraints are adhered to in order to avoid students falling into simplistic and default positions of the past. Kohlmeier (2006) has referred to 	
   such a conception of historical empathy as “a complex balance between considering the perspectives and connecting with people in the past” (p 37).  A theme found in previous research on historical empathy found that students tended to resort to a default position of the past as a backward, simplistic place using what has been termed a deficit model of the past (Ashby & Lee, 2001, Barton, 1996). This study did find evidence of similar thinking exhibited by the students. In many discussions, students appeared to view the past as an unfair, cruel, and unforgiving place populated by ignorant or simplistic people. This was evident in explanations that simplified the people of the past through generalization such as: everyone was really religious, school was very strict and unpleasant, with the photographs themselves at one point being described as ‘creepy’ and ‘weird.’ However to suggest that most students used a deficit model to understand the past through the photographs would be misleading as the findings revealed that much discussion was undertaken by the students around the realities of the past. These discussions often resulted in the students reaching an impasse with more questions arising than answers provided.  In terms of the ethical dimension of history, the results of this study suggest that given the opportunity and limited contextual information students are capable of engaging in higher- level thinking.  All groups involved in the study discussed important issues regarding the difficulties in addressing historical injustices. The evidence showed that the groups thought about complicated issues such as temporal distance between now and the event, collective responsibility for collective traumas, and the various ways in which reparations’ can be made to descendants and living survivors of historical injustice. One area of ambiguity however is the value of photographs for adding to that discussion. In this context, because the photographs did not reveal overt mistreatment or abuse, the students largely chose to ignore them in making their 	
   judgments; however, if the photographs had shown explicit injustice it is plausible and expected that the students would take them into consideration.  Analysis of the students’ responses also revealed some problematic issues regarding the selection of images for commonly used textbooks in British Columbia. The final task of the study was for the students to choose one image that they thought was the most revealing of residential schooling. Out of the six possible images only two were selected across the groups, both in equal number. Photograph A (Before and After Thomas Moore) and Photograph D (Boy getting his haircut) were the selections made. Photograph A is used by the Historical Thinking Project and in a textbook produced for use in Alberta. Photograph D, which undoubtedly provoked the most discussion throughout the research is only found in curricular resources online (Where are the Children?).  Interestingly, neither of these photographs is used in the government recommended textbooks commonly used for British Columbia Social Studies 10 & 11 (Horizons & Counterpoints). These textbooks instead used the photographs that students referred to as staged, faked and propaganda. The choice of images provided in textbooks does raise questions about how photographs are selected to represent important issues in history. As the students revealed in their responses, those images often were read with positive connotations contrasting the more negative text. An intertextual reading of how the image plays off the written narrative might provide an interesting avenue for further research.      	
   5. A Visual Culture Conversation with the Findings 5.1 Overview ‘Looking’ is a complex, socially and culturally mediated practice. As Mieke Bal (2003) claims, looking is “inherently framed, framing, interpreting, affect-laden, cognitive and intellectual” (p. 9). When looking at the historical photographs the students did more than ‘see’ evidence. Photographs, like all images, bring forth and invite a complex discourse of multiple meanings and interpretations. This study’s design focused on the practice of looking and questions not just what photographs add to historical thinking, but also how looking at historical photographs reflects the visual cultures of students.  This chapter analyses the data through the lens of theories connected to the field of visual culture. It focuses on the fourth research question that inquires into the practice of looking itself. This chapter also addresses the three historical thinking research questions from a different line of thinking to find new possibilities in the understanding of how students make sense of historical photographs. Furthermore, it addresses several issues around visual cultures and visuality in the research. Firstly, a discussion will take place on how students understood narratives of power and the camera as an apparatus of the state. Secondly, evidence of Barthes’ theory of the punctum will be addressed, followed by a semiological discussion on how students read difference onto the bodies seen. Finally, the data will be examined for how students responded to seeing trauma, suffering or injustice bringing the findings into conversation with historical thinking’s ethical dimension as well as the theories of Sontag (2003), Bennett (2005), Butler (2011), and Roth (2011). The data that was collected for this chapter used a grounded theory approach (Weston et al, 2001), which avoided predetermining codes, instead allowing themes to emerge more naturally from the student responses. Often these responses were 	
   tangential to the directed activities, existing not in direct responses to the questions asked, but in ‘off topic’ or sidetracked discussions.  5.2 Identifying the official power of the camera  The data collected revealed that while students were assessing the value and limitations of the photographs for historical purposes, they were also connecting the photographs to discourses on government or official manipulations of media, in this case for promotional or propaganda purposes. The transcriptions showed that almost all students recognized the photographs as having a point of view. Very few students accepted that photographs could be viewed as neutral or objective representations. As mentioned in the previous chapter, students made comments such as “this is a propaganda one,” “this one could be an advert for residential schools” and “that was probably a promotional one.” These comments suggest that students saw the images as instruments of power, or state apparatus, though they did not use such language in their discussions.   It is evident that the students understood the images to have played a role in documenting the schools for official purposes, often to report back to the government or convince the public of the system’s success. Thus, Ali stated, “the photo is designed to show the white population that they’re turning the Indians into good Christians.” Other students claimed the photographs were designed to, “show quote unquote progress,” and to, “show their success.” Contrastingly, Annie claimed that the photographs were actually used to enforce or exert power over First Nations communities when she pondered, “I think all of them were taken to make an example of the First Nations. Like, look at what we’re doing. There is nothing you can do, we 	
   are turning your children into us!” However another student in her group disagreed with this assessment replying,  I think these were much more focused on the Europeans instead of the First  Nations people, because they never had a choice. These were to show the Europeans,  that yes, this is a good idea. Look what we’ve done. [Referencing Photo A] We’ve  taken a dangerous group of people holding a pistol [and turned him] into a  smart  European.  It is clear in these excerpts that the students understand and are utilizing narratives of the official power of photographs to suggest that “the camera is never neutral...yet the power it wields is never its own” (Tagg, 1998, p 64). In this context, the power and the authority of government is wielded by the camera in its attempts to record and give evidence of residential schoolings’ success. This is reflected in the interpretations of the research participants as they continually refer to residential schooling as historically being effective in achieving its goal calling it a “success,” and “a good idea.” Furthermore, the camera in this case not only captures the scene allowing it to become the historical, but also commemorates the event allowing it to continually influence our views of residential schooling today.  The students further suggested in their discussions that the photographs mostly showed the children in the photographs as being passive, or as having little agency or control. The student groups continually brought up notions of force and choice that the photographs revealed. For instance, students commented that, “they [the students] had no choice,” “They did not want to pray, they were forced,” and “I’m sure you didn’t have a choice if you wanted a haircut or not.” In responding to the question, “do you think the children in the photographs were being treated fairly?,” one student replied, “No because they were being forced into everything.” These 	
   discussions are important for two reasons. Firstly, the images allowed the students to immediately recognize the power dynamics of the schools. This first connection may also have developed partially because of student’s prior knowledge of residential schools, but also of how hierarchies and power work in schools today. Secondly, and more interestingly I believe these discussions reveal that the function viewing (or the student’s gaze) has in enforcing the power of the viewer over the viewed. Students in many ways acted upon the image writing passivity on to the students and action onto the authorities. In other words, these images invited the students to view the binaries of power into the image. This is not to argue that this reading of these photographs is incorrect or controversial, but that the space between the students and the images, the context and the research have induced a reading of the images which reifies complex power structures.  5.3 Evidence of the punctum  Throughout the study, the students engaged in detailed and reasoned analysis of the photographs, what Roland Barthes terms the studium. As he wrote in Camera Lucida (1980)  the studium is inevitably to encounter the photographer’s intentions, to approve or  disapprove of them, but always to understand them...The photograph is endowed with  functions. These functions are to cause, to signify, to provoke desire... I invest them  with my studium (p 28). The students engagement with the studium took various forms (i.e. historical thinking, perspective taking, evidence analysis), all of which have been discussed above. The role of the punctum however has not been analyzed thus far in the data. Barthes writes that the punctum, or the second element of photographs, is never sought out by the viewer. In other words, it is not 	
   found or located, but instead it “rises from the scene, shoots out of it like an arrow and pierces” (Barthes, 1980, p. 26) Several clusters began to emerge out of the data revealing that students may have been experiencing a punctum in certain images.  During the study there was evidence of students being disturbed or bruised by elements of the photographs. It should be made clear that these findings are not examples of students being shocked, but of discussing emerging aspects of the photographs that break through the cautioned reason of the studium, or in Sontag’s (2003) expression, to “prick one’s conscience” (p. 105). Secondly, it also must be pointed out that the punctum of an image is never universal and cannot be applied across individuals. In Barthes’ understanding, the punctum is usually a minor detail, one that is often unintentional and inconsistent in its nature. This understanding makes it problematic to code and analyze for the punctum in this research. The ‘findings’ then of this section largely avoid making any claims that all or even most students were drawn to a specific or existent punctum in an image, as this goes against the entirety of the concept. Instead I will explore two examples of how the punctum might be addressed by students during the study.   It was immediately noticeable in the discussions that one photograph stood out and that one aspect of that photograph was of particular interest for several students. That photograph was Photograph D, the image of an adolescent boy getting his hair cut in the classroom. I argue that the data suggests that the boy’s face, more specifically his eyes, pierced or distressed the viewer away from their more reasoned and intellectual readings of the photographs.  There are several instances that suggest that this example may be considered an example of a punctum. One group upon viewing the set of photographs immediately commented that 	
   Photograph D was a different photograph. In the discussion that took place in the first task, where students had to categorize the photographs, the following conversation occurred:  Cindy: This one doesn’t seem religious based. That one, the one they’re kind of just   shaving his head, which is weird.  David: Should we leave Photo D on its own?  Cindy: Where would photo D fit in?”  David: Let’s make a third category called Photo D. Ha-ha. Adding to the exceptionalism of this photograph was also the evidence that most groups suggested that this photograph was definitely not staged. Yasmin remarked that “I would say that everyone, but D, has been staged.” This discussion led to the interesting discussion (see Chapter 4.4) in which the student used a ‘mock quotation’ to identify the students’ feelings and intentions. A student in another group further discussed the same image stating, “he looks so scared. You can see the fear in his eyes.” I believe that, for several students, his eyes glaring into the camera, broke their study of the images meanings and interpretations. After the student mentioned the boy’s fear, she went on to discuss the mood of the photographs. “You can tell the photos have a dark aura.” This statement might also be taken as evidence of the students finding a punctum in Photograph D. It does not suggest however that all students experienced this photograph or any photograph the same way. Nor does the study suggest that certain images have locatable, definable punctums that wound and pierce all viewers; however, I argue that there is evidence to suggest that these photographs of residential schooling did exert a certain power upon some students. In some ways the images acted upon the feeling and emotions of the viewer. In this case I have made the argument that the boy’s eyes in Photograph D, a minor 	
   detail, in the words of Barthes (1980) “traversed, lashed, attracted and distressed” the viewer (p. 40).  Another example of a detail that ‘pricked’ the gaze of the viewer was in Photograph B, a school photo of the students at Blackfoot Crossing Alberta, circa 1900. This photograph is of poorer quality than some of the others (for unknowable reasons) and some of the faces of the students are blurry and unrecognizable. This detail is not the focus of the photograph, but perhaps a simple mistake in development or the unexpected movement of the children during the creation of the photograph. Either way this detail became the focus of discussion for two of the groups. It caught their attention for the same reason, one that reveals the cultural mediation of viewing and also an example of the punctum.  “It’s a ghost. The person in photo B is a ghost ha-ha.” This student response to Photograph B was mirrored by another student in a separate group who also looked at Photograph B and exclaimed, “it’s a ghost!” I do not bring up these seemingly irrelevant responses to examine them for evidence of historical thinking, but as instances of a minor detail piercing the viewer and provoking a culturally mediated response.  Furthermore, while I reveal that I am not an expert on supernatural phenomenon or cultural representations of them, it is clear that both students drew upon some form of cultural capital they had acquired to identify a blurry face in a photograph immediately as a ghost. One student even went as far as to explain the misconception, along with the historical significance of such blurry faces in photographs:  A ghost ha-ha seriously. Well, that’s actually what some people believed with the origin  of the myth of ghosts. Well everyone believed in spirits, but not everyone believed in the  like visual manifestation of them, but then when the first cameras came out and when 	
    they took double shots, one on top of each other, ... someone was just behind  someone when it was actually two of the same photo stamped on top of each other. This explanation shows again some evidence that students see the past through a deficit model (“everyone believed in spirits”), but also provides an interesting attempt to explain why people of the past may have seen ‘ghosts’ in photographs and why some, such as several students, still see them today.  5.4 Reading bodies across the photographs  As the students experienced the photographs they read the bodies of individuals as complex, confusing, and unfamiliar. This section explores how students read difference onto those bodies based upon a series of semiological referents that determined race, gender, and age. It also looks at how there was a need to normalize and regulate bodies seen in photographs and this found expression in looking and articulating what was seen. Every group involved in the study explicitly discussed the bodies of those in the photographs. These discussions touched on race, age, gender, hair, cleanliness, height and weight.  The first most notable discussion of bodies taken place in the study was that on gender. As some of the representations of gender appeared more ambiguous to the students, they set about to identify and confirm those genders. Photograph A provoked this interaction:  Yasmin: It shows the same boy. This is the same boy. Unless it’s a girl or a boy  Annie: It’s a boy  Andrew: He’s lost a lot of weight  Annie: And they cut his hair 	
   Another student in a separate group made a similar comment, “So Photo A is a before and after picture, and in that one he looks like a girl.” Other instances of gender discussion entered the conversation when the students discussed clothing to identify gender.  Ali: That is some strong looking girl.  Cindy: That’s not a girl, that’s a guy, look the girls are wearing dresses. It’s a guy, look  it’s a guy. Just after this, the discussion turned to one of the priests,  Ali: They don’t look like they abuse them.  Cindy: Except for this man wearing a skirt.  Jennifer: It’s a priest. It’s a man. Look at his face.  Ali: I think this is a guy.  Jennifer: Nuns wore the hood and the men didn’t. These conversations make clear that the students participating sought clear and uncomplicated representations of gender. When they came across individuals that confronted their looking, they made sure to discuss and define who was male and who was female based on their semiological readings of the images. An example of this could be when Jennifer explained that because the man wasn’t wearing a hood he could not be female. These findings also reveal how students utilize their present understandings of the visualization of gender to make sense of those whose bodies and clothing may seem foreign to them. Furthermore, it also indicates, as Judith Butler (1990) writes, that when we encounter ambiguous representations of gender, they are only ambiguous because we have learned to see gender in particular ways (p. xii).  The discussion of the appearances of those in the photographs was not limited to gender with many conversations taking place that analyzed hair, age, weight, and cleanliness. Many 	
   comments were made about the haircuts such as one student commenting, “they all have the same haircut.” An extended discussion took place in one group regarding Photograph E (Looking unto Jesus),  Yasmin: I think it’s symbolic cause in their culture they had the long hair and its getting  cut.  David: How do you know? It depends on the environment. Everyone has the same  haircut, so what?  Annie: Except for the girls. They have beautiful braids.  ...  Yasmin: It’s not even a girl. It’s a guy’s hair getting cut.  Annie: Photo F shows more discipline. This guy in the photo here has little braids.  They’re not all exactly the same.  Yasmin: Maybe he was new and hadn’t cut his hair yet.  David: They all have the dirtiest looking faces. Is that a face? That’s scary. The discussions on gender, hair, clothing and apparent hygiene was common across all groups and raises questions on the ways in which students read images and also how images reveal the student’s cultural process of looking.  The concept of race emerged as a theme throughout the conversations. No questions were designed to provoke this conversation, but each group veered into discussions about the racialized nature of the bodies seen in the photographs. For purposes in this discussion only the term race, will be used to refer to issues of identity based on ethnicity, culture and skin color. Complex and fluid notions of identity, in this case in relation to a First Nations identities in Canada are not addressed. This study does not contend that Aboriginals can be understood as 	
   unified whole or that one race or identity exists among First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across Canada. The task developed for students may be inadvertently responsible for encouraging these conversations as this study did specifically focus on how an essentialized collective, identified by their race and culture, experienced an injustice. 3  For some students the representations of race provoked confusion in their interactions with the photographs. For instance, the photographs appeared to some students as showing “white” students as shown by the following conversation:  Annie: Yeah I think this one is a class of white children. [Photo] C is white children and   B is...  David: No they are all Natives  Annie: Oh really? They are all Natives? This group reentered into the conversation of race further on as they began to question if some of these children were indeed ‘white’ for propaganda purposes. Ali asked the question, “do you think these people in Photo A and C, that look like white children or do you think they’re actually Natives? Do you think they were actually staged?” David responded, “I don’t think they would go to that extent.”  The identification of race was also an issue for another student who is stated, “the kid in Photo C, he looks like a white kid. It’s hard to tell cause its black and white, but the facial structure looks like a white kid.” Here the student is apparently trying to locate and define race 	
  The research design holds certain responsibility for failing to present Aboriginal peoples as belonging to multiple, diverse and complex identities rather than a monolithic racialized culture. This limitation was not addressed as residential schooling was experienced across all Aboriginal identities, cultures and communities in Canada and is presented in curriculum as such. This failure to address this issue in the research may be considered a limitation of this study though it was intentional.  	
   using facial structure and coming to an impasse. Another student questioned, “why do they all have big heads? She looks blond, aren’t they Native?” A fellow student responds saying, “No, Métis,” with the first student accepting this explanation: “Ohhh, okay.” These excerpts from the discussions on the racialized process of looking reveals how students automatically see or attempt to see race into photographs. It also shows that photographs that do not offer clear and easily identifiable representations of race, provoke confusion for some students, who attempt to use referents such as hair, skin color, and facial structures on the body to regulate or racialize the children’s bodies. This confusion can be seen as an opening to discuss the norms that regulate our ability to see and recognize difference.  The clothing of students also presented complex and confusing cultural representation of Aboriginals for students. For example in Photograph A [Appendix 3], students wondered if the clothing in the before photograph was authentic to Aboriginal culture or if had been staged:  Yasmin: In that one [before] he looks like a girl.  Andrew: Hey, respect their culture (joking)  Yasmin: Here [after photo] he looks more like an English kid  Andrew: He looks more like a butler. Serve me some tea or something. Another group took a more serious approach with one student Cindy claiming in reference to the same photograph, “They made him wear this kind of clothing and stand like this to take a photo and I don’t think the Native people would have worn this kind of clothing either.” In this example the student is addressing the possibly staged nature of the photographs, as well as the power of clothing to communicate cultural assimilation and ‘progress’ in before and after photographs such as Photograph A. 	
    Finally certain students attempted to address the context of the images creation to explain issues of race that appeared confusing and complex at times, but were ultimately designed to show the white European Canadians that the First Nations were being assimilated into their culture:  Annie: This one is taken in 1897 so since then we are not so much under the influence of   the European rule anymore. This is very much Canadian driven.  David: Yeah but we still have a huge majority of our population that is British...  Annie: Instead of using European, I would use the term ‘White.’ I wouldn’t use the term   European...Yeah W.A.S.P.s... I wouldn’t use European otherwise it’s implying   that we are still part of the European empire.  David: Well, we are Europeans by descent  Annie: Yes, but it’s not the Europeans we are trying to impress, they are trying to impress   their citizens  David: The Canadians  Annie: The white Anglo Saxon supremacists This passage of the discussion is revealing in several ways. Firstly it shows at times that the students in discussion are identifying their association to the idea of European Canada through the constant use of ‘we’ while on the other hand they are also making judgments about the ‘White’ or W.A.S.P.(White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) population that is even referred to as supremacist by Annie. It was common throughout the discussions that most students identified their positions as being ‘Canadian’ and in some ways on the side of the ‘perpetrators’ of this historical injustice. This view of the issue further oriented Aboriginals in the discussion as ‘Other.’ While the discussions recognized injustice and often led to sympathetic responses and 	
   judgments against the authorities at the time, the students still consistently referred to the groups in terms of us and them. In this case, ‘us’ meant Canadians of a variety of descents and backgrounds and Aboriginals being placed in opposition to this narrative as a victimized and racialized other.  5.5 Affective looking: Seeing trauma  In returning to discourses of suffering and remembering, as used by Sontag (2003), Butler (2010) and Bennett (2005), this study found evidence of the transitive aspects of photographs to relay affect. Students did specifically name and refer to trauma in their discussions, as discussed in Section 4.3, but often utilized the background information instead of explicitly using the photographs. Most students in fact appeared to disregard the photographs in the debates on the ethical dimension, yet evidence can still be found that the images shown did provoke affective engagements.  If it is posited that the forcible assimilation practices of residential schooling were a collective and traumatic injustice perpetrated upon the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, then we can begin to see evidence of this trauma in the student’s responses to the photographs. Andrew remarked that Photograph A was the best at representing the issue because “you can see he’s being ripped of his identity.” This was added to by Cindy who noted “it’s revealing of their goals that were to completely strip them of their culture.” Another student referencing Photograph D stated, “its not about education, its about changing their lifestyle.” Yasmin commenting on Photograph E stated, “this one with the forcefulness. They’re all in a line and they’re taking away their identity.” All of these responses show that the photographs, influenced by contextual information given, revealed to the students an unjust and traumatic act of forced assimilation. 	
   They did not in these instances reference the abuse and mistreatment not seen, instead explicitly referring to the possibility of seeing assimilation across the photographs.  This particular student reading of trauma into the photographs leads this chapter into the discussion of how photographs should or should be considered evidence for understanding collective injustice and how the act of looking influences historical understanding. I take into account the argument of Michael Roth (2011) who writes,   Images are not the cure for the lacunae of a traumatic history, but they do change our  relationship to those fragments of the past that are left to us. We must not treat images as  communicating the unveiling of the one essential meaning, but neither should we reject  them as always already deceptive (p. 195). The students’ who participated have shown that certain images they saw were interpreted as violent acts of assimilation with the children having their identity ripped, stripped and taken away in the photographs. Using Roth’s argument above, this is not the one essential meaning of the photographs, but it does reveal that these images are not as benign or benevolent as might be interpreted.  5.6 Discussion: What did these pictures want? Addressing the unseen trauma  As Susan Sontag (2003) writes, our contemporary notions of atrocity or mass suffering often require photographic evidence for them to be considered real events. In this case, the photographic evidence viewed in the study is not overtly implicating of trauma. Students recognized this throughout the study when they questioned what the images could offer to understand residential schooling. In contrast and somewhat contradictory the students did use the photographs to find overt actions of forced assimilation taking place. In their eyes, they saw 	
   suffering, fear, and unhappiness in the faces of many of the children, as discussed in Chapter 4.  In relation to Bennett’s (2005) theorization of affective engagement, the findings indicate that the photographs produced what LaCapra terms empathetic unsettlement. In this conception the students identify with the victims of the historical injustice yet simultaneously do not forget their own context and positionality. Bennett refers to this as “going closer to be able to see, but also never forgetting where you are coming from” (p. 10). Examples of this could be when students assume the identity of the boy in the photograph to speak for him with a ‘mock quotation’ one minute while making outside judgments that he looks ‘unhappy’ the next. This is not to say that the students are employing historical thinking’s conception of perspective taking, but instead that they are engaging in a form of empathy in which they move between the spaces of identification and external judgment of the person viewed.  Questions still remain on the ability of these images to activate action in the viewer. This is echoed by Butler (2010), whose discussion of Sontag (2003), questions whether a photograph has the power to “motivate its viewers to change their point of view or assume a new course of action” (p. 68). This study did explicitly ask if the images changed the students’ understandings of residential schooling with most students suggesting that the photographs in fact were contradictory of their understanding, but did not greatly influence or change that perception. Moreover, the contextual information and their prior knowledge did help students avoid literal readings of the images and instead confirmed to them the cultural violence of forced assimilation present.  The images were powerful enough to relay affect, to encourage sympathy and to provoke ethical decisions, though it must be said not on their own, instead often with the contextual assistance of the background information. While this is an important note to make, I also argue 	
   that in understanding ‘looking’ as an intertextual practice that involves captions, settings, titles, contextual information and so on, no images are ever viewed in isolation. This intertextuality is referred to by both Duncum (2010) and Werner (2002), who both argue for the impossibility of looking at images without considering, perhaps unconsciously, other factors. Therefore to argue that the background information influenced the act of looking is largely inconsequential for this study. It surely did influence how the students looked, as Sontag (2003) explains all “all photographs wait to be explained or falsified by their captions” (p. 10). Yet I contend that Sontag’s argument is missing a component that is addressed by both Butler (2010) and Mitchell (2005). Perhaps the photographs are doing more than waiting to be interpreted.  Mitchell (2005) argues that pictures are “ways of world making, not just world mirroring” (p. xv). Further on he posits, “images seem to come alive and want things” (p. 9). In moving the question away from what images mean, to what images want, we can begin to look at these images in a new light. As discussed in the literature review, Mitchell’s arguments about the lives and desires of pictures largely deals with the notion that humans endow pictures with animistic features. While he does suggest they may actually want things, Ranciere (2009), explains, it is only that they behave as if they do (p. 131). The main argument is that the power bestowed into images, consciously or unconsciously, influences how we see and come to know them. Similarly, Butler (2010) also refers to photographs as structuring scenes of interpretation that can unsettle the maker of the image as well as the viewer (p. 68). The metaphor of images as coming alive may provoke criticism and disbelief which Mitchell addresses by arguing that he does not believe that images actually want things, but that people insist on behaving as if they did and therefore this creates a double consciousness surrounding pictures which must be discussed (p. 11). 	
    In the case of the findings, I argue the images, in the words of Mitchell (2005), wanted to be read as images of trauma and images of forcible assimilation because that is what the students expected, desired, or perhaps were required to see. The links that corroborate the evidence of mistreatment and the photographs are tenuous, yet the images most often led to a sympathetic or affective reading before a cognitive one.  In some ways, the images offered what the students could not see: abuse, mistreatment and assimilation. The importance of the unseen in this case is in some way more central to the photographs than the seen. This finding is often explained as the paradox of photographs. Barthes (1980) insists “a photograph is always invisible: it is not what we see” (p. 6). Mitchell adds that photography “is declared to be independent of language and yet riddled with language. Photography is a record of what we see, or a revelation of what we cannot see” (p. 274). The students mimic this contradiction in their discussions as they questioned what they would know without the background information yet came to conclusions about the violent assimilation seen through the photographs. An example of this is one student claiming that the photographs “don’t show any of the physical abuse or anything” while right after claiming, “it reveals their goals were to completely strip them of their culture.” In this case the distinction between seeing overt violent acts versus cultural violence is not made by the student, but the photographs provoke both discussions. The photographs reveal what can be seen and what cannot.      	
   6. Conclusion 6.1 Summary This study sought to determine how students utilize historical thinking concepts to make sense of historical photographs. It adds to the related research by bridging the theories of historical thinking and visual culture to address the ways in which the practice of looking might impact a student’s ability to historically think. What follows will briefly summarize the aims of the research, the methods used, the findings, limitations, and potential avenues for future research. The aims of this study were focused on how conceptions of historical thinking are enacted in the secondary school classroom. While multiple interpretations of historical thinking do exist, this study focused primarily on the articulation of six concepts by Peter Seixas (2006). In focusing the scope of the research, three concepts were chosen to further explore: primary source evidence, perspective taking and the ethical dimension. The research design was constructed to allow and encourage students to use primary source evidence, in this case photographs, in order to take historical perspectives and make ethical decisions about a historical injustice in Canada. As the researcher, I was also particularly interested in how the practice of looking at historical photographs might be related to the field of visual culture and so the study’s scope and related literature was expanded to address theories of photography, trauma and semiological understandings of images. The qualitative methods employed by the study were designed to replicate secondary social studies classroom activity to reveal student’s thinking around historical photographs, historical injustice and perspective taking. One class of 21 students was selected to participate in the study, which took place over the course of one period (80 minutes) of Social Studies 10.  The 	
   methods involved students completing tasks and questions that related to ‘Indian residential schooling’ and its representation in photographs used in curricular resources. The student discussions that took place throughout this task were audiotaped, transcribed, coded and analyzed for evidence of historical thinking and practices of looking. The data that were created through this study were incredibly valuable to me as the researcher and as a teacher in revealing how students make sense of residential schooling through primary source evidence.  6.2 Contributions to knowledge The findings of this study reveal that students use many complex-thinking processes when looking at historical photographs, not all of which can be defined under the concepts of historical thinking that have been outlined in the literature review. The students’ attempts to come to terms with historical injustice, photographic representation and contextual information did indicate the presence of historical thinking and visual literacy, yet simultaneously revealed much confusion and conflicting data. In regards to the use of primary source evidence, it is clear that photographs provide students with an accessible and approachable form of evidence, which they have great familiarity with. While they may be disregarded as less dense or complicated texts in comparison to written documents, photographs offer much to the historical thinker. Students throughout the study recognized that photographs do not reveal the ‘whole’ picture, but they do provide much to discuss and analyze. In the student recognition of the tenuous claims that can be made with photographs, they got to the heart of the historical thinking conception of using primary source evidence: Evidence is always partial, always interpreted, and cannot be used to understand the 	
   past without a critical examination of its purpose, source, and reliability, as well corroboration with other sources. This study confirms that students when guided will interrogate photographs as traces of the past, as historians might. They recognized that the photographs were not only representing the past, but instead interpreting, contradicting and framing the past in ways that need to be questioned. Furthermore, this study verifies Michael Roth’s (2011) contention that photographs are valuable to the historian as they, “signal the difficulties and the possibilities of apprehending and representing some aspects of the past” (p. 204). This claim supports the value of using photographs, when available, as a common or essential component of primary source evidence in historical thinking. Perspective taking and historical empathy continue to be areas of contention within the field of historical thinking. The findings of this study both confirm previous studies results on perspective taking, such as the use of presentism, ‘mock quotations,’ and deficit models of history, while simultaneously offering new insights into how photographs can be used to cultivate higher-level thinking.  A minority of students did consistently attempt to identify the foreignness of the past to make sense of photographs through perspective taking, yet there was no evidence to suggest this was consistent across the participants of the study. The results of this portion of the study suggest a limitation in the design in structuring a task, which encourages perspective taking without leading students into tasks of imagination, sympathy and identification. In regards to conceptions of care and sympathy, students did use identification and imagination in attempts to better understand the world of the children depicted in the photographs. This finding can be interpreted in two main approaches. The first, suggests that 	
   further work must be undertaken in the field to avoid such misuse of historical thinking in the classroom. This interpretation maintains that perspective taking should never embrace the notion of “stepping in to one’s shoes” or “getting behind the eyeballs” of actors from the past. The second approach suggests that there is value in identification, as it encourages students to care about those in the past and therefore care about history. The findings of this study show that perspective taking and what might be called affective engagement are not necessarily incompatible. As findings in chapters four and five revealed, some students were able to contextualize and note the foreignness of the past whilst also entering into discussions of how the students depicted must have felt. On the one hand, I agree that historical inquiry must be a disciplined and reasoned process, yet too often this conception rejects any affective form of engagement with the past as ‘bad’ history. On the other, a closely examined and reflexive look at how the past makes us feel sympathy or identification with historical actors has the potential to play an important role in historical thinking. This conception is related to Bennett (2005) and LaCapra’s (1996) use of the term empathetic unsettlement, in which students could identify with the historical actors while simultaneously questioning why they might feel sympathy with those in the past. This could be used to question how might positionality inform or disrupt how they come to understand the past. A limitation of this study is that it did not explicitly ask students to question why they might be identifying, imagining and sympathizing with the children of residential schools and what that might be doing to their thinking about the subject. This can be considered the inclusion of recognition of positionality as part of the historical inquiry process. While this complicates the historical thinking process, it also addresses the issues of identification, sympathy, and care in studying the past. The terrain between perspective taking and affective identification remains 	
   disputed and this study does not make claims to a complete answer to this problem; instead it reopens the conversation on how both cognitive and affective engagements with historical empathy might work together. It is also worth repeating that this study found that the students consistently agreed that the photographs chosen for use in textbooks provided contradictory interpretations to the issue at hand. In this case, the students believed the photographs used by common textbooks were positive depictions of residential schooling that could be considered government propaganda. This finding raises questions about how images in textbooks are selected and how they might enforce certain interpretations while rejecting others. This finding is reinforced and mirrored by the discussion around the camera as an official apparatus of the state as discussed in Chapter Five. A limitation of this study however was that it did not inquire into how photographic selections are made for curricular resources and what criteria are used in that process, which could be an avenue for future research. Furthermore, in regards to the intertextual relationship between the contextual information and the images this study indicates that the analysis of conflicting texts (visual and written) may provide a source of higher-level thinking.  Student discussions indicated that when photographs and other images conflicted with contextual information it provided an opportunity to question how images are selected to frame, interpret, reveal or conceal historical events and issues. This opportunity for students allows them to question the intertextual relationship between secondary written accounts and primary source images. The discussions that this study fostered indicate that students utilize their own cultural and social understandings to deconstruct and read images. The reliance on relating issues and problems to their own visual cultures was common throughout. This study supports my 	
   contention that there is overlap between the fields of historical thinking and visual culture and that they can be used in conjunction with each other to explore how students learn about the past through the visual. The findings offer clear examples of how student’s immersion in a visual culture helped them to question and interpret the historical representations of race, gender, age and other potential markers of difference. This finding can be understood in two ways: Firstly, it can be proffered that students rely too often on contemporary worldviews to understand the past and efforts must be made to move beyond this; or secondly, it can be posited that this is inevitable and must be further embraced and incorporated as part of the historical inquiry in the classroom. It points further to the need that positionality must be addressed when engaging in historical thinking as aspects of each student’s contemporary visual culture are entrenched in the practice of looking and cannot be ignored.   Finally, while I do contend that historical thinking and visual culture can be used in conjunction with each other I also suggest that they are grounded in different approaches. In the case of this study, the findings that explored the students' use of the punctum, traumatic and affective unsettlement, and the unseen do not necessarily merge easily with conceptions of historical thinking; yet this is not to suggest that they cannot be brought into alignment with each other with future exploration in the area. There are many possibilities for further inquiry into these fields, which will be addressed in the following section.  6.3 Implications for future research While offering many interesting and exciting new findings on the issues of historical thinking, photography and visual cultures in the secondary classroom, this study provoked many new questions that could be explored in future research in the field. I am interested in pursuing 	
   some of these questions and problems around historical thinking and visual cultures in my doctoral research.  One area of potential future research is the structuring of tasks that encourage and cultivate perspective taking in the history classroom, while avoiding the potential pitfalls associated with sympathetic or affective responses. Perspective taking in my mind continuously proves to be the most difficult of the historical thinking concepts for students to understand. I find that too often in classroom activities and tasks designed to encourage perspective taking inadvertently lead down a path where the end point reveals itself to be identification, imagination and sympathy with actors of the past. This often manifests itself in the common student activity: “write a letter from the perspective of ___” with little contextual knowledge given. Future studies could address ways in which the conception of perspective taking can be utilized in a reasoned and cognitive manner, which gets to the center of understanding the foreignness of the past, while avoiding simplistic interpretations that rely upon presentism or deficit models of the past. Bridging conceptions of historical thinking with other ways of thinking, such as affective engagement and visual cultures, was a goal articulated throughout this study. Questions remain as to how student thinking, that does not fit under the current conception of historical thinking, yet still resembles higher level thinking, might be incorporated into the social studies classroom: Should student thinking that involves identification, imagination, and sympathy in the social studies classroom simply be discouraged, avoided and rejected?  If students utilize presentist or deficit model interpretations of the past, do we as educators explore those understandings for what they might offer in terms of questioning positionality as part of the historical inquiry? These questions arose throughout the research, as I tried to come to terms with two sets of 	
   diverse literature on the act of looking and the practices of historical inquiry. I have attempted to find common ground between the two approaches, yet further research is needed before any affective engagements are embraced in the history classroom. In relation to photography in the classroom, I argue that more discussion and research needs to take place on how images function to represent, interpret or become evidence of the past. Students could also be questioned on why certain images develop power in their circulation while others disappear. In regards to this study it was of interest that certain images provoked similar discussions across groups while others were neglected. Further research might inquire into what makes this so, and for what reasons are some images more compelling than others. The role the visual plays in the social studies classroom in representing, interpreting, framing, concealing, revealing and provoking affective responses to the past offer it up as a source of much future research, one that can be incorporated into historical thinking. 	
   References Agostinho, S. (2005). Naturalistic inquiry in e-learning research. International Journal of  Qualitative Methods, 4(1), 1-13. Apple, M.W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge Press. Bal, M. (2003). Visual essentialism and the object of visual culture. Journal of Visual Culture,  2(1), 5-32. Bann, S. (1990). The Inventions of history: Essays on the representation of the past.  Manchester: Manchester University Press. Barthes, R. (1977). Image-music-text. New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes, R. (1980). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. London: Jonathon Cape. Barret-Lenard, G.T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barton, K & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence  Elbraum Associates. Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. (J.A. Underwood,  trans.) London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1936). Bennett, J. (2005). Empathic vision: Affect, trauma and contemporary art. Stanford: Stanford  University Press. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin Press. Berti, A.E., Baldin, I., & Toneatti, L. (2009). Empathy in history. Understanding a past  institution (ordeal) in children and young adults when description and rationale are  provided. Contemporary Education Psychology, 34(1), 278-288. 	
   Blake, C. (1998). Historical empathy: A response to Foster and Yeager. International Journal of  Social Education, 13(1), 25-31. Bowers, C.A. (1987). Toward a post-liberal theory of education. New York: Teachers College  Press. Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects: Toward a psychoanalytic inquiry  of learning. Albany: State University of New York Press. Brooks, S. (2009). Historical empathy in the social studies classroom: A review of the literature.  The Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 213-234. Brooks, S. (2011). Historical empathy as perspective recognition and care in one secondary  social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(2), 166-202. Bryant, D. & Clark, P. (2006). Historical empathy and Canada: A people’s history. Canadian  Journal of Education, 29(4), 1039-1063. Burke, P. (2001). Eyewitnesssing History: Using images as primary sources. Ithaca: Cornell  University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:  Routledge Press. Butler, J. (2010). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso Publishing. Cartwright, L. & Sturken, M. (1998). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caruth, C. (1996). Unclaimed experience: Trauma, narrative, history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins  University Press. 	
   Clark, P. (2007). Representations of Aboriginal people in English Canadian textbooks  towards reconciliation. In A. Cole (Ed.). Teaching the violent past. (pp. 81-119).  Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Clark, P. (2011). Introduction. In New possibilities for the past: Shaping history education in  Canada. (pp. 1-30). Vancouver: UBC Press. Cunningham, D. (2009). An empirical framework for understanding how teachers conceptualize  and cultivate historical empathy in students. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(5), 679  -709. Davis, M.H. (1982). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a  multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113  -126. Davis, O.L., Yeager, E.A., & Foster, S.J. (Eds.). (2001). Historical empathy and perspective  taking in the social studies. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Denos, M. & Case, R. (2006). Teaching about historical thinking. Vancouver: The Critical  Thinking Consortium. Didi-Huberman, G. (2009). Images in spite of all: Four photographs from Auschwitz. Chicago:  Chicago University Press. Downey, M. T. (1995). Perspective taking and historical thinking: Doing history in a fifth grade  classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational  Researcher’s Association 1995, San Francisco. Duncum, P. (2006). Visual culture in the art class: Case studies. Reston, VA: National Art  Education Association. Duncum, P. (2010). Seven principles for visual culture in education. Art Education, 63(1), 6-10. 	
   Endacott, J. (2011).  Reconsidering affective engagement in historical empathy. Theory and  Research in Social Education, 38(1), 6-49. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths  of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324. Elkins, J. (2008). Visual literacy. New York: Routledge Press. Evans, J. & Hall, S. (1999). Visual culture: The reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Foss, S.K. & Waters, W. (2007). Destination dissertation. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. Foster, H. (1988). Vision and visuality. Seattle: Bay Press. Foster, S. (1999). Using historical empathy to excite students about the study of history: Can you  empathize with Neville Chamberlain? The Social Studies, 90(1), 18-24. Foster, S., Hoge, J., & Rosch, R. (1999). Thinking aloud about history: Children’s and  adolescents’ responses to historical photographs. Theory and Research in Social  Education, 27(2), 179-214. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977. New  York: Vintage Books. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art.  New York: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Press. Garoain, C. & Gaudelius, Y. (2008). Spectacle pedagogy: Art, politics and visual culture.  Albany: State University of New York Press. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. South  Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. 	
   Granatstein, J.L. (1998). Who killed Canadian history? Toronto: Harper Collins. Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.). Representation: Cultural  representation & signifying practices. (pp. 13-74). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of  partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. Haraway, D. (1998). The persistence of vision. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.). The visual culture  reader. (pp. 677-684). London: Routledge Press. Hashimoto, H. (2002). The structure of empathy in Japanese adolescents: Construction and  examination of an empathy scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(1), 293-301. Haskell, F. (1993). History and its images: Art and the interpretation of the past. New Haven,  CT: Yale University Press. Historica-Dominion Institute/IPSOS. (1997). The Canada day youth history survey. Retrieved  from: Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York:  College Board Publications. Hunt, L. & Swartz, V. (2010). Capturing the moment: Images and eyewitnessing in history.  Journal of Visual Culture, 9(3), 259-271. Jay, M. (1993). Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in 20th century French thought.  Berkeley: California University Press. Kohlmeier, J. (2006). “Couldn’t she just leave?”: The relationship between consistently using  class discussion and the development of historical empathy in a 9th grade world history  course. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(1), 34-57. 	
   Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3),  480-500. Kraceur, S. (1997). Theory of film: The redemption of physical reality. Princeton: Princeton  University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. (A. Sheridan trans.).  London: Hogarth Press. LaCapra, D. (1994). Representing the holocaust: History, theory, trauma. Ithaca: Cornell  University Press. Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts towards a double(d) science. Albany: State of  New York University Press. Lee, P. & Ashby, R. (1987). Children's concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In  C. Portal (Ed.). The history curriculum for teachers. (pp. 62-88). London: Falmer. Lee, P. & Ashby, R. (2000). Empathy, perspective taking, and rational understanding. In O.J.  Davis, E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.) Historical empathy and perspective taking  in the social studies. (pp. 21-50). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lee, P. & Shemilt, D. (2011). The concept that dares not speak its name: Should empathy come  out of the closet? Teaching history, 143(6), 39-49. Levesque, S. (2008). Thinking historically: Educating students for the 21st century. Toronto:  University of Toronto Press Levesque, S. (2011). What it means to think historically. In P. Clark (Ed.). New possibilities  for the past: Shaping history education in Canada. (pp. 115-35). Vancouver: UBC Press. Levstik, L. (2001). Crossing the empty spaces: Perspective taking in New Zealand adolescents  understanding of history. In O.J. Davis, E.A. Yeager, S.J. Foster (Eds.). Historical 	
    empathy and perspective taking in the social studies. (pp. 69-96). Lanham: Rowman &  Littlefield Publishers Inc. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, D. (2000). “Dilemmas and delights of learning history,” In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S.  Wineburg (Eds.). Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international  perspectives. (pp. 63-82). New York: New York University Press. McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a  postmodern era. New York: Routledge Press. Mirzoeff, N. (1998). The subject of visual culture. In The visual culture reader. (pp. 3-23).  London: Routledge Press. Mitchell, W.J.T. (1987). Iconology: Image, text, ideology. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994). Picture theory. Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago:  Chicago University Press. Mitchell, W.J.T. (2005). What do pictures want? The lives and loves of images. Chicago:  Chicago University Press. Montgomery, K. (2005). Banal race thinking: Ties of blood, Canadian history textbooks and  ethnic nationalism. Paedagogica Historica, 41(3), 313-336. 	
   Office of the Prime Minister of Canada. (2008). Prime Minister Harper offers full apology on  behalf of Canadians for the Indian residential schools system. Retrieved from Osborne, K. (2006). To the Past: Why we need to teach and study history. In R. Sandwell,  (Ed.) To the past: History education, public memory, and citizenship in Canada. (pp.  103-131). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Parkes, R. (2011). Interrupting history: Rethinking history curriculum after ‘the end of history.’  New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Panofsky, E. (1957). Meaning in the visual arts. New York: Doubleday Anchor. Pinar, W.F.  & Bower, C.A. (1991). Politics and curriculum: Origins, controversies and  significance of critical perspectives. Review of Research in Education, 18(1), 163-189. Portal, C. (1987). Empathy as an objective for history teaching. In C. Portal (Ed.) The history  curriculum for teachers. (pp. 89-99). London: Falmer Press. Rancière, J. (2009). Do pictures really want to live? Culture, Theory and Critique, 50(2), 123  -132. Rogoff, I. (2002). Studying visual culture. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.). The visual culture reader,  (2nded). (pp. 24-36). New York: Routledge. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials.  London: Sage Publications. Roth, M. (2011). Memory, trauma and history: Essays on living with the past. New York:  Columbia University Press. 	
   Sandwell, R. (2012). Seventeen voices in Canadian debates over history education. In T. Taylor,  (Ed.). History wars and the classroom. (pp. 51-76). Charlotte: Information Age  Publishing. Seidel, J., & Kelle, U. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data. In  U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods, and practice  (pp. 107-116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! Die kinder! or does postmodern history have a place in the  schools? In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, S. Wineburg (Eds.). Knowing, teaching and learning  history: National and international perspectives. (pp. 19-37). New York: New York  University Press. Seixas, P. (2006). Historical thinking concepts. UBC: Centre for the Study of Historical  Consciousness. Retrieved from: Seixas, P. (2010). A modest proposal for change in Canadian history education, International  Review of History Education, 6(1), 11-26.	
   Sexias, P. & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking. In. A. Sears & I. Wright, (Eds.),  Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies. (pp. 109-117). Vancouver: Pacific  Educational Press. Seixas, P., Peck, C., & Poyntz, S. (2011). But we didn’t live in those times: Canadian students  negotiate past and present in a time of war. Education as Change, 15(1), 47-62. Seixas, P. & Morton, D. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Scarborough: Nelson  Educational Press. Shemilt, D. (1987). Adolescent ideas about evidence and methodology in history. In C. Portal,  (Ed.) The history curriculum for teachers. (pp. 39-61). London: The Falmer Press. 	
   Sontag, S. (1977). On photography.  New York: Doubleday Books. Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. New York: Picador Press. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich  College. Stearns, P.N., Seixas, P. & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing, teaching, and learning  history: National and international perspectives. New York: New York University  Press. Tagg, J. (1988). The burden of representation: Essays on photographies and histories. London:  Macmillan Press. Tally, B. & Goldenberg, L. (2005). Fostering historical thinking with digitized primary sources.  Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 1-22. Tavin, K. (2000). Teaching in and through visual culture. Journal of Multicultural and Cross  Cultural Research in Art Education, 18(3), 37-40. Teijlingen, E. & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update,  35(4), 1-4. VanSledright, B. (2001). From empathetic regard to self understanding: Im/positionality,  empathy, and historical contextualization. In O.L. Davis, E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster,  (Eds.). (2001). Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies. (pp. 51  68). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Werner, W. (2002). Reading visual texts. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(3),  421-428. Werner, W. (2004a). What does this picture say? Reading the intertextuality of visual images.  International Journal of Social Education, 19(1), 64-77. 	
   Werner, W. (2004b). Towards visual literacy. In. A. Sears & I. Wright, (Eds.) Challenges and  prospects for Canadian social studies. (pp. 202-215) Vancouver: Pacific Educational  Press. Weston, C. et al. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding  system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381-400. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of  teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Wineburg, S. & Rosenweig, R. (2007). Centre for History and  New Media at George Mason University. Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-Santo, C. (2011). Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy  in middle and high school history classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Wolff, J. (2012). After cultural theory: The power of images, the lure of immediacy. Journal of  Visual Culture, 11(1), 3-19.             	
   Appendices Appendix 1: Residential schools in Canada background information • In the 1870’s, the Government of Canada partnered with Anglican, Catholic, United, and Presbyterians churches to establish and operate boarding and residential schools for Aboriginal (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) children. • In 1884, attendance at residential schools was made mandatory for Aboriginal children under age 16 through the Indian Act. Failure to send children to residential schools often resulted in the punishment of parents, including imprisonment. • The federal government and churches operated over 130 residential schools across Canada. The number of active schools peaked in 1931 at 80. The last federally- administered residential school closed in 1996. • The federal government currently recognizes that 132 federally-supported residential schools existed across Canada. This number does not recognize those residential schools that were administered by provincial/territorial governments and churches. • Over 150,000 children (some as young as 4 years old) attended federally-administered residential schools. It is estimated that there are approximately 80,000 Residential School Survivors currently alive today. • Many Aboriginal children were often forcibly removed from their homes and separated from their families by long distances. Others who attended residential schools near their communities were often prohibited from seeing their families outside of occasional permitted visits. • Students were forbidden to speak their language and practice their culture, and were frequently punished for doing so. Many students were forced to do manual labour, and were fed poor quality food. There are numerous accounts of students being fed moldy, maggot-infested and rotten food. • Other experiences reported from residential school survivors include the following: sexual and mental abuse, beatings and severe punishments, overcrowding, illness, children forced to sleep outside in the winter, children being forced to wear soiled underwear on the head or wet bed sheets on the body, use of students in medical experiments, disease and, in some cases, death. • Many children died from diseases such as tuberculosis and small pox amongst others, many of whom were buried in unmarked graves. • Students often received a sub-standard education. For example, in 1950 over 40 per cent of the teaching staff had no professional teacher training. • Some students have spoken of the positive experiences of residential schools, claiming they received an adequate education in reading, writing, and arithmetic.         	
   Appendix 2:  Student discussion tasks and questions  A. Before looking at the photographs: In your group discuss the following questions  1. What is a residential school?  2. Why did residential schools exist? What was their purpose? B. Before moving on to the next questions please spend as much time as you need to look at each of the 6 photographs. Feel free to discuss the images with your group. C. Organize the photographs into categories or themes. You must have at least 2 categories and at most 3. Be sure to discuss how you chose the categories and why you put certain images in each grouping. Give a clear short title for each category. Category 1 Title: ____________________________________________ Images Included: Category 2 Title: ____________________________________________Images Included: Category 3 Title (if necessary):________________________________Images Included: D. Answer the following questions in relation to the photographs  Primary Source Evidence Questions: Use any number of the images for questions 1, 2, & 3.  1. Why do you think these photographs were taken?  2.  Do you think any of the photographs have been staged or faked in anyway? 3. In comparison to the background information how do these images change how you think about residential schooling? Do they add any new understanding or contradict what you read? Perspective Taking/Empathy - Choose one or two photographs you think best reveals the experiences of the children in the schools. Use these images to answer questions 4, 5, & 6.  4. How do(es) the photograph(s) help you understand the experiences children had at  residential schools? (What do you think the children thought or felt about school)?   5. In what ways do the student experiences you see in the photograph compare to your  experiences of school?  The Ethical Dimension  6. Do you think the children in the photograph(s) were being treated fairly?  How do you  know? Using all of the images answer questions 7 and 8  7. Do you think all 6 of these photos do a good job of representing residential schooling  fairly?  8. If any these children are still alive today or if their families still live in Canada, should  anything be done for them 	
   D. Final Task As a group you will decide which photograph is the most revealing of residential schooling in Canada. Discuss the images as a group, explaining how you would pick one image. If your group cannot decide on one, you may pick different images each, but remember to justify your choice. Imagine you were going to include it in a textbook. Write a 2-3 sentence caption below the image. The caption should do more than describe the image. It can add to the understanding of the image as you see it, it can ask a question of the viewer or it can explain why it is revealing of residential schooling Please write your caption below: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________                               	
   Appendix 3: Photograph A: Before and after  Before and after photos of Thomas Moore taken during his time at the Regina Indian Industrial School.  These photos were published in the Dominion of Canada Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, June 30, 1896.   Source: Library and Archives Canada URL: e.php?page_id_nbr=10420&&&PHPSESSID=252aeh7ppfser495q9m96kcij7 Retrieval Date: January 18, 2012 Found in: David, R. (2006). Our Canada: Origins, Peoples, Perspectives. Scarborough: Nelson Education The Historical Thinking Project (2011). Resource Posters: Continuity and Change. Vancouver: Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness.        	
   Appendix 4: Photograph B: Class photo 1  Title: Priests, sisters (nuns) and school children at St. Joseph Residential School, Blackfoot Crossing, Alberta in 1900    Original Source: Glenbow Archives NA-3482-8  Found in: Cranny, M., Jarvis, G., Moles, G., & Senley, B., (2009). Horizons: Canada’s Emerging Identity (2nd Edition). Toronto: Pearson Education.               	
   Appendix 5: Photograph C: Class photo 2 Title: Alberni Residential School Primary Boy’s Class in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia circa 1930    Source: Image B-01060 Courtesy of Royal BC Museum, BC Archives  Found in: Cranny, M. & Moles, G. (2010). Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues (2nd Edition). Toronto: Pearson Education.                     	
   Appendix 6: Photograph D: Boy’s haircut Sister of the Soeurs du Sacré-Coeur d'Ottawa supervising cutting an Aboriginal boy's hair in the classroom. Pukatawagan Reserve, Man. Circa 1960    Original Source: Library and Archives Canada, PA-195124. Found in: Where are the Children? Healing the Legacy of the Residential Schools. 2002.06.18 URL: Retrieved: January 24, 2011  	
   Appendix 7: Photograph E: Looking unto Jesus A class in penmanship at the Red Deer Indian Industrial School, Red Deer, Alberta, ca. 1914    Original Source: United Church of Canada, Archives, 93.049P/850N. Found in: Where are the Children? Healing the Legacy of the Residential Schools.  2002.06.18 URL: Retrieved: January 24, 2011                 	
   Appendix 8: Photograph F: Nightly prayers  Title: Aboriginal boys saying their nightly prayers in the dormitory, date unknown   Original Source: Yukon Archives, Anglican Church, Diocese of Yukon fonds, 86/61, #678. Found in: Where are the Children? Healing the Legacy of the Residential Schools.  2002.06.18 URL: Retrieved: January 24, 2011  	
   Appendix 9: Data collection codes Description of code and associated category CODE Primary source evidence Reads image as truthful, useful, authentic, or complete representations of residential schooling Reads image as truthful/authentic RIAT Interprets images as traces (the opposite of RDATA) Questions the amount of information that can be gained from the image and acknowledges its partialness Trace TR Utilizes background information ignoring / disregarding interpretation/representation in the photograph Background Information BI Interprets photographs as faked/staged by their author for propaganda or other official purposes Staged STGD Perspective taking and historical empathy Comments on historical worldviews or contexts  Contextualization CNTXT Comments on the historical actors represented identity  Historical Actor ID HAID Comments on the  “foreign” perspective of those represented in the image Perspective PERS Comments on purpose/ agency of those represented in the image  Purpose or Agency AGNCY Discusses or describes emotions of sympathy or care for the subjects in the images Care CAR Ethical dimension Makes an ethical judgment about a historical act or actor Judgment JDG States general principles of ethics or fairness Fairness FAIR Comments on temporal distance between now and then Distance DIS Builds an argument for or against the imposition of reparations (or other measures) for a historical injustice. Collective responsibility COL Benefits and deficits to respective present-day descendants DES Visual Culture Comments on race, gender, appearance, clothing, hygiene or hair. Body BDY Comments on their own identity in the formation of how they look at the photographs Viewer Identity VID Comments on what is not shown or what can’t be seen Unseen UNSN Comments on the trauma interpreted in the photographs and/or an affective response to that trauma Trauma TRMA Comment on something specific in the photograph that grabs and holds their attention Punctum PCTM Makes connections between the images and their lives or societies Other Connections OTHCON 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items