Students are left out of the interpretive process when history is put forward as a metanarrative to be learned (Levstik & Barton, 2011). As education has shifted from didactic to more constructivist approaches, educators have recognized problems with presenting history as a factual, objectively true narrative. History, many argue, is not an inert chronicle of events but rather more like what documentary filmmaker Ken Burns has described as a dynamic chorus of voices (Ward & Burns, 1994). History education, therefore, should be an active and interpretive learning experience. Further, the skills homed in the active process of “doing history” have genuine relevance in democratic education, as they are crucial to the development of critical consciousness necessary for enlightened political engagement. Contemporary trends in history and social studies education urge educators to avoid universal, unchallenged metanarratives, instead promoting dialogue that engages with diverse viewpoints and encourages historical thinking (Russell, 2011).