This study examines how pre-service teachers deal with a disciplinary gap between history education at the college level and pre-service teaching in high school, utilizing data from a long term survey conducted in a mid-west public university specializing in teachers' education. The disciplinary gap has been named by Vansledright, who observed that the discipline of history teaching at the high school level relies on a traditional manner of teaching, that of "subject-matter knowledge" or an "objectivist image of history," while the discipline at the college level is a "new history" or "new sociocultural history" which questions the ideal of objectivity (Vansledright, 1996). To examine disciplinary gap, this study used qualitative data from interviews with pre-service teachers and a cooperating teacher, long term observation of a history education course at their university, and university supervisors' opinions taken from an online survey. As evidence that the course enabled pre-service teachers to engage in history education using historical thinking and varied perspectives, pre-service teachers in the courses were assigned to read the book, Lies My Teachers Told Me (Loewen, 1995, 2007), which illustrates varying perspectives from regular US history textbooks by showing information omitted there from, and countering distortions commonly found therein. This study produced three findings which contribute to scrutiny of the cause of the disciplinary gap. Firstly, the study reinforces the concept of "experience and knowledge of new history education". Slekar (1998) and Yeager & Davis (1995) clarify a strong connection between pre-service teachers' observations during apprenticeship and their practices during pre-service teaching. James' study (2008) reveals that one cause of the disciplinary gap has occurred from pre-service teachers' lack of experience of historical thinking education in their own K-12 educational experiences. Nonetheless, some pre-service teachers had had experiences of new history education which had utilized alternative historical perspectives and historical thinking skills. This fact indicates history education for historical thinking skills has prevailed among teachers for a decade. Secondly, according to this study, lack of a "support system for pre-service teachers" would not be a main reason for the disciplinary gap. Van Hover & Yeager (2004) reasoned that novice teachers' retreat from historical thinking education is caused by their isolation and lack of support. However, participants in this study were mostly covered on this front by considerate support from university supervisors and cooperating teachers. Finally, the disciplinary gap in many cases derives from participants' "fear to use perspectives different from those of history textbooks". Especially, if the theme to be taught in practicum sites is related to controversial topics or issues or information not normally found in history textbooks, pre-service teachers expressed feelings of anxiety about teaching such. These anxieties would have been derived from fears of being outside of the school's policy, or of losing the chance to secure their future position in schools (cf Misco & Patterson's, 2007), or from fears of attack by conservative groups. By following a familiar, traditional way of teaching, pre-service teachers are able to avoid conflicts with students, parents, and administrators. These three findings display how we could improve history teacher's education in order to close the disciplinary gap. To reduce anxieties among history teachers, pre-service history teachers should cooperate with cooperating teachers and university and school administrators to secure their challenge. Experience and confidence are crucial in order for them to adapt history education for historical thinking.