I've noticed since I began teaching History in schools that there is a distinct difference between the history I learned at university and read of in books and the subject History as it is taught in schools in Australia, and I suspect across much of the world. This difference has always baffled and troubled me and I thought I might ask about the experiences of all of you given your expertise as History educators and see if there is a problem and if so, how it might be fixed.
When I studied history at uni the emphasis of most of the lecturers was on attention to detail, thorough background knowledge of the period and the evaulation of sources in their historical context. The methodology was empirical and the main purpose of investigation was historical causation. 'What happened and why?' was the main question which hung in the air in my lectures and tutorials. This also has characterised the history books I've read since. The purpose of the study of history was to find out and understand what happened in the past, perhaps better to understand what is happening in the present and what might happen in the future. I remember most of my classically-trained lecturers got uncomfortable at that point; I think too much so.
When I arrived to teach History in high schools, however, the entire approach seemed radically different. What I automatically taught as 'History' was viewed rather unfavourably. It was seen as old-fashioned and perhaps 'conservative'. When I saw the work programs the schools had, the focus of study seemed to me to be historical injustice and identity. The existence and importance of socio-cultural groups was strongly emphasised, and the entire purpose of the subject seemed to be different. Instead of a disinterested investigation of the truth of past events, the purpose seemed to be to inculcate in students an awareness of and sensitivity to injustice and persecution by some groups of other groups. The purpose is not to discover the past but rather to mould the mind of the student to find and condemn evidence of this injustice.
I've struggled over the years to reconcile the two positions yet as time goes on I find more and more that this dominant approach (and it seems to me to be very dominant) just leads to bad history. It trains students to think simplistically and convinces them that they already know the past: it was systematic and constant persecution of the powerless by the powerful. It also breeds what I observe to be a strong cynicism in the students. 'What's the point of studying history if you already know the answers?' is a common mindset I've encountered.
I guess what I was wondering is if any of you have had any similar experiences? Do you agree with my observations or do you think I'm off-base? It's a widespread belief in Australian society that something has gone wrong with education, and I guess I'm quite passionate about trying to figure out how we can fix it. I'd be truly grateful for any input any of you would have about whether you think there is a problem or not or if perhaps you think my perspective is a little incorrect.
Thanks too to all of you who have posted to the group this year. I hear feedback from new members that they love the group and find it useful in their teaching and I know many of them have used the great sites you've found. I'm sure they're grateful. Merry Christmas all of you and best wishes for 2010.
Totally agree with you David. And it's not until you put it quite simply that I then began to question how I learnt history and then how I teach it or facilite the desire within the students to yearn for more. I remember learning the facts, the dates and then somehow, my ideas and opinions were formed from these. My high school teachers taught the basics, with some brilliant stories thrown in to keep the interest going. There certainly was no fancy techno stuff and docos were a rarity, so my teachers were left with endless OHTs, copious amounts of notes on the board and very limited text books and handouts. I do remember a lot of source analysis, summarising and of course essays, but multi modal was never heard of.
Uni was very dry. Book after book and more copious amounts of notes to take from lecturers that had verbal diahorea. Discussions were often focused around the why aspect and I certainly remember nothing of an opinion being taught as we seem to have work programs dictate now. I believe I still teach old school with some new thrown in. Students need the basic facts, definite source analysis and then let them make up their own opinions. The individual is always more fascinating than the society, so we actually pamper to a society of students who are no longer encouraged to think for themselves. Yes, I do believe we teach minority sufferage but there is always a way around it...let's bring back the basics to create a culture of students who are passionate about history because of the facts and not a forced taught opinion...
Thanks for all the great websites...I have certainly used many and refered some on to students..
Thanks for starting the discussion David:) I agree with all of you, everyone has made such valid points. I teach in the USA.
One thing that in the past couple of years that I see that is troubling is that it seems my school district and those in my state (and this may also be a national trend) - seem to be moving to a belief that it is better to cover the entire history book, than to make sure students LEARNED and can apply skills and knowledge gained. Also, history texts here for high school are VERY "Eurocentric". Leaving out large chunks of history and regions.(usually Asia and Africa).
(and I do agree that geography, which has been cut from mandatory requirements, is NEEDED. The majority of my students can't even pick out ITALY on a map! It's the freaking boot shape!!!! Who doesn't know that by the end of elementary school! - ok, enough of my rant:) )
I will say that teaching a "survey course" like World History in high school is difficult, as you do have SO MUCH content to cover in one class. So I understand and agree that we often don't get to go into the detail that we'd like to. On the other hand a university course can be entirely about one event or time period. That allows the University level to delve much deeper into things. Which was hard for me when I first started teaching to make the return from super detail of university, to massive covering of content at the high school level.
I try to meld the two. Obviously I have standards that I'm required to teach by my district and state. But within that framework, I try to bring in the detail and perspective about events and things that the provided curriculum may overlook or leave out. I do this not only in class, but through my online courses that my students complete as "homework" to my course they take. using online learning systems (like Moodle - which is what I use), I'm able to extend my classroom quite a bit, which is helpful.
I am BIG into educational technology. I think using technology in class is not something we can ignore. It is the world our students live in and will be working in. So at some level, I think we have an added responsibility of teaching the appropriate ways to use the online world. Plus, I have found that the use of technology (to create meaningful learning, not just using tech to use it) does increase student engagement and involvement. AND I think of all the primary resources and documents that my students and myself have access to via online sources that we NEVER had access to previously. (many which I find thanks to this community:) )
LOL, I think I went a bit off topic, but I will say I've enjoyed hearing opinions of all those involved in this discussion and have loved benefiting from all the bookmarks created by all of you! Best wishes for the new year!
History Girl, It was interesting to read your post because I teach in the US, and my high school is moving away from covering the whole textbook/every piece of information. We are coming from the point of view that students won't remember most of the content anyway, so we are only choosing some content to discuss in detail and focus on building skills (like writing, analytical thinking, etc.) through the content. I think it sounds really cool--but of course the elephant in the room is what content to include and what to get rid of! You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Also, I think schools in America are moving away from Eurocentric content. In college, I was inundated with everything BUT the European perspective, and a lot of teachers are bringing this to the classroom in high school.
Very interesting to hear Nicole - apparently it's a state thing then;) I think the move from Eurocentric must depend on the state you are in and the textbooks your school buys (cuz my textbooks are pretty Eurocentric).
My University courses varied depending on the course (of course this too could be University and time specific - colleges may not be teaching now how they were 10 years ago). I had courses in Western Civ (which did tend to be more Euro based), but then I had courses on Modern Africa, for example - which were totally focused on Africa as one might guess:) . That's what I always loved about History in College. That courses were so specific and narrow that you could take such a variety and really gain scope and detail in a variety of areas.
I am creating a site you and your students might enjoy and perhaps add to. ahaafoundation.org is an online course in the history of art around the world. You can jump in anywhere. I would love to find a history teacher who would collaborate with me. My thought is to follow along with the book you are using and add the great art. You will see Pages for special requests under a rainbow where you can see how I have answered some of the request.
I would also like to hear historians review what has been created so far. kbolmanahaa@gmail.com
started by David Hilton on 23 Dec 09
When I studied history at uni the emphasis of most of the lecturers was on attention to detail, thorough background knowledge of the period and the evaulation of sources in their historical context. The methodology was empirical and the main purpose of investigation was historical causation. 'What happened and why?' was the main question which hung in the air in my lectures and tutorials. This also has characterised the history books I've read since. The purpose of the study of history was to find out and understand what happened in the past, perhaps better to understand what is happening in the present and what might happen in the future. I remember most of my classically-trained lecturers got uncomfortable at that point; I think too much so.
When I arrived to teach History in high schools, however, the entire approach seemed radically different. What I automatically taught as 'History' was viewed rather unfavourably. It was seen as old-fashioned and perhaps 'conservative'. When I saw the work programs the schools had, the focus of study seemed to me to be historical injustice and identity. The existence and importance of socio-cultural groups was strongly emphasised, and the entire purpose of the subject seemed to be different. Instead of a disinterested investigation of the truth of past events, the purpose seemed to be to inculcate in students an awareness of and sensitivity to injustice and persecution by some groups of other groups. The purpose is not to discover the past but rather to mould the mind of the student to find and condemn evidence of this injustice.
I've struggled over the years to reconcile the two positions yet as time goes on I find more and more that this dominant approach (and it seems to me to be very dominant) just leads to bad history. It trains students to think simplistically and convinces them that they already know the past: it was systematic and constant persecution of the powerless by the powerful. It also breeds what I observe to be a strong cynicism in the students. 'What's the point of studying history if you already know the answers?' is a common mindset I've encountered.
I guess what I was wondering is if any of you have had any similar experiences? Do you agree with my observations or do you think I'm off-base? It's a widespread belief in Australian society that something has gone wrong with education, and I guess I'm quite passionate about trying to figure out how we can fix it. I'd be truly grateful for any input any of you would have about whether you think there is a problem or not or if perhaps you think my perspective is a little incorrect.
Thanks too to all of you who have posted to the group this year. I hear feedback from new members that they love the group and find it useful in their teaching and I know many of them have used the great sites you've found. I'm sure they're grateful. Merry Christmas all of you and best wishes for 2010.
David.
Uni was very dry. Book after book and more copious amounts of notes to take from lecturers that had verbal diahorea. Discussions were often focused around the why aspect and I certainly remember nothing of an opinion being taught as we seem to have work programs dictate now. I believe I still teach old school with some new thrown in. Students need the basic facts, definite source analysis and then let them make up their own opinions. The individual is always more fascinating than the society, so we actually pamper to a society of students who are no longer encouraged to think for themselves. Yes, I do believe we teach minority sufferage but there is always a way around it...let's bring back the basics to create a culture of students who are passionate about history because of the facts and not a forced taught opinion...
Thanks for all the great websites...I have certainly used many and refered some on to students..
Merry Christmas,
Lisa
I teach in the USA.
One thing that in the past couple of years that I see that is troubling is that it seems my school district and those in my state (and this may also be a national trend) - seem to be moving to a belief that it is better to cover the entire history book, than to make sure students LEARNED and can apply skills and knowledge gained. Also, history texts here for high school are VERY "Eurocentric". Leaving out large chunks of history and regions.(usually Asia and Africa).
(and I do agree that geography, which has been cut from mandatory requirements, is NEEDED. The majority of my students can't even pick out ITALY on a map! It's the freaking boot shape!!!! Who doesn't know that by the end of elementary school! - ok, enough of my rant:) )
I will say that teaching a "survey course" like World History in high school is difficult, as you do have SO MUCH content to cover in one class. So I understand and agree that we often don't get to go into the detail that we'd like to. On the other hand a university course can be entirely about one event or time period. That allows the University level to delve much deeper into things. Which was hard for me when I first started teaching to make the return from super detail of university, to massive covering of content at the high school level.
I try to meld the two. Obviously I have standards that I'm required to teach by my district and state. But within that framework, I try to bring in the detail and perspective about events and things that the provided curriculum may overlook or leave out. I do this not only in class, but through my online courses that my students complete as "homework" to my course they take. using online learning systems (like Moodle - which is what I use), I'm able to extend my classroom quite a bit, which is helpful.
I am BIG into educational technology. I think using technology in class is not something we can ignore. It is the world our students live in and will be working in. So at some level, I think we have an added responsibility of teaching the appropriate ways to use the online world. Plus, I have found that the use of technology (to create meaningful learning, not just using tech to use it) does increase student engagement and involvement. AND I think of all the primary resources and documents that my students and myself have access to via online sources that we NEVER had access to previously. (many which I find thanks to this community:) )
LOL, I think I went a bit off topic, but I will say I've enjoyed hearing opinions of all those involved in this discussion and have loved benefiting from all the bookmarks created by all of you!
Best wishes for the new year!
It was interesting to read your post because I teach in the US, and my high school is moving away from covering the whole textbook/every piece of information. We are coming from the point of view that students won't remember most of the content anyway, so we are only choosing some content to discuss in detail and focus on building skills (like writing, analytical thinking, etc.) through the content. I think it sounds really cool--but of course the elephant in the room is what content to include and what to get rid of! You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Also, I think schools in America are moving away from Eurocentric content. In college, I was inundated with everything BUT the European perspective, and a lot of teachers are bringing this to the classroom in high school.
My University courses varied depending on the course (of course this too could be University and time specific - colleges may not be teaching now how they were 10 years ago). I had courses in Western Civ (which did tend to be more Euro based), but then I had courses on Modern Africa, for example - which were totally focused on Africa as one might guess:) . That's what I always loved about History in College. That courses were so specific and narrow that you could take such a variety and really gain scope and detail in a variety of areas.
ahaafoundation.org is an online course in the history of art around the world. You can jump in anywhere. I would love to find a history teacher who would collaborate with me. My thought is to follow along with the book you are using and add the great art. You will see Pages for special requests under a rainbow where you can see how I have answered some of the request.
I would also like to hear historians review what has been created so far.
kbolmanahaa@gmail.com