Recently, as many of you know, Lendol Calder paid a visit to our class blog, during which he asked the question: “Calder makes history teaching seem so technical, so architectural in its emphasis on design, a critic might conclude. Is this close to what you meant by “scientific”?” I would say “no,” and here is why: Often times, the best and most enriching classes do not fit a specific design or archetypal structure.
After rereading Lendol’s article, Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the History Survey, I would claim that learning history isn’t as scientific as the question suggests; I believe that he holds a more flexible viewpoint, based on the reading. Moreover, I personally think the point he was driving at was not alluding to a rigid and highly-structured scientific design for learning history, but a design that takes shape gradually over time as students learn what they are being taught. Does this make sense?
For example, Calder states:
“Historical thinking, like other forms of disciplinary thinking, begins with clear-eyed wonder before the world. But questioning is an extraordinarily difficult skill for most students, probably because for their whole lives teachers and textbooks have posed the questions for them (”Write an essay on the following question . . .”). Feeding students a steady diet of other people’s questions is a sure-fire prescription for mental dyspepsia. So the first move students need to learn is that of asking good historical questions. To this end the first meeting in every unit is designed to intensify students’ desire to inquire.”
I think this very concept is important to consider. I would venture to say that most students do not approach learning history based on scientific inquiry. Rather, their minds are more receptive to the information at first, and then logic slowly falls into place, which could resemble a kind of scientific process, based on however one chooses to define “science.” But to think of learning history as something technical? I don’t think I can fully accept that idea, and I am glad that Calder asked the question.
Cheers,
Matt


