Teaching History in the Digital Age

I viewed this week’s readings as an extension on our discussion of where the “survey” course(s) is going.  Calder, Wineburg, and Wiggins and McTighe all seem dissatisfied with the current state of survey courses; and want to suggest a better way to present them.  In their various presentations of learning strategies, the ultimate end seems to suggest the gradual overhaul of college level survey courses and the secondary school courses which feed into them.  Perhaps their arguments are a result of attacks on the teaching profession as a result of poor standardized scores, or maybe they just got tired of teaching in a way which seemed boring to both the instructor and student.  In general, change is bound to happen in any discipline, and change is usually a good thing.  Changes happen as we examine the good and bad, embrace the good, eliminate the bad and develop new strategies.  Is History different than any other subject for the inbound college student?  I don’t think we are overly concerned at this point with students who plan to become Historians.  The readings seemed to me to be aimed toward the student that needs a basic background in History to be a well rounded scholar, but may or may not choose to pursue History any further than the college of his choice requires.

Calder, in his article and web site, suggest we move away from teaching just the facts and transform from a pattern of memorization to one of investigation.  His methods are almost scientific, and will appeal to the student of hard science required to have a minimal background in social science.  The students will get involved and learn to present a case, and lose the need to only repeat back what they have heard from the instructor.  Calder appreciates that with proper investigation there may be more than one story to tell, and that all deserve to be examined for validity.  One fear of this approach is that students will not retain those “facts” so important to purveyors of tests like Virginia SOLs.  In his article he presents evidence that students have not been cheated “of the ability to do well on traditional multiple-choice History tests.”  The students performed at an equal or better rate.  Interestingly, his sources were largely composed of authors from other works assigned for this week, or from last week.  As I was examining the sources, I wondered if there was a shortage of work to draw from, but found in later readings that this was not the case.  There were many sources which did not relate to teaching History specifically, but addressed educational instruction skills which were adaptable to many subjects.

Weinburg appears to be the leader of the pack in educational studies about History instruction.  His article provokes questions like: if we ask students to spit back facts as evidence of learning, how confident are we about the facts they are memorizing?  Whose reality is correct?  He supports the methods of Calder (or Calder supports him) by pointing out that students will have to pick and choose their sources and then have explanations why they contribute to our greater understanding of History.

What happens then to the “good” student of History?  How does this student who has been trained to memorize with out question from dry textbooks chosen not only for content but for their adherence to political dogma handle the differences in style as well as learning?  Wineburg’s articles show that he must be retrained.  Wiggins and McTighe point out though that his basic library of facts is not always to be discounted.  In “Understanding Design,” they purport to only expand on repertoires and not to eliminate strategies.  There are still linchpin ideas (those annoying dead white guys again) which have use and importance, and should not be forgotten – just don’t forget that there’s more to the story.

Questions outside my official post:

We are supposed to write two bibliographic papers for this class.  When are they due?  Could we have a brief example of what sort of paper (and approximate length) this would be?  I think I might have an idea of what is desired, but I’m not sure.  Would this be the Week 8 assignment?

Can someone describe to me what a practicum is?  Again, I think I have an idea but I’d like a better definition.  Should we be working on these already?

For the final project, if we don’t have the skills to produce an actual web site, should it be a multimedia presentation (I would hope it would be)?

It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Our readings this week were published between 1982 and 2005 (except for the Reitan (1967) but that was not available as of Friday afternoon).  Each article addresses the changes in how History has been incorporated into general education at the university level.  In addition, the reading by Robert Orrill and Lynn Shapiro also discusses how decisions about university level requirements require attention to learning at the secondary level as well.

Gilbert Allardyce gives us a history of the Western Civilization course, going back to 1905.  Between then and now, the course was born, died out and was re-born under the guise of a sort of “return to basics.”  When “Western Civ” was introduced, there was concern about students being able to build upon a firm base of knowledge.  As time passed, and attitudes changed, Western Civ was eclipsed by electives and specialized courses.  Western Civ was tainted with “dead white guy” syndrome.  It seemed that there was a need for more courses which addressed the issues of women, minorities, and recent events.  A movement to return to comprehensive basic education courses like Western Civ followed, mirrored by calls for more accountability and learning the “facts” which are now stressed in standardized tests in grades K through 12.

I read the response to Allardyce’s paper (Lougee, Rossabi, and Woehrlin) in which they applaud his attention to the historical evolution of the course, but complain that he doesn’t offer a clear alternative…if he’s saying that Western Civ should still be dead.  My interpretation is that looking back shows us how the course changed over time and should give us insight about how to proceed in the future.  The three of them seem to stress that inclusion of minorities does not necessarily mean that you don’t count the dead white guys too…just make room for more stories from more sources.  Allardyce responded to them that things will always change yet he believes that there is a definite place for the general survey course in History.  All four make valid arguments.

Patricia Seed in 1998 addresses the lack of availability of materials outside the “dead white guy” topics.  In her article, she applauds the new availability of information through electronic media.  She points out that students would not have any exposure to how foreign nations and their citizens view the United States without the internet.  Her article relates to the other discussions of basic Western Civ by addressing the changing environment of learning.  While we can cheer for a return to general education and its sturdy base from which to mold future world leaders, we cannot forget nor discount the importance of the many stories until so recently untold.  The internet may be the way which we can bring this information to students without extraordinary cost.  She does not however, address the pitfalls associated with using the web.  What methods should we use to make sure that what we pass on to students is of true value?  How shall we evaluate truth?  Whose truth is most important?

When reading Kornbluth and Lasser, and Orrill and Shapiro; I found myself thinking about what we should be expecting from high school students entering university as freshmen.  The articles supporting courses like Western Civ and other required survey courses seemed to worry that high school students would not arrive prepared for courses which are specialized in nature.  Based purely on my own experiences, I would hope that students are learning in high school a good foundation and should be ready to move on. 

Given the proliferation of information available to students today through the internet – actual physical visits to a brick and mortar library are certainly reduced – I would hope that a course like Western Civ would be offered for History or other Liberal Arts majors, but maybe not required for all freshmen.  Wouldn’t the current push for accountability in public high schools cover the “stuff which all well educated people should know?”  If not, what’s the big push for all those standardized tests?

Hi everyone…It seems I was a little hasty in complaining about not being able to find stuff.  After an afternoon wandering in cyberspace, I have been able to locate all but the AHA Reports and the Reitan piece.  I didn’t try for the Ward one, since Dr. Kelly said he replaced it with Orill.

Larry Cuban’s How Scholar’s Trumped Teachers is available at http://www.netlibrary.com/Reader/.  I tried printing a chapter, and it is very cumbersome.  I guess we’ll just have to read it online.  I perfer the hard copy myself, and will still add it to my library once it is available through the reserve.  I found the Robert Orill/Lynn Shapiro piece by using the e-journal finder and typing in “American Historical Review.”

I looked up the book which the Reitan piece is part of, and found that the library here at GMU is supposed to have a copy in the Fenwick stacks.  I called the circulation department, but found that this book is with others in storage from the Summer renovations.  The circulation attendant says this book will not be available for another 2 weeks.

I’m going to do the best I can with the materials I have and see you all on Tuesday.  Look for my official post sometime on Saturday.

Happy Reading everyone,

Michelle