I started reading these articles as I usually do, just ready to soak in all the info and take it as it is. But in trying to do better at analyzing, I took a proverbial step back and tried to decifer what it is these people are writing about. The following are thoughts and questions I’ll be looking for answers to as I finish reading this weeks articles.
So at first glance (and the limited scope of looking at just the first few pages of David Pace’s piece) it seems that the question here is: How do historians improve the teaching of history?
Now it’s what the answer to this question seems to be that has me a little confused, concerned, and a bit baffled. Pace, and some of the other authors from past readings, seem to be approaching this from a ground up method. They realize the teaching of history is bad, it doesn’t share the same level of importance as researching history does (and therefore lacks necessary tools), and that improvement is necessary. But at first glance, what with all of their lamenting the lack of research or scholarship on how to teach history, it would seem that Pace and others feel the need to find out how to teach from the very beginning, as it were. What I’m getting at, is that there has been tons of research, scholarship, and what have you in the field of teaching. There’s usually a school of Education at every university. People know how to teach. So why don’t historians just take some classes on how to teach, then apply history to that?
Well, one rebuttal to my own question is that there must be something different about teaching history than other subjects. And of course there is. (Warning blatant over-generalizations ahead.) For example, history is all subjective (how did people think 1000 years ago) and math is all factual (1+2=3, was true 1000 years ago, now and forever).
So those will be my questions that overshadow my reading: 1) How can historians improve the teaching of history? and 2) Why is teaching history different than teaching any other subject?
Check out my notes for the results of my reading.
Hi Ammon:
I wholeheartidly agree with you on this point:
“What I’m getting at, is that there has been tons of research, scholarship, and what have you in the field of teaching. There’s usually a school of Education at every university. People know how to teach. So why don’t historians just take some classes on how to teach, then apply history to that?”
I feel like it wouldn’t hurt to take a few education classes just to feel more prepared for a possible future in teaching.
However, this actually scares me a bit. I suppose that most historians are thinking about teaching in some form or another? My next question would be: How should we prepare ourselves for a career in teaching if we haven’t exactly had the formal training, as most graduate students in Education have had? Its just something that I’m a little nervous about.
Comment by Matthew Gravely — September 16, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
I find it curiously ridiculous that K-12 teachers are required to take education courses and, in Virginia at least, get a teaching license, before they can teach. Yet, no one is required to meet such requirements to teach a college course. In fact, you can have a master’s degree and be an ad hoc professor for a night class with no experience whatsoever. That seems a bit counter-intuitive since the concepts and learning skills required of college student are more complex and demmanding. What are the real barriers to change? Is it economics? Or iIs it as Michelle suggests in her blog, that some, r most, professors choose to be a professor to conduct research versus teach college students? Or a combination of the two, or something else?
That said, I second Matt’s notion that history professors should be encouraged, if not required to take an education course or two. But let’s not stop there…how about all professors? I don’t recall any subject I have ever taken, except Education, as having professors intentionally trained in education classes. Thoughts/comments?
Comment by Gary — September 18, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
I find myself with very similar questions and concerns. Knowing that my ultimate goal is to teach at the university level I am lost as to where I can obtain an education on how to teach. Our university has a wonderful education department with a primary focus on K-12 education. Yet it appears to exclude those from other disciplines from taking courses that may assist them in learning the art of teaching by issuing particular prerequisites and, if there are not prerequisites, approval is needed from one’s department in order to have the education class fit in with their particular degree requirements. I find myself deterred from exploring graduate level education courses because there does not seem to be a comprehensive program for graduate-level students who want to teach college-level course. I pose the question on why are there not cross-disciplinary courses that provide this learning opportunity? Is it like Gary said – economics, barriers, or if enough students request it could classes with this focus be implemented?
Comment by Gretchen — September 19, 2006 @ 3:43 pm