“Pride in ignorance should be no more honored in teaching than it is in other aspects of our professional life.” This quote from David Pace’s article The Amateur in the Operating Room: History and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning sums up my feelings on the subject of the scholarship of teaching and learning rather nicely. Of the many objectives found in this week’s reading I found myself feeling a little cynical. It struck me that as important as it is to create and refine a scholarship of teaching it does require a rather large departure from what we as historians have been training for. Learning a new discipline (educational theory) at this late stage in our academic career or for others potentially decades after entering the profession reminds me of the condition college freshman are in when they’ve been practicing rote memorization in their history classes for 12 years. We have read how they must begin think historically and that this change does not always come easily. Historians that teach must make an equally drastic change and as Pace points out this may be too much to ask. Even if they wish to change are they qualified?
It seems logical that some must break off into the scholarship of teaching history as their main field of research. For this they should be recognized and rewarded but I do believe they will be few in number and perhaps have to act as subject matter experts and advisors to the rest of their departments. The rest should at least seek to be scholarly teachers who make use of the literature produced by the specialists. At a minimum they should be exposed as graduate students to the topic through classes such as this one. I think it’s telling that here at George Mason we are not required to take the Teaching and Learning of History while we are required to take both Clio one and two. Surely more graduates of the program will end up teaching than will develop websites? Clio one is invaluable in preparing us for working within the digital age that we can not escape. Clio two, however, will have less long term impact since many folks forced to take it will not actually use it later on. I say this despite the fact that I am one of those who will use it and who loved and benefited immensely from the class.
There are so many challenges here even for those who might decide to specialize in the scholarship of teaching. As David Reichard points out in his article How do Students Understand the History of the American West?: An Argument for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, we must not only know what teaching methods work we must understand how students actually learn. There are different modes of learning such as visual and auditory and each student learns in their own particular way. If instructors just rely on what worked for them they are potentially writing off those students who learn differently. Think alouds do give some insight as to the student’s ability to think historically but does it tell us anything about how they learn? Must we not know which students learn in each particular way? As Pace points out we have a responsibility to the students to help them grow academically at this pivotal point in their lives. How can we if we don’t know how they do that? James Axtell’s article The Pleasures of Teaching History discusses his use of varied teaching methods including the use of material culture. It is in the use of mixed media that we can perhaps overcome the challenges provided by the varied learning requirements of students. Bruce A VanSledright’s discussion about teaching ten year olds how to investigate history as historians and my own experience teaching 9 year olds to think like archaeologists suggests that it maybe more a matter of method and motivation than innate ability.
All of these issues require research or perhaps more accurately an adaptation of research that has already taken place by those in educational psychology departments. As the article Past Imperfect: Historians and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning points out, scholars of teaching history must contribute to the standards of learning by marrying anecdote with systematic evidence. They will have to “inspire as well as persuade” both students and their colleagues. They must help elevate the rest of their departments to the level of scholarly teachers.
First, I respectfully disagree that students who arrive as college freshmen have been learning nothing but memorization for twelve years. Elementary and secondary teachers have been turning themselves inside out for years trying to incorporate critical thinking, use of primary sources, and lots of other things into their instruction. It is not really fair to assume that K-12 educators, with whom I have a lot of contact in training situations, just teach out of a textbook, for the state test. Yes, they have increasingly been thrust into this role by the testing frenzy of the past decade, but all is not lost. The burgeoning enrollment in AP classes, and open enrollment for honors and AP classes has certainly had some effect. As for the business of historians’ becoming educational theory wonks when they are well established in their careers, I don’t think that is where Pace takes the discussion. To ignore any and all research on the scholarship of teaching, however, would also be an ostrich-like posture, since academics teach all the time. One aspect that I think is important is to address the students’ potential, and not assume that because they don’t respond instantly to attempts to engender thinking at the freshman survey level (or beyond), that this is a sign they are innocent of any experience at historical thinking. As we have been discussing over the past 3 weeks, setting up instructional design in a way that facilitates student engagement with the material can be harder than one-way teaching by lecture.
Comment by Susan — September 17, 2006 @ 11:52 am
Susan:
Thanks for your comments. To say that students have learned nothing but rote memorization for the past 12 years may be a bit of an exaggeration however, as parents my wife (who like you is also teacher) and I have seen an increase in the numbers of standardized tests that our children have had to take over the last few years. Preparation for these certainly decreases the time spent learning through other methodologies. You are correct in pointing out some of the opportunities that AP and honors classes provide but what about the vast majority of students that don’t or can not take those classes? I’ve no doubt that some teachers are “turning themselves inside out” to incorporate critical thinking skills but I don’t believe we’ve read anything so far this semester that indicates a trend toward freshmen in college being better able to think historically. I’ve discussed this topic with another family member who teaches a class in learning skills at a state college and from their perspective students are no more prepared now than they have been in the recent past. Of course I haven’t seen any statistics on this and perhaps other articles may refute that claim.
As for “historians becoming educational theory wonks when they are well established in their careers” I don’t believe I claimed they will or should in either that first paragraph or the ones visible after clicking the (More) button. Nor did I state that Pace was suggesting that. My point was that becoming a scholar of teaching is not a trivial matter just as becoming a scholar of history is not a trivial matter. Pace himself states, “While there would presumably be a limited number of academics who make original contributions to the scholarship of teaching and learning, a much larger number of professors would become scholarly teachers who as a matter of course stay abreast of the major issues being discussed in this scholarship.” I would suggest that professors who have been in the field for a number of years will either make no change or at best become scholarly teachers.
Finally with regard to making assumptions about a student’s prior experience at historical thinking, it is probable that each class will have a mix of students who have and have not had training in historical thinking. If we assume entering freshmen have all been students of those teachers who are turning themselves inside out then we risk leaving some behind. I tried to suggest, perhaps poorly, that being a true scholar of teaching would require not only assessing how well they think as historians but also how in fact they learn as individuals.
Kurt
Comment by Kurt — September 17, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
My opinion is that you were right on in your description about the education of most K-12 students. While Susan makes a good point that some students get somewhat better historical training through honors and Advanced Placement courses, the actual number taking advantage of these opportunities is quite small compared with the total student body. Throw in the fact that not all students who take AP tests achieve scores that demonstrate high levels of historical thinking ability, and it becomes apparent that most freshman are quite unprepared for higher level learning and thinking. Thus I agree with your and Pace’s ideas that it is the responsiblity of scholar/educators to overcome these challenges and give their students the training they deserve.
Comment by Kevin Semler — September 17, 2006 @ 11:04 pm