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
Matt;
I replied to Dr. Calder by email and explained that sometimes the study of history mimics and uses some scientific methods, but is not scientific and depends on things which the world of science has neither the time or patience for. In my post I was describing his way of working for that particular project. Since history takes into account things like postmodernism, it cannot be practiced as a true science.
Michelle
Comment by Michelle — November 14, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Michelle:
I wholeheartedly agree with your summation on the study of history. I also realize that students all have different ways of learning, so to define the study of history as something technical and scientific by nature, I believe is missing the point, and in the truest sense. The very essence of the word “science” conjures up formulas and hypotheses, which is merited in some disciplines, but to apply a rigid, scientific standard to the study of history? I just can’t bridge the connection.
Matt
Comment by Matthew — November 16, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Matt;
I’m glad you’re looking forward to my project. If I can just get it finished I’ll be in great shape.
In regards to your response to my response to your post…I don’t think we are really at odds here. I agree that history is not a science, and cannot be treated as such. I only meant that some parts of the processes involved with investigation sometimes mimic scientific method. In other words, it sort of looks like a duck when the light’s not good, walks a little like a duck sometimes, but doesn’t quack like one at all. (MLC)
Comment by Michelle — November 16, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Oh yes, I definitely see where you are coming from. I think that when I wrote the above post, I was applying my comment about science to Calder’s question. I understand that parts of studying history do in fact mimic the scientific method, and to completely neglect that idea would underestimate the aspect of conducting research in any field, let alone history.
Best,
Matt
Comment by Matthew — November 19, 2006 @ 1:15 pm