Samuel S. Wineburg’s interesting study of the way history is poorly taught, badly practiced and largely misunderstood by the greater population was quite insightful to a student of the historian’s craft. However, if I were a middle or high school teacher, with little expertise in the workings of the historian’s mind I would find the book far less useful. The obstacles that Wineburg throws at teachers hoping to enlighten their students to historical thought appear far too formidable, regardless of Wineburg’s suggestions. In spite of the fact that Wineburg hopes to alleviate the problems of teaching history I feel that he does little more than complicate them. How can we expect teachers to imbue students with an appreciation of their national history while professional historians are formally acknowledging that we are limited by “presentism?” Most young people will not become professional historians. Therefore teachers should not seek to burden them with the subtleties of history. Rather, the goal should be to present them with the most accurate portrayal of American history available. It is the professional historian’s role to explore the intricacies and subtleties of history and uncover the mysteries of the past as the evidence is examined. Possibly, the profession would best support the general public and the interests of history by updating the public view of events as necessary through scholarship, while engaging and nurturing the historical interests of America’s youth in order to influence those few who are destined to be the historians of the future.
Lendol Calder continues the discussion of Wineburg, “Teachers may like to think they are “furnishing the mind,” but since the late 1950s, investigations of human mental functioning have shown that this metaphor falls apart when taken too literally. Facts are not like furniture at all; they are more like dry ice, disappearing at room temperature.” While Calder goes on to make different points, I feel that this one is essential. Most students will forget what they learn as time passes, regardless of how it is taught. Only knowledge that is used remains in the forefront of the mind. I firmly believe this through personal experiences in martial arts and wrestling. Although in high school I was an avid wrestler, those skills dwindled after a period of hibernation. I feel that the same is true of academic work. Wrestling and martial arts rely a great deal on executing specific moves and countermoves according to the actions of one’s opponent. I find this to be not unlike Calder’s description of basic historian’s skills, “Can beginning students learn to do history the way professionals do it? Of course not. But my studies have found they can learn to execute a basic set of moves crucial to the development of historical mindedness. I want students to learn six such moves, or cognitive habits: questioning, connecting, sourcing, making inferences, considering alternate perspectives, and recognizing limits to one’s knowledge, all in the service of understanding American history since 1945.” Unfortunately, I find a fault with Calder’s logic, human memory. Those students in a survey course that do not major in history will see those skills dwindle as they are not exercised. It is those that do pursue the historian’s craft that will need those skills, and they should receive the most support. While this is a rather bleak viewpoint of survey history courses, it is not meant to denote that they should not exist, or be brushed aside as trivial. These courses require the best efforts of instructors and should be given adequate attention (the dollar amount of modern college tuitions only highlight this point), but nonetheless the future of history resides in a much smaller pool of students. The survey course is simply a method of creating a basic intellectual foundation upon which all college graduates must build. In short, upper level classes should be the subject of books like Wineburg’s and articles like “Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the History Survey.”
I’m glad you played devil’s advocate, because I agree with part of what you were writing with regards to Wineburg. Not actually having the book with me at the moment (I’m on campus, but shall look up the specific part of the text when I get home) I recall a passage where Wineburg discusses four classes of student, with gradually increasing levels of historical thinking starting at those who are unable to escape the bonds of presentism, and lack in synthetic thinking, Class I, and to Class IV, where the student is able to grasp abstract concepts, and is able to look critically at historical writing. And so forth.
Where I found that Wineburg’s text lacks some usefulness, is it’s failure to describe what the history teacher is to do if he or she is found to have a class of Class I history students. Wineburg, as I recall, mentions this in as being a problem, but doesn’t really offer any practical solutions to the exasperated history teacher. Perhaps that is because his intention was not to create a practical guide to teaching history, but rather an exposition of its manyt pitfalls.
Comment by James — September 11, 2006 @ 9:13 am
I think your concerns have merit. I think that’s why some memorization is necessary. There’s a certain level of trivia you need to know in order to keep yourself from being embarassed by Jay Leno – or your potential boss at the company Christmas Party. History presented in this form, designed to satisfy “nationalism” goals, then does have value. What we want to do as educators is build upon those facts and add research and reasoning skills. Did any of the readings propose how to teach those skills (in a practical way)? My personal history says that you need the help of other disciplines to develop them.
How can we expect students to have all the skills to make complex analysis if nobody took the time to present it?
So then, we will forever have the argument between those who see History as a course in citizenship, and those who want to dig deeper and find out the reasons why. Students become Historians because they want to know why as much as what. Maybe more so. We still have a duty though to those who just need a basic background on their way to a career in Physics.
Comment by Michelle — September 11, 2006 @ 11:33 am
Comment by Susan: I had some trouble entering a comment yesterday. I hope this works. Wineburg kicked off an area of investigation that had not existed before in the area of pedagogy, and he did it at a time when history was just emerging from the shadow of social studies education. His study does make history teaching seem very complicated, but it in fact is. The US education scene seems to vacillate between extremes, so the pendulum swings between memorization vs. critical thinking or constructivist models and “just the facts, ma’am”. I think Wineburg appreciates that part of being a skilled teacher is to have a full toolbag, and to know when, and how much of each technique or practice makes up a unit of study on a general topic. His taking different positions on the two teachers they observed and interviewed was one instance, and his noting that two other teachers had used different repetoire over the course of their teaching.
Comment by Susan — September 11, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
Part of Michelle’s comment reminds me of a problem I’ve confronted numerous times in my life. I speak Czech, Slovak, and German with varying degrees of facility (depending on how long I’ve been ‘in country’ for whichever language we’re talking about). Ever since I graduated from college, one or the other of my parents will pick up an item with a label printed in one of those languages–a jar of jelly, a cleaning product, etc.–point to a word and ask me what that word means. Of course, I NEVER know what they are–who knows what they mean in English? My parent(s) then roll their eyes and want to know how I actually do my research.
I tell this long (and slightly embarassing) story to make the point that memorizing facts is not the same thing as knowing something. I know Czech, Slovak, and German–I even used to lecture some in Slovak–but there are a lot of words I haven’t memorized. It seems to me–and I’m more than willing to be argued with on this point–that we want our students to know something about the past, which is not the same thing as memorizing.
As an example, we know that approximately 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust–an easily memorized fact. While I’m glad if my students remember this fact, what I want them to know is why the Nazis and their allies were so willing to engage in mass murder.
Comment by mills — September 11, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
As to the relevence of Winburg’s book, I witness, any history educator need to have it. It is all about the the right conception of the subject matter and a proper way of dealing with the subject. And I agree with most of your ideas. I really celebrate both Wineburg and your line of thought.
Comment by Tebeje Molla — May 3, 2007 @ 7:12 am
Dear Participants,
Hereby I would like to pose a question that I could not concretely articulat though have the idea of it. I am a history graduate from Bahir dar University. And before some three weeks, I defended my Mastre’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction in Addis Ababa University. My thesis was about the way and possibility of fostoring historical thinking skills of student teachers with the lived experience of History teacher educators in focus. The central arguement of my work was that the end of History education in higher education should not be for fact acusition.And the External examiner, a PhD holder in History and a teacher in profession, challenged my claim by asserting that narratives should be the centers of history instruction. Having been influenced by readings and professional supports of such prominent educators in the field as Wineburg and Egan, I happed to strongly defended my position. Nevertheless, I do not think that I was successful in persuading my examiner. My shallow constructivist view could not penetrat deep into the thick posetivist layer of that gentl man.
If you were in my place, how would you present your evidences to warrant your claims?
I would be very much grateful if you could forward your reflections and lived experiences in teaching History at any level. How are you managing it when you plan to help your students exercise thinking and develop mental power?
Tebeje Molla
Danish University of Education
Copenhagen
Comment by Tebeje Molla — September 5, 2007 @ 11:20 am