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?
Michelle:
I too wondered about what we should expect from high school students as they come through the door. I thought it ironic that some of authors complained about the lack of preparation when some of them would rather teach as little as possible. I tend to think most professors do try their best though.
I am not surprised about the lack of prerequisite knowledge after watching my children move through the school system. The state has its own agenda in preparing its citizens for what might be their terminal degree. Writing for college is a rather large leap for most. I know it was for me. I thought many of the suggestions from the round table that discussed introducing the thought process that goes into historical research and writing were excellent. Good writing and analytical skills will benefit non history majors as well as those who pursue degrees in our field. Rightly or wrongly I think the 1974 quote from Committee on the Professoriate as quoted in Cuban’s book was very accurate: “students should, come to a major university more to learn than to be taught.” My own grad school experience showed me that it was up to the students to seek out the best educational opportunities many of which were outside of classroom.
Comment by Kurt — September 4, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
I’ve heard that many professors feel that the first year of a college student is spent in unlearning what they learned in high school, and re-learning it the right way (mostly applied to history classes).
Prof. Mill’s story about how the teaching is structured here in VA was a bit disheartening, with teachers not having much room to teach what and how they want, and that surely affects how their students learn and what they carry on past high school.
Besides all that, I thank you for the brief synopsis of each of the readings.
Comment by Ammon — September 5, 2006 @ 5:56 pm