I viewed this week’s readings as an extension on our discussion of where the “survey” course(s) is going. Calder, Wineburg, and Wiggins and McTighe all seem dissatisfied with the current state of survey courses; and want to suggest a better way to present them. In their various presentations of learning strategies, the ultimate end seems to suggest the gradual overhaul of college level survey courses and the secondary school courses which feed into them. Perhaps their arguments are a result of attacks on the teaching profession as a result of poor standardized scores, or maybe they just got tired of teaching in a way which seemed boring to both the instructor and student. In general, change is bound to happen in any discipline, and change is usually a good thing. Changes happen as we examine the good and bad, embrace the good, eliminate the bad and develop new strategies. Is History different than any other subject for the inbound college student? I don’t think we are overly concerned at this point with students who plan to become Historians. The readings seemed to me to be aimed toward the student that needs a basic background in History to be a well rounded scholar, but may or may not choose to pursue History any further than the college of his choice requires.
Calder, in his article and web site, suggest we move away from teaching just the facts and transform from a pattern of memorization to one of investigation. His methods are almost scientific, and will appeal to the student of hard science required to have a minimal background in social science. The students will get involved and learn to present a case, and lose the need to only repeat back what they have heard from the instructor. Calder appreciates that with proper investigation there may be more than one story to tell, and that all deserve to be examined for validity. One fear of this approach is that students will not retain those “facts” so important to purveyors of tests like Virginia SOLs. In his article he presents evidence that students have not been cheated “of the ability to do well on traditional multiple-choice History tests.” The students performed at an equal or better rate. Interestingly, his sources were largely composed of authors from other works assigned for this week, or from last week. As I was examining the sources, I wondered if there was a shortage of work to draw from, but found in later readings that this was not the case. There were many sources which did not relate to teaching History specifically, but addressed educational instruction skills which were adaptable to many subjects.
Weinburg appears to be the leader of the pack in educational studies about History instruction. His article provokes questions like: if we ask students to spit back facts as evidence of learning, how confident are we about the facts they are memorizing? Whose reality is correct? He supports the methods of Calder (or Calder supports him) by pointing out that students will have to pick and choose their sources and then have explanations why they contribute to our greater understanding of History.
What happens then to the “good” student of History? How does this student who has been trained to memorize with out question from dry textbooks chosen not only for content but for their adherence to political dogma handle the differences in style as well as learning? Wineburg’s articles show that he must be retrained. Wiggins and McTighe point out though that his basic library of facts is not always to be discounted. In “Understanding Design,” they purport to only expand on repertoires and not to eliminate strategies. There are still linchpin ideas (those annoying dead white guys again) which have use and importance, and should not be forgotten – just don’t forget that there’s more to the story.
Questions outside my official post:
We are supposed to write two bibliographic papers for this class. When are they due? Could we have a brief example of what sort of paper (and approximate length) this would be? I think I might have an idea of what is desired, but I’m not sure. Would this be the Week 8 assignment?
Can someone describe to me what a practicum is? Again, I think I have an idea but I’d like a better definition. Should we be working on these already?
For the final project, if we don’t have the skills to produce an actual web site, should it be a multimedia presentation (I would hope it would be)?
Hi Michelle!
I liked this:
“What happens then to the “good” student of History? How does this student who has been trained to memorize with out question from dry textbooks chosen not only for content but for their adherence to political dogma handle the differences in style as well as learning?”
I think you have a great point here. I would say that we should change view on the “good student.” I know many people who do quite poorly on traditional tests that involve recalling information, but are brilliant when it comes to actually knowing how to use the information when it comes to getting at the context. In my response for this week I point out that educators should start early with their students so that the students are more than prepared once entering college. It may seem like a longshot, but I believe that the more educators start to challenge their students to think critically at a younger age, as opposed to just memorizing facts, the better off the students will be when it comes to learning history.
Matt
Comment by Matthew Gravely — September 9, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Hi Michelle:
I’ll answer all the “outside” questions you pose in class tomorrow.
Mills
Comment by tkelly7 — September 11, 2006 @ 5:47 am
I also liked the question you pose about the current ‘good’ student of history. Will they be able to adapt? I think probably so. I also liked your discussion of the ’scientific’ approach to teaching and learning history that Calder’s methods seem to imply. It makes me wonder if this whole question of how to teach history is also a reflection of how our society is changing and evolving into a technologically and scientifically based society. With our children growing up more involved and exposed to science and technology (I was in junior high school before I touched a computer, my 3 yr old is already quite adept at playing kids games on certain children’s web sites), will they be more inclined to learn better by a ’scientific approach?’
Comment by Ammon — September 11, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
I hope no one will mind if I cut in on this discussion, which Dr Kelly alerted me to. I’m intrigued by Matt’s observation, seconded by Ammon, that my approach to teaching history is “almost scientific.” I’d like to ask you to say more about this.
This claim would surprise people on my own campus, where I have the reputation of being a critic of science (I would say “scientism”) and a defender of the humanities. As for technology, well, I’ve been accused of being something of a Luddite, seeing as how I don’t even have a cell phone. But I wonder if you aren’t on to something that would be important for me to think about. I wonder if my approach seems “scientific” because I seem to emphasize techniques a lot, techniques of teaching and techniques of cognition. Where’s the love, I could imagine someone wondering. Where’s the spontaneity of a class that unpredictably catches fire and becomes a small miracle? Where’s the storytelling that leaves mental images of the human drama and comedy that linger for the rest of a student’s life? 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”?
Lendol Calder
Comment by Lendol Calder — October 18, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Whoops–my apologies–it was Michelle who said my approach is “almost scientific.”
Lendol Calder
Comment by Lendol Calder — October 18, 2006 @ 4:40 pm