Teaching History in the Digital Age

Throughout much of the reading, there is a common thread on the importance of historical education, and I was just curious as to what everyone in class personally felt is the value of historical education?

So much of the fight to revamp the curriculum around the turn-of-the-19th-century, as mentioned in the Orrill and Shapiro article, centered around trying to establish a case for the necessity of historical education. But I’d like to explore this topic a little further. What does history education mean to all of us? I think one of the most important aspects of it, and this was mentioned by Wineburg, is the critical thinking skills that historical scholarship cultivates in the student. These are the skills that leap outside the boundaries of historic thought, and are the skills that will stay with an individual long after they have forgotten what day Fort Sumpter was fired upon. But does is historical education the only system that imbues students with that skill? Philosophy, English, and even scientific inquiry I think also focus on the importance of critical analysis. Are the skills taught by history somehow unique? And if not, what then is left to defend the importance of history?

Here’s the dilemma I’m struggling with in my head: thinking critically is the most important element of historical education, and the largest facet of that is trying to break away from the presentism that steers us toward the familiar, or worse, steers us to misinterpreting the strange for the familiar. Now, an effective history education should assist the student in overcoming this obstacle – to be able to properly contextualize events, individuals, themes within a historical framework. But what now? How will that ability then be used by the student for the betterment of society? For being a better citizen?

If presentism is an incorrect approach to history, then so must the converse – the attempt to understand present-day situations by comparing them to historical events. The notion that we, as a society, can learn from past mistakes is based on the assumption on which presentism rests; that there is a certain degree of constancy thoughout history. If all this is true (and I’ll admit, in my ramblings I’ve made an awful lot of assumptions) then how can history be used in the creation of better citizens? Does simply knowing a countries history make one a better citizen, even if that knowledge may not be able to better inform one’s decisions in the present?

I’m very curious to hear the class’s thoughts on this, either on the blog or in the class. I do apologize for the rambling nature of my posts, which seem to resemble think-alouds!

James