An Alternative Approach to Teaching History

Rodney M. White

Reprinted from the OAH Magazine of History
8 (Winter 1994). ISSN 0882-228X
Copyright (c) 1994, Organization of American Historians
 

During the past decade, the educational community has witnessed numerous assessments, reform proposals, and restructuring efforts aimed at improving America's schools. Reform initiatives have been offered for every level of schooling from kindergarten through college and by many groups interested in a wide range of issues from policy and governance to the "nuts and bolts" of curriculum and instruction. The field of history, like most disciplines, did not escape this scrutiny. Several proposals aimed at "restoring" and improving the teaching and learning of history in elementary and secondary classrooms were offered (see table, page 59). To a great degree unanimous concerning the problems facing the teaching of history, these proposals often cited the lack of historical knowledge displayed by students, the inadequacy of textbooks, the lack of time devoted to the study of history, and poor preparation by teachers as matters needing attention.

The possibility that any of these proposals will be adopted on a broad scale is remote. In describing this dilemma in 1989, social studies educator John J. Patrick explained that curricular space is finite and the places are too few for more of any subject. The simple reality is that for each added subject something else must be taken out, and here the real conflict begins. This problem is compounded by the fact that other proposals were made during the 1980s by groups calling for more time for civics, geography, economics, and international studies.

Having studied and taught history, and worked with student teachers trying to learn how to teach history, the writer views the problems as all too evident. Lofty goals and eloquent statements about the virtues of learning history get lost in actual classroom practices. Covering the material in "encyclopedic" fashion entraps teachers. Information is poured into students' heads until the cup runs over. Using the textbook becomes the most expedient way to teach, and the student often becomes a passive receiver of more information than one could ever hope to comprehend, analyze, and encode. While evidence mounts that this approach is not working, claims continue to be made that the future of our civilization hinges on students "knowing" the material.

So what can be done? What can an individual teacher committed to instructional improvement do when in reality broad scale reform of the curriculum seems improbable? What alternatives exist for a secondary social studies or history department seeking to improve its instructional practices? We can continue to muddle along with our present beliefs and approaches about how history should be taught and learned, or we can attempt to find a more effective alternative. Is this traditional, chronological approach to history the "best" or only way to study history? Does every person, event, or period of history described in the textbook have to be "covered"? Are students really learning when they complete most classroom exams or even when they complete Advanced Placement courses for college credit?

Some interesting insights on this subject were offered by James Michener in an interview with Cleta Galvez-Hjornevik. He stated that students ought to have a general framework in which to fit things, but a comprehensive knowledge of history was not necessary. Michener explained that a student of American history should know seven or eight of the great presidents and have knowledge of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and the two world wars. He stressed that these things ought to be known by the student to form a structure in which to fit other things. For world history, Michener advocated the use of units of study, like those from elementary school on ancient Greece or Native Americans, that project the student into another time and place. He stated that the payoff for long term learning was enormous. One additional recommendation by Michener for history teachers was to include the study of a great period of history in some depth and detail.

An alternative approach to history instruction which has gone virtually unnoticed in this country is the British Schools Council History Project which includes many of Michener's ideas. This article presents an overview of the British Schools Council History Project and provides a rationale for consideration of this as an alternative approach to present instructional practices. This proposal, which stemmed from an earlier wave of educational reform, began in Great Britain during the mid 1970s as part of a broader reform of curriculum and assessment practices in British schools. The Schools Council History Project was started in order to examine the role of history in the curriculum, to revitalize the teaching of history, to encourage pupil participation in learning, and to investigate alternative ways of assessing understanding rather than by rote learning. This may sound like back to the future or deja vu all over again, but these four areas are the same areas the reforms of the 1980s address.

The project surveyed teachers, who voiced five major areas of concern. They believed that the curriculum should prepare students to pass the public examinations at the conclusion of the course of studies and that history should remain as a permanent part of the curriculum rather than part of an integrated course of studies. Other concerns concerned the difficulty in selecting appropriate content, the desire to use primary source materials, and a need for a variety of instructional approaches. The project also identified five adolescent needs which it claimed could be satisfied by the study of history. These were the needs to explain the present; to understand people in a different time and place; to understand human development, change, and causation; to develop leisure time interests; and to develop analytical skills.

The British Schools Council History Project responded by developing a five-part course of studies for students between the ages of thirteen and sixteen, culminating with public examinations. The five separate courses were linked together by the use of primary source materials with an emphasis on analysis and interpretation by students. The first course, What is history?, served as an introduction to the study of history. The aim of this course was to create an interest in studying history, to help students understand the nature of history, and to provide them with the skills to "do" history. Primary source materials were used to encourage students to gather evidence and search for clues to unravel the mysteries of the past and to show students the interpretative nature of history.

The second course, Study in Development, which is the one most like a traditional survey course, was developed around the idea that history involves change. This course focused on one topic and looked at its development over time. Examples of topics for this course were the history of medicine and the history of energy. The third course, Studies in Modern World History, involved an investigation of a current world problem to determine the historical causes. Students would identify a present-day problem and then research the problem to determine its origins and development. Examples given for this course were the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Irish question, and the move toward European unity. The fourth course, Inquiry in Depth, was developed around an in-depth study of a short period of history. Examples cited for this course were Elizabethan England 1558-1603, Britain 1815-1851, and the American West 1840-1890. The final course was developed around the theme of History Around Us. This course focused on some aspect of the local community and examined the history and background of the topic. Examples described included the historical development of some aspect of the local community, town development and local architecture, and studies in the making of the rural landscape.

In assessing the success or lack of success of this project, the findings have been mixed. The first formal assessment indicated that students who had completed this course of studies saw history as more relevant than did other students. Students from the project also demonstrated more sophisticated historical thinking and analysis than did other students. Whether students from the project developed a clearer conceptual understanding than other students was not known. Ian Dawson reported during the early 1980s a clear mismatch between the objectives and assessment practices which emphasized conceptual understanding and the syllabus and materials which emphasized the acquisition of information. Steps were taken to align the assessment of students with the curriculum and instructional practices. Over time, the British Schools Council History Project has grown from about sixty schools in 1974 to approximately twelve hundred schools by 1988.

This article is not intended to suggest that the approach it describes is the one "right" way to teach history. This is no panacea or quick fix, and problems are obvious. Materials are lacking, teachers must find time to develop topical units of study, and innovation itself sometimes is an obstacle. Some teachers may be troubled by the chronological gaps and omissions of content in this approach. However, to continue doing more of the same is equally problematic. Linda Rosenweig and Thomas Weinland stated,

We can lament all the content that the British Schools Council History Project omits, but after years of teaching survey courses in the U.S., we continue to lament that our students know no history at all. One does not need a survey course in order to understand change, cause and effect and chronological sequence. . . . We need to break out of this content trap. Certainly content is essential; one cannot think or inquire about nothing. But the slavish commitment to coverage does not define good teaching, nor good history.

The British Schools Council History Project does offer classroom history teachers or secondary departments of history a viable alternative to the present approach to curriculum and instruction. Whether elements of this project are incorporated into an individual course during the year or a two- or three-year course of studies is developed by a department, this approach offers certain advantages to teachers and students. The discontinuous syllabus or topical approach of the British Schools Council History Project allows a department or individual teacher the opportunity to develop a more appropriate curriculum for students. It frees the teacher from being totally consumed by the drive to cover the textbook, and permits a wider range of activities with greater involvement of students in the learning process. A teacher may follow the five-part course of studies during the year, or a department may integrate these five units during the two years commonly devoted to world and American history.

In any classroom the important variables in instruction are the teacher, the students, the instructional materials, and the methods of instruction. Two of these variables, the teacher and students, remain constant. The other two, the materials and methods, are the two which can alter and improve the learning situation. Through the careful selection of appropriate materials and methods, teachers can have significant impact on what is learned by students. In light of the present realities found in most secondary classrooms, teachers must change how history is taught. The British Schools Council History Project offers teachers an alternative model for choosing topics of study and instructional approaches to follow. The choice of primary source materials and topics for the courses can and should vary from school to school and classroom to classroom. What should not vary, however, is the emphasis on active, student-centered approaches to learning where students are given the opportunity to discuss, think, analyze and develop the skills necessary to understand cause and effect, change, and chronology. It is possible that attitudes will be changed as students realize that history is more than just remembering what a teacher tells them about a time long ago. It might be that these affective learning outcomes will produce learners who develop a personal and long-term interest in and appreciation for the study of history.

Boddington, Tony. "The Schools Council History 13-16 Project," The History and Social Science Teacher 19 (March 1984): 129-137.

Dawson, Ian. "The Schools History Project-A Study in Curriculum Development," The History Teacher 22 (May 1989): 221-238.

Galvez-Hjornevik, Cleta. "James A. Michener: Reaffirmations of a Permanent Liberal," Social Education 51 (April/May 1987): 250-255.

Patrick, John J. "The Bradley Commission in the Context of 1980s Curriculum Reform," The History Teacher 23 (November 1989): 37-38.

Rosenweig, Linda & Thomas Weinland. "New Directions for the History Curriculum," The History Teacher 19 (February 1986): 263-275.

Samec, Charles E. "Teaching for Historical Understanding in British Schools," The History Teacher 13 (November 1979): 61-69.

Rodney M. White is Assistant Professor of Social Science Education at Eastern Kentucky University.