Friday, January 31, 2014
@clclyne
When I was in high school, I hated history. I only took the one mandatory history class, and even that was done begrudgingly. I was drawn to historical fiction, museums, art, politics, travel, philosophy. I knew that there I was an intricate connection between all of these and the past. What I couldn't see was how they had anything to do with the miscellany we were expected to memorize for that dreaded class. I remember the teacher boasting how students remembered facts (minutiae) from his class years later. I find that difficult to believe.
In university, I fell in love with history because it was all about thinking: why did that happen? What were the consequences of that action? How is this act different than the similar one 50 years ago? Why does it happen? How did this impact different peoples then? What are the ethical implications? All the key tenets of Seixas' Big Six. These are the questions that matter, the ones that make a difference in all of our lives.
I love teaching the intro grade 10 class of Canadian history. It is perfect for inquiry because there is a myth that is perpetuated about Canada the good, the nice, the accepting. I spend the course feeding them the fodder--residential schools, internment camps, racist immigration policies--so they debunk that myth. This is the crux in the shift of thinking about teaching history, I think, the shift from a focus on facts to a focus on historical thinking. I don't debunk the myths for them. I give them the information (or how to find it) so that they can use the skills we develop together to debunk the myth for themselves.
I agree with a lot of what others have already posted. Love this sharing of philosophies and approaches to our practices!
I don't use a textbook in the core grade 10 mandatory history class. I prefer to tell stories, share excerpts, video clips or to create document sets for inquiry projects. The very nature of the textbook implies an emphasis on facts (I have a new textbook for social science and it is much improved, and I will try it). I have Pinterest boards I have created on various topics as digital document sets, and we have access to the great resources at tc2.ca (Critical Thinking Consortium). We are not 1-to-1, but we have pretty regular access as (thankfully for me), there are still many Luddites in my building, so I don't have to share all that often.
I feel the need to control the direction of their learning, and, for me, that means structured inquiry around the historical thinking concepts. I follow the course content chronologically, using the facts as the jumping off point into the thinking concepts. Some topics fit better with certain concepts, like for cause and consequence the bombing of Pearl Harbor, then Japanese internment. If they understand this then when they have a test (yup, still see the value here--and yup, some multiple-choice), they know and understand the sequence of events. It would simply not make sense for the internment to have happened without the bombing first. (I know not all events in history work this way, but that's why I choose the concept that best fits the topic. These are junior students. We need to start somewhere).
Re: tests, I believe in their necessity, even though this would seem to contradict the philosophy on the textbook. There are many places there will be tests (provincial literacy for us, other classes, driver's license, aptitude for jobs, SATs). I make a conscious effort to minimize questions that are pure knowledge. It is challenging and time consuming to develop good multiple choice questions that test higher order thinking. Part of each test is source identification, images similar to, or on same topic as ones shown in class for which they need to explain the historical significance. And I always tell them in advance the paragraph writing question so they can think about how they would answer, at least those so inclined. On the WWII test students had to consider whether or not the horrors of WWII changed our sense of humanity. We had never discussed the question explicitly, but indirectly many times, then up to them to make sense of it and pull together. Many answers were beautifully crafted, well considered examples of historical thinking in action, exactly what we are looking for.
@phillige
A little while ago I was contacted by a friend on Twitter about joining this great project. Every month we are given a topic to write a blog post about dealing with aspects in history classes. The prompt for this month was Teaching students a list of facts about the past vs. teaching them to think historically. Here is my contribution to the blog:
Growing up, history was important to my family. My grandpa in particular would always tell great stories about his time in Vietnam or living in Alaska, Arizona, or Hawaii while in the armed forces. We also talked about the Civil War or listened to Civil War books on our trips to Florida for Spring Break. My grandparents also took me to Pow-Wows and other historically important places near where they lived in Pittsburgh. I can remember walking through graveyards to find gravestones of past relatives among the many other adventures we would have. History was a part of our life as a family. It just wasn’t facts strung together to make sense of an event or time period, it was more, much more.
In school I was lucky enough to have some great history teachers and some really bad ones! They would still lecture to a class and we had to take notes, but many of my history teachers brought it to life. It wasn't just about reading out of a textbook and answering some questions at home. Then in class discussing the answers to the homework and repeating like a bad Boy Band song on the radio, they could make you feel like you were there. Yes, we would do the occasional project, but it was more used to break up the doldrums of the textbook. It was about bringing history to life. I remember one of high school world history teachers well. When we would cover a new era in history we had “visitors” come in to our class. He of course dressed the part and acted the part. It made it more real, and weird, but you could see how understanding was vital to the experience of history.
In college I had both types of professors. The ones who were really passionate, taught with a tenacity you would have thought you just ran a marathon after class. In fact, one of my college professors was so passionate about his big ideas, he actually created a new form of history called the Big History Project. (You should look up Craig Benjamin from Grand Valley State University and the Big History Project). Anyways, I digress. And I had those professors who would lecture strait out of the textbook or books we had to read for class. BORING!
The most valuable lessons I took from my teachers and professors was this, that no matter what form of history you teach, it is important your students have an understanding, no a grasp of conceptional understanding of what happened. This does not mean teaching a list of facts, that may or may not connect to an event, have a quiz or test, then repeat. Information like this that lives in Bloom’s Taxonomy Lower Levels does not need to be taught. Yes, some students are going to memorize facts and tell you what happened on that date, etc. But does that mean they really know and understand what happened?
We need to get away from a form of teaching where students will only study and dump that information. It’s more important for us as history teachers to give our students experiences that will last with them forever. Give them the primary and secondary sources to intense and stimulate their brain instead of memorizing facts and regurgitating them for a score. We need to use more inquiry to attract our students to our subject.
Here is how I do it. I always start a lesson with an image, map, a piece primary source, a movie clip, etc. to get the students hooked on what we will be covering. This usually revolves around a central question Google cannot answer easily. Then I have the students discuss in small groups or as a large group what this has to do. I am activating their prior knowledge to make sense of what we are learning. From here, students then either watch a video or read the lesson in the textbook or read more primary sources, or find information online to help them further their understanding of the topic. From here, students then need to apply their information they have gained in a way that demonstrates understanding. This could be a Socrative Seminar, a Fish Bowl, a PowerPoint (done with pictures and no words), iMovies, a mock trial, a business plan for a new company, a regular old test, etc. The sky is the limit. All along this way, I can see if my students are actually comprehending the information and by applying it to new situations, if they have a firm grasp of the ideas. If they had to learn a list of facts and pass a test, I can see what they knew for that test.
It is time we move our programs to the current century and teach our students the necessary skills they will need to survive outside of school.
Let me know what your thoughts are. I would be happy to discuss them.
http://www.reversingsocialstudies.com/1/post/2014/01/history-ed-blog-circle-january.html
Growing up, history was important to my family. My grandpa in particular would always tell great stories about his time in Vietnam or living in Alaska, Arizona, or Hawaii while in the armed forces. We also talked about the Civil War or listened to Civil War books on our trips to Florida for Spring Break. My grandparents also took me to Pow-Wows and other historically important places near where they lived in Pittsburgh. I can remember walking through graveyards to find gravestones of past relatives among the many other adventures we would have. History was a part of our life as a family. It just wasn’t facts strung together to make sense of an event or time period, it was more, much more.
In school I was lucky enough to have some great history teachers and some really bad ones! They would still lecture to a class and we had to take notes, but many of my history teachers brought it to life. It wasn't just about reading out of a textbook and answering some questions at home. Then in class discussing the answers to the homework and repeating like a bad Boy Band song on the radio, they could make you feel like you were there. Yes, we would do the occasional project, but it was more used to break up the doldrums of the textbook. It was about bringing history to life. I remember one of high school world history teachers well. When we would cover a new era in history we had “visitors” come in to our class. He of course dressed the part and acted the part. It made it more real, and weird, but you could see how understanding was vital to the experience of history.
In college I had both types of professors. The ones who were really passionate, taught with a tenacity you would have thought you just ran a marathon after class. In fact, one of my college professors was so passionate about his big ideas, he actually created a new form of history called the Big History Project. (You should look up Craig Benjamin from Grand Valley State University and the Big History Project). Anyways, I digress. And I had those professors who would lecture strait out of the textbook or books we had to read for class. BORING!
The most valuable lessons I took from my teachers and professors was this, that no matter what form of history you teach, it is important your students have an understanding, no a grasp of conceptional understanding of what happened. This does not mean teaching a list of facts, that may or may not connect to an event, have a quiz or test, then repeat. Information like this that lives in Bloom’s Taxonomy Lower Levels does not need to be taught. Yes, some students are going to memorize facts and tell you what happened on that date, etc. But does that mean they really know and understand what happened?
We need to get away from a form of teaching where students will only study and dump that information. It’s more important for us as history teachers to give our students experiences that will last with them forever. Give them the primary and secondary sources to intense and stimulate their brain instead of memorizing facts and regurgitating them for a score. We need to use more inquiry to attract our students to our subject.
Here is how I do it. I always start a lesson with an image, map, a piece primary source, a movie clip, etc. to get the students hooked on what we will be covering. This usually revolves around a central question Google cannot answer easily. Then I have the students discuss in small groups or as a large group what this has to do. I am activating their prior knowledge to make sense of what we are learning. From here, students then either watch a video or read the lesson in the textbook or read more primary sources, or find information online to help them further their understanding of the topic. From here, students then need to apply their information they have gained in a way that demonstrates understanding. This could be a Socrative Seminar, a Fish Bowl, a PowerPoint (done with pictures and no words), iMovies, a mock trial, a business plan for a new company, a regular old test, etc. The sky is the limit. All along this way, I can see if my students are actually comprehending the information and by applying it to new situations, if they have a firm grasp of the ideas. If they had to learn a list of facts and pass a test, I can see what they knew for that test.
It is time we move our programs to the current century and teach our students the necessary skills they will need to survive outside of school.
Let me know what your thoughts are. I would be happy to discuss them.
http://www.reversingsocialstudies.com/1/post/2014/01/history-ed-blog-circle-january.html
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
@KaelynBullock
As a high school student I hated history. From what I remember, I took notes all the time. Then I would memorize a list of terms for a test, spit it back out, and forget it. It was not until I was forced to take a history class in college that I experienced primary sources that conflicted and I had to form an argument. This allowed me to fall in love with history and helped me identify a subject I wanted to teach.
Entering my teaching career, I did my best to make history class a fun experience. I had some good activities that kept us out of the textbook, but at the end of chapter students were still doing a lot of reading the textbook and memorizing. My curriculum was too content heavy and did not incorporate the skills of historians very well.
I have made a conscious effort to move away from so much history content. Over the years, I added more primary sources to my repertoire. I still struggled to find time to incorporate them regularly. Flipping my history classroom helped to solve that problem. By moving lectures outside of the classroom space, my students and I could use class time to investigate documents. I do owe a lot to the Stanford History Education Group for putting together some great, ready-to-use investigations.
Ideally, I will keep moving toward inquiry-based units. I want to start with an inquiry question and have students gather background information, while I introduce primary sources to challenge and deepen their knowledge. I also think there is much potential in the C4 Framework: Collect, Collaborate, Create, Communicate. These steps have been a natural framework for my classroom as I let students explore various topics, without needing them to be glued to the textbook.
This year, I have truly tested how well I am preparing students to do the work of historians, we are completing National History Day projects. Students have selected topics, done extensive research with primary and secondary sources, developed a thesis, and they are currently forming their arguments. This has been challenging for students and for myself. In class we regularly look at primary sources, but we usually work in small groups or as a whole class. This has challenged students to be accountable as individuals. I am eager to see their final products. When I first heard about this program, I thought to myself that these are the things I want my students to be able to do, and if they aren’t able, I wanted to teach them those skills. I believe students have learned a great deal, historical content and skills.
I will continue to refine my teaching to help students articulate the big ideas of history (not just memorize the little details). I still try to incorporate fun experiences. I also believe, that students can have fun engaging work of historians, being challenged to think critically. I’m encouraged so many Social Studies teachers are striving to do the same.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
What are some of your best tips/ best practices for unit planning? What does your process look like?
One of the most powerful parts of this blog, I think, will be giving history teachers a place beyond Twitter's 140 characters to discuss questions and answers. If you'd like to post a question as a new post, DM me (@joetabhistory) and I will add you as a moderator. My question:
What are some of your best tips/ best practices for unit planning? What does your process look like?
What are some of your best tips/ best practices for unit planning? What does your process look like?
Saturday, January 25, 2014
@WolskiMR
At a Crossroads
I have come to a crossroads in my teaching of US History. I have never been a big textbook person, always feeling that that text was dry, boring and not really how I was taught history in college and grad school. I always felt that it was my job to try to bring some of how I was taught to my students: reading primary and secondary sources (other than a straight text), arguing a position, and discussion within both small and large group. I never remembered reading a section in a general text reader, answering the questions at the end or working on a worksheet that was generated by the textbook company. So I thought, why are people teaching it this way? I have always tried to bring my experience with history to my students.
Having been in this mindset from the start, my radar was always looking for different ways to approach history other than the textbook. A friend of mine who had the same mindset recommended Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. After reading that book, I began to search for ways to approach the subject without such heavy reliance on the text. I was further inspired when I saw Loewen speak in person at Case Western University. He really encouraged those present who were teachers to use alternative sources for teaching students history. I was now on a mission.
About 6-7 years later while I was teaching on the Block (that's another post!) I was fortunate enough to attend the NCSS conference in San Diego. If you have never attended a National Conference like this, stop reading this and find out where it is this year (usually in the fall) and start making plans!! The ideas and inspiration I got from that conference really verified that I was on the right path in ditching the textbook. There are still aspects of what I learned in San Diego that I am using today.
A final event in my long 20+ years of teaching has more to do with luck and timing than anything else. Two things happened. One, the State of Ohio hired literacy coaches to infuse more of the strategies that Robert Marzano has been compiling and advocating for years. (sadly, that program has been abandoned) Secondly, my district hired a literacy coach with help from the State to train teachers on the Marzano approach to teaching. Thankfully, my principal at the time was not only on board with this idea, but directed the literacy coach in my direction. She encouraged me, after a bit of reluctance on my part, to take the training since she said I do things that are very Marzano-like anyhow. (Side note: NEVER turn down a chance to improve, no matter how "busy" you think you are!)
Okay, I lied. There has been one more event over the last year or so that has really encouraged me to think about how to teach generally and history specifically: Twitter (@wolskimr) I had used Twitter before to stay in touch with people but I never realized how vast and prolific this social media could be when it came to teaching. Since Aug 2013 I have shared more and learned more about my profession that anything in the past 5 years. It is truly inspired me and encouraged me to branch out and try new things and encouraged me to continue on this long journey.
So, after all that rambling, here is where I am right now in my approach to history.
The continue influx of technology into the classroom with smart phones, laptops and now Chrome books has really been a shot of adrenaline to me in my approach. Students now have access to everything on the web, and can share things on Google Drive and work collaboratively. I cannot stand by and use the textbook when I can now access this on a daily basis. Another twist to this is the State has gone away from multiple choice questions and has moved towards analyzing text and being able to "produce" something from the material they are given. I always try to see the handwriting on the wall in teaching so I am not trying to do when the students already have to do at the same time. I like being ahead.
So here is what I am moving towards. First, I am trying a unit on the Cold War using Standards Based Grading where students have to use skills to demonstrate they know the content via learning goals. This is placing heavy emphasis on skills rather than the repeating of knowledge which is then swiftly forgotten. This is a lot of work as you have to allow students to re-do material they had difficulty with and this can be a daunting task with multiple secondary and primary sources and multiple assessments as well. However, it does fit with students being able to "do" history rather than repeat it.
Right now I am in the 1920s. The students have gone over the 3 learning goals, involved themselves with the vocab (again Marzano style) and are now using primary sources I found in the National Archives to get a better picture of the social, political, and economic issues the decade faced. They are in groups working with 5 different documents and next week as long as the weather cooperates, they will share together and then as a jigsaw with the other groups. We will then use this information to help address the essential question for the unit. (Kind of working backwards, I have to generate one. Ooops!)
Since I don't think students really "know" a topic with just a traditional test, I have turned towards students being able to produce something from the material we have discussed and gone over in class. To that end, I have decided to have use the idea of continuity to examine how the 20s compares to our society today. I have specific learning goals that apply to today and are directly related to the learning goals for the 1920s. I was observed by my principal on Thursday and in my pre-observation meeting, he gave me great ideas on how students can not only connect the two decades together, but to use current articles about today to force the students to make connections and to produce something demonstrating this.
This is very much a work in progress and I will keep you posted on how it all goes. I hope this isn't too long (and I could have said more....hahaha) and helps to contribute to the awesomeness that is this thread. More later!!
http://wolskihistory.blogspot.com/
@pattistrukel
Shedding the Textbook
Reply
With 2014 upon us, the cool thing to do is talk about resolutions. My “new year,” as an educator started in September, and I have successfully stuck to a quiet resolution of mine – to loosen the stranglehold that our textbook had on my American History class.
In the past, we were studying “a chapter” over the span of a couple weeks. Our daily agenda teemed with phrases like, “Chapter 9 – Section 2.” Students might have even communicated that we examined pages 660-664 as our lesson on a particular day.
Insert my mindshift here. What if the textbook became a resource for class rather than our guiding light?
Facilitating this change has required a conscientious effort to communicate our topics by eras, events, and learning goals. More than once, I have used my handy skin eraser to fix my instinctive agenda indicator on the dry erase board and update it with a better series of descriptors for our tasks.
Fear not – we haven’t abandoned reading. In fact, students definitely read more than they used to in my class. The DVD player sat as an idle ornament for the first five weeks of the school year too. By using primary documents, snippets from our textbook, web resources, and other secondary sources, our course material has actually been enriched by this change. For the concrete sequential types, myself included, we still have an anchoring point associated with a textbook chapter; however, I am freed to guide us into altered sequencing. If it seems more appropriate to get deeper into a war before examining its impact on domestic conditions, we do that. It doesn’t short-circuit the students because they know that the textbook functions as a resource rather than something biblical.
What I appreciate most about it is the way it has spun into communicating about what we are studying. How much more does a student need to understand in order to know “where” we are? It’s no longer a number, so their conversations with parents can be generated through statements like, “We’re looking at the huge influx of immigration to the U.S. during the late 1800s and early 1900s,” rather than, “We’re in chapter 15 now.” One of those is a good conversation-starter while the other is easily derailed with shrugging.
Another step in implementing this change has been renaming assignments. Few task names carry textbook chapter or section references, at least not as a primary name. I will still provide page references in association with work we do when the textbook is the main resource to be used; however, it puts us on stride with unit goals in our standards-based learning structure when skills or goals are identified by formative assessment names. Thus, looking at a series of quotations expressing concerns with bank and railroad practices of the late 1800s is called, “Farmers’ Voices,” on the handout and in the grade book.
I would also contend that this series of adjustments invites students to look at text differently. Questioning word choice, phrasing, or the organization within a chapter of a textbook or other document become more acceptable and natural because the book does not function as my “right-hand man” in governing class. If we aren’t using textbooks on a particular day, they remain shelved. At first, students took this as a signal that we were going someplace or watching something, but now it isn’t even grounds for conversation. We have bigger things on our minds.
Lastly, the chore of tackling topics within a finite time frame becomes less daunting. I’m writing this on a day in which our governor has closed Minnesota’s schools. At best, thirteen days remain in our first semester. Not being married to the textbook for curriculum muffles the ticking clock (a little). I’ve defined what we need to finish by what my students need to accomplish in terms of learning goals rather than pages to flip.
Student-centered learning requires defining a course’s expectations as a function of factors relating to what students are indeed learning. In order to fortify this adjustment, one must apply supplemental learning resources and alter communication of daily and unit outputs. These practices translate into more precise and meaningful learning.
http://mrsstrukel.edublogs.org/2014/01/06/shedding-the-textbook/
Friday, January 24, 2014
@WilliamABerry11
As I was searching for interesting material and resources on World War I, I stumbled across the whole Michael Gove controversy. Immediately after reading some material on this topic, I checked my Twitter feed and saw a tweet from @ERBofHistory. I don’t remember what the tweet was exactly (it was unrelated to WWI), but the important thing was that my mind immediately started making a connection between the Gove controversy and the idea of a rap battle. Gove’s comments on World War I and its portrayal in popular culture piqued my interest because I think the war’s treatment in pop culture is very similar to the way that the war is portrayed in the poetry and fiction from this time period, including the works of Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. In my head, I started to envision how these “War Poets” would react to Gove’s comments and what a conversation between these individuals would look like. I thought not only about how these individuals would have different points of view on how the war should be remembered, but also, the role that various perspectives play in helping us to remember history.
Initially, I thought it would be interesting for the students to create a rap battle between Gove and the war poets as a culmination to a unit on World War I, but after Meghan (the teacher whose class will actually be completing this lesson) and I discussed this idea, we decided against it for a couple of reasons. The first strike against this version of the lesson was time. The final lesson we decided upon is a 2- day lesson versus an entire unit, which leaves room for some activities that Meghan was initially planning on including in the unit. The second reason for the change was that creating the rap battle was not as open-ended as we would have liked, as many of the final products would have taken the same shape and form. The focus of the lesson is still historical perspectives, but I think our newer version does a much better job at reinforcing this idea than our initial attempt. Ultimately, this is the lesson we decided on. It’s still in draft form now, but I’ll edit this post and add a link to the final lesson once it’s written up and we have some student products.
I’m happy with where this lesson ended up, but the idea of the rap battle (specifically this rap battle for which I had already written some lines!) was too good to ignore, so we worked my rap battle into the lesson to give me some incentive to actually make the video. The lesson could still be done without the rap battle, but I believe the video will add to the conversations that we have with the students. I also think that I’m going to have a little contest with the kids to see how many World War I references they can catch. There are quite a few obvious ones, but there are definitely a few that they won’t initially pick up on– although they could with some investigation and research on their own time. Ultimately, making the product was fun for me, and I think the students will enjoy it, so in the end, it was time well spent.
An important note about the video:
The final product is my perspective of what a conversation between Gove, Sassoon, and Owen would look like. Much of what these individuals say in the rap is based on my own research (you can see my sources below), but ultimately the lyrics are my interpretations of these sources. And obviously, there is some exaggeration for dramatic effect…this is a rap battle after all. But…this video will be used with a lesson on perspective and viewpoint, so we will actually talk about this in class. Since the students will be reading Gove’s comments and some war poetry as a part of the lesson we have planned, I will ask them to think about how this rap relates to the comments they’ve read and if any of my bias comes through in the video.
These resources helped me produce this video and provided a good basis for this lesson:
Making this type of product would be an excellent task for students in a variety of subject areas. I’m thinking it could be especially effective during SOL review time, as teachers often have a lot more time to “play” with and creating a product like this would be a great way to review various concepts and go beyond “just the facts.” As a justification for why you should do this with your students, here is a list of skills that I either practiced or learned while working on this project, :
Mike R., Doug , Mike H., Terri, Emily, My Dad, Debbie, Nicki, Scott, Tom, and anyone I else I forgot.
Videos are cool:
If I were to do this again, there are a lot of things I would do differently. You’ll see that the lip syncing does not match up perfectly and that the size of the background images/videos are sometimes a bit off. This is due to how we filmed/recorded and I really couldn’t fix the issue this time around without recording again (which I don’t have the time for currently). However, I’m still OK with how it turned out.
http://blogs.henrico.k12.va.us/waberry/2014/01/19/epic-rap-battle-of-the-great-war-michael-gove-vs-the-war-poets/
Initially, I thought it would be interesting for the students to create a rap battle between Gove and the war poets as a culmination to a unit on World War I, but after Meghan (the teacher whose class will actually be completing this lesson) and I discussed this idea, we decided against it for a couple of reasons. The first strike against this version of the lesson was time. The final lesson we decided upon is a 2- day lesson versus an entire unit, which leaves room for some activities that Meghan was initially planning on including in the unit. The second reason for the change was that creating the rap battle was not as open-ended as we would have liked, as many of the final products would have taken the same shape and form. The focus of the lesson is still historical perspectives, but I think our newer version does a much better job at reinforcing this idea than our initial attempt. Ultimately, this is the lesson we decided on. It’s still in draft form now, but I’ll edit this post and add a link to the final lesson once it’s written up and we have some student products.
I’m happy with where this lesson ended up, but the idea of the rap battle (specifically this rap battle for which I had already written some lines!) was too good to ignore, so we worked my rap battle into the lesson to give me some incentive to actually make the video. The lesson could still be done without the rap battle, but I believe the video will add to the conversations that we have with the students. I also think that I’m going to have a little contest with the kids to see how many World War I references they can catch. There are quite a few obvious ones, but there are definitely a few that they won’t initially pick up on– although they could with some investigation and research on their own time. Ultimately, making the product was fun for me, and I think the students will enjoy it, so in the end, it was time well spent.
An important note about the video:
The final product is my perspective of what a conversation between Gove, Sassoon, and Owen would look like. Much of what these individuals say in the rap is based on my own research (you can see my sources below), but ultimately the lyrics are my interpretations of these sources. And obviously, there is some exaggeration for dramatic effect…this is a rap battle after all. But…this video will be used with a lesson on perspective and viewpoint, so we will actually talk about this in class. Since the students will be reading Gove’s comments and some war poetry as a part of the lesson we have planned, I will ask them to think about how this rap relates to the comments they’ve read and if any of my bias comes through in the video.
These resources helped me produce this video and provided a good basis for this lesson:
- Gove’s Original Statements.
- Garry Sheffield’s Thoughts on World War I (referenced in Gove’s original statements)
- Richard Evans’ Response to Gove
- The poems of Wilfred Owen
- “Memoirs of an Infantry Office”r and other works of Siegfried Sassoon
- Epic Rap Battles of History
Making this type of product would be an excellent task for students in a variety of subject areas. I’m thinking it could be especially effective during SOL review time, as teachers often have a lot more time to “play” with and creating a product like this would be a great way to review various concepts and go beyond “just the facts.” As a justification for why you should do this with your students, here is a list of skills that I either practiced or learned while working on this project, :
- Movie editing techniques in Adobe Premiere. All of my previous movie work has been completed in Moviemaker. I’m pretty impressed with Premiere’s capabilities. I’m pretty unimpressed with my abilities to use those capabilities to their fullest potential, but this was a good start.
- Green screen effects – Cool enough that it deserves its own bullet point outside of “movie editing techniques.” As a result of this assignment, I’m getting a green screen for our school – I think the students enjoy using it for a variety of assignments.
- Planning and collaboration – I wouldn’t have been able to complete this project in such a short time frame without the help of a large number of people. I had to plan and think in advance about what would be needed in order to get this done in a timely manner.
- And most importantly…content skills. In this case, history content. I had to research, summarize, and analyze the viewpoints of three different individuals in order to create this movie. This product exemplifies higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.
Mike R., Doug , Mike H., Terri, Emily, My Dad, Debbie, Nicki, Scott, Tom, and anyone I else I forgot.
Videos are cool:
If I were to do this again, there are a lot of things I would do differently. You’ll see that the lip syncing does not match up perfectly and that the size of the background images/videos are sometimes a bit off. This is due to how we filmed/recorded and I really couldn’t fix the issue this time around without recording again (which I don’t have the time for currently). However, I’m still OK with how it turned out.
http://blogs.henrico.k12.va.us/waberry/2014/01/19/epic-rap-battle-of-the-great-war-michael-gove-vs-the-war-poets/
What are we up to?
History Ed Blog Circle: A monthly feature
Interested in contributing a 750-1200 word blog post that discusses this theme?
What I imagine is a group of history teachers who will, on a monthly basis, tackle a question or theme. After this month, we can create a method for submitting and choosing topics to write about. As we read each other’s posts, we can further discuss and elaborate so that we can support and learn from each other. I will post your response, or a link to your response, on my blog. Please share this with anyone you think may be interested in contributing.
This month's post is due by Friday, January 31.
Please let me know if you are interested by leaving a comment below or by messaging me on Twitter: @joetabhistory.
January’s Topic: Teaching students a list of facts about the past vs. teaching them to think historically
This month's post is due by Friday, January 31.
Please let me know if you are interested by leaving a comment below or by messaging me on Twitter: @joetabhistory.
@joetabhistory
January: Teaching facts about the past vs. teaching historical thinking
This is my first post in our monthly history blog circle. I have started the idea of a blog circle with the intention of creating a space for history teachers regularly to contribute blog posts about various curricular and instructional themes. Posts will be uploaded to this site on the last day of each month. Please let me know via a comment here or a message on Twitter if you would like to contribute a post. Suggested length for a contribution is 750-1250 words. That’s just a suggestion, though. Please don’t take these numbers too seriously.
Most of us have likely been in history classrooms where the transmission of factual information has been the main focus. As we all know, some teachers do this better than others. Well organized lectures, engaging videos, and interesting readings, by most measures, are the recipe for an ideal classroom experience. We ought to be doing more than this, though.
This month’s posts focus on the following question: What’s the difference between teaching students facts vs. teaching them to think like an historian? Most of my time as a teacher, sorry to say, has focused more on teaching students to recall selected facts about the past rather than teaching them to use facts as they think critically about the past, present, and future. I am committed to changing this, and since early 2013, I have slowly been transforming my instructional approach.
I am in the middle of my 13th year teaching social studies. And when I think back to my first attempts at teaching, I was like many new teachers, I suspect. As a new teacher, I taught the way that I had been taught, and the way that I saw my cooperating teacher teach.
And what was it that those who taught me did? What exactly was I imitating?
These teachers, many of whom I admired, told their students about the past. Most of them, I am pretty sure, often told me more than the textbook. This is what history teachers did, I thought. Good teachers went well beyond the text; mediocre teachers, less so. And this is what I would end up doing once I entered the classroom. If I worked hard, I hoped, one day I would transition from a mediocre teacher to a good teacher.
With the exception of a single historiography course that I took in college, I learned a powerful lesson about teaching history. History teachers talked; and if they were good, they would talk about more than the textbook. And history students listened. And if they were good students, they would also take copious notes, recalling much of these notes from memory when assessed.
As a teacher in training, I remember feeling a combination of awe and anxiety when I tried to imagine myself one day lecturing to my classes. Would I ever know as much as my professors, I wondered? I had a difficult time believing that one day I would be able to teach a forty minute or, even worse, a ninety minute class. How would I be able to talk that much? That was my focus when I thought about teaching.
Fast forward to 2013. When I look back on my teaching career, I am going to remember 2013 as the first school year that I was a connected educator. In the late spring and summer of 2013, I started to become more active on Twitter. Now, in January 2014, close to 10,000 tweets later, here I am. I am a co-founder and moderator of three active Twitter chats: #hsgovchat, #inquirychat, and #econchat. And, most importantly, each time I participate in one of these chats, or exchange ideas with other teachers, I am better for it. We learn and grow when we collaborate, question, and share. During my first twelve years of teaching, opportunities for collaboration and sharing were infrequent.
Since having to draft my first philosophy of education in college, I have always had some constructivist ideas embedded in my thinking about teaching and learning. In practice, however, my actions have not been aligned with these views. Since becoming more active on Twitter, and since being pushed to create common assessments with my colleagues, I have been forced to define what I really value as a social studies teacher. My tweets and my blog, I think, have captured my desire to become a better social studies teacher.
Returning to this month’s central question, what’s the difference between teaching students facts vs. teaching them to think like an historian? Put simply, I realize more than ever that critical thinking must encompass all that we do.
In classrooms where factual recall is the main emphasis, how well do students learn the skills associated with active, reflective citizenship? It is essential that we consider what we are trying to accomplish when we teach our students history.
Though it is not our only job, teaching students facts is not as simple as many make it out to be. We need to be thoughtful about the epistemological realities that exist when we choose which facts to teach our students. Who decides? The textbook publisher? Which facts are being left out of our lessons? And why are they being left out? And a ‘just the facts’ approach is not enough, is it? How could it be? After all, we need to teach students concepts, generalizations, and skills.
Critical thinking skills must be integrated into all that we do. And when we say critical thinking, we must be clear about what we mean by that term. Critical thinking is evaluative thinking. To evaluate means to make a judgment against some kind of criteria. What kind of judgments should students be making in our history classes? (maybe next month’s topic…?)
To help our students become better critical thinkers we must embed regular feedback procedures into our lessons. Teaching that doesn’t involve a series of feedback loops is not teaching; at best, it is talking, the spewing of content for students to regurgitate. This, to steal a term from Frank Nochese, is pseudo teaching.
@LS_Karl
History Ed Blog Circle: January
So there are my two cents: history classes should focus on historical thinking and not on memorizing a list of facts. Yes, some factual knowledge is needed to go out and do that historical thinking. However, this should be pared down as much as possible to just prepare students for the more difficult work that I believe a history class should focus on.
When Joe Taraborrelli tweeted me about his idea about doing a history educators blog circle, I was immediately intrigued. When I read his blog post about it - and read the topic for January (teaching students a list of facts about the past versus teaching them to think historically) - I was more intrigued. Because I've spent some time thinking about this topic.
My starting point for this discussion is one that I imagine some history teachers would find heretical: I'm not interested in assessing any student in my room ever on a fact they can find on Google. Yes, that means no tests. And I'm okay with that.
So clearly I won't be siding with the teaching students a list of facts side.
This leaves teaching students to think historically. I was lucky enough to get to get take the curriculum and instruction part of my masters degree studying with Sam Wineburg. Sam is a pioneer in being explicit about the mindset that we as historians approach documents with. We source documents. We place them in their proper context. We read for bias. Historians look for omissions or over-emphasized parts of the story. We compare versions of stories, looking to corroborate information between documents.
It's a deeper reading of primary and secondary sources. And one my ninth graders aren't used to doing as they enter my room in August of their freshmen year. This ability to do real historical thinking - and add layers of complexity to these initial skills listed in the previous paragraph - is spiraled throughout the two years in my classroom.
However.
I'm not convinced that students can do this historical thinking - the parts of my class that occupy the upper levels of Bloom's - without at least a little bit of contextual knowledge. Yeah. That means facts.
(I'm way more than willing to listen to dissenting opinions on this though.)
This belief has guided my approach this year in my classroom. My room is 1:1 with Chromebooks for the first time. I firmly believe that students should be using devices to create, not consume. However, I don't think you can ask students to go out out create without a little bit of contextual knowledge.
I've worked really hard this year on paring down just how much contextual knowledge students need to go out and think historically. Some units I've gone too far and my kids haven't had enough contextual knowledge to head out and be as successful as they and I would like them to be in their inquiry within units.
It's really a delicate balance to try to strike. If I'm not going to be assessing my students on their factual knowledge, I want to waste as little class time as possible dealing with factual sets that aren't relevant to the thinking that they'll be doing within a unit.
This means that my students are going to leave my class with some conceptual holes. Which I'm okay with. Hopefully they'll leave my class engaged in the bigger ideas of history. And the fact that history is a story, not a set of facts to be memorized.
Hopefully they'll leave my class better able to parse through conflicting accounts of news stories. Better able to pull bias from a source - any source, print or more likely digital - that is put in front of them.
So there are my two cents: history classes should focus on historical thinking and not on memorizing a list of facts. Yes, some factual knowledge is needed to go out and do that historical thinking. However, this should be pared down as much as possible to just prepare students for the more difficult work that I believe a history class should focus on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)