@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.