Saturday, April 12, 2003
One of my "contemplations" at the moment is how to use blogs in the classroom or in teaching in general. I'm thinking about having my history teaching students work on a joint blog in the fall in addition to Blackboard. We're not updating to version 6 like Greenbush and I'm sure I'll get frustrated at not having the newer features (especially the cut and paste between courses).
In my reading this afternoon, I see another way to utilize the blog concept - thinking aloud about what you've read. I didn't come to like history until I was a college student - or should I say as a school subject - I can remember reading a short book on Hitler and Nazism on my grandmother's back stairs in what was probably junior high. Going to graduate school in history was not anything like I expected - the competition and the dynamic forces of very specialized professors was not what I had envisioned. I remember taking chapters of survey readers to use in my junior high and later high school courses. I took a manageable amount of information and applied it to what I was doing in the classroom (in fact, very similar to what the new assessment focus is on - student learning) although I had no formal way of measuring it. But I realize(d) I was looking for a broader understanding of the real story and not just the textbook version. On the other hand, straying too far from the text often led to student confusion. The current emphasis on primary sources is useful but often overdone - especially when students don't have the context (or the proper context) for the historical documents. In other words, we've thrown out the baby with the bathwater when we've attempted to throw out the text.
I'm currently reading Sam Wineburg's Historical Thinking and it is getting me to think. One of many interesting points is that in comparing a history major and a non-history major, some surprising results occurred. The history major related the primary sources to what he already knew and compared it to what he knew as the historical record whereas the non-history majors was continually interacting with the documents and trying to find meaning by applying what she already knew about human behavior (not limited to history) and then, in the end, doing a much better job of weaving together the story being told by the documents and comparing and contrasting said documents. There are great references throughout the book and I will copy the chapter-end notes so that I can follow through on them. I will also go to Amazon to order my own copy of the book. (Having amassed way too many books, I now utilize ILL and then buy them if I think I will refer to them later or just take notes on the few relevant passages).
Wineburg, for example, does a much better job of explaining why Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale is such an important book. I looked at it, courtesy of ILL, a few months ago and found it quite pedantic - but that was probably because it is about a subject that doesn't really interest me.
So, let's see how successful I can be in using this blog to help make sense of my own reading. It will help me slow down a bit and process instead of just continually amassing knowledge and losing meaning in the process. I'm fulfilling the blog descriptor of tangential here because the point I meant to make a few paragraphs ago was that going to graduate school totally changed my approach to history to one of less interaction and I want to go back to that - to really enjoy it instead of see it as yet another, albeit enjoyable, task.
I liked the reference in the work to someone who said those who don't learn history will remain a child - maybe that will get the attention of the teenagers and young adults I teach.......:}
Historical cognition is a relatively knew field and I also liked the comment that the cause and effect, although still complicated, is much easier to determine in the sciences. A few decades ago, historians were busy trying to justify themselves along scientific lines when it really wasn't a) necessary or b) possible. Learning is an individual experience that can't always be measured from the outside. I think we're rounding that same curve today as the state (and national) education establishment emphasizes the collection of data as the "best way" of "knowing" if students learn.
A point well made was that students often accept the written word as "the one right answer or explanation" - I've known this but haven't thought of a good way to make sure students understand. Bringing them more directly into the process with active reading is one way to do this. Having them develop reading guides can also be useful - if the assignment is taken seriously.
That leads me to thinking something very crucial - all this is assuming that the students want to learn history - if we push them too hard to go beyond the "traditional" way of learning, we can lose them if we don't approach this right. Some of the old styles - like a great lecture - still work. It's just like analyzing people, if we knew the one right way to raise kids, we'd all be perfect. While that is a sweeping generality I'll admit, there is no one right way to do this. Just like the things I still hear today about my early teaching days in the late 80s (1980s that is :} ) at the junior high and senior high level - my high level of concern and caring had a long-lasting impact even if it was not readily apparent in the classroom............and should I say taken advantage of by some students.
I'm going to go wash the windows while it's still sunny outside. The indoor stuff can wait for a rainy day. But the time will help me process further ........... and relax, believe it or not.
In my reading this afternoon, I see another way to utilize the blog concept - thinking aloud about what you've read. I didn't come to like history until I was a college student - or should I say as a school subject - I can remember reading a short book on Hitler and Nazism on my grandmother's back stairs in what was probably junior high. Going to graduate school in history was not anything like I expected - the competition and the dynamic forces of very specialized professors was not what I had envisioned. I remember taking chapters of survey readers to use in my junior high and later high school courses. I took a manageable amount of information and applied it to what I was doing in the classroom (in fact, very similar to what the new assessment focus is on - student learning) although I had no formal way of measuring it. But I realize(d) I was looking for a broader understanding of the real story and not just the textbook version. On the other hand, straying too far from the text often led to student confusion. The current emphasis on primary sources is useful but often overdone - especially when students don't have the context (or the proper context) for the historical documents. In other words, we've thrown out the baby with the bathwater when we've attempted to throw out the text.
I'm currently reading Sam Wineburg's Historical Thinking and it is getting me to think. One of many interesting points is that in comparing a history major and a non-history major, some surprising results occurred. The history major related the primary sources to what he already knew and compared it to what he knew as the historical record whereas the non-history majors was continually interacting with the documents and trying to find meaning by applying what she already knew about human behavior (not limited to history) and then, in the end, doing a much better job of weaving together the story being told by the documents and comparing and contrasting said documents. There are great references throughout the book and I will copy the chapter-end notes so that I can follow through on them. I will also go to Amazon to order my own copy of the book. (Having amassed way too many books, I now utilize ILL and then buy them if I think I will refer to them later or just take notes on the few relevant passages).
Wineburg, for example, does a much better job of explaining why Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale is such an important book. I looked at it, courtesy of ILL, a few months ago and found it quite pedantic - but that was probably because it is about a subject that doesn't really interest me.
So, let's see how successful I can be in using this blog to help make sense of my own reading. It will help me slow down a bit and process instead of just continually amassing knowledge and losing meaning in the process. I'm fulfilling the blog descriptor of tangential here because the point I meant to make a few paragraphs ago was that going to graduate school totally changed my approach to history to one of less interaction and I want to go back to that - to really enjoy it instead of see it as yet another, albeit enjoyable, task.
I liked the reference in the work to someone who said those who don't learn history will remain a child - maybe that will get the attention of the teenagers and young adults I teach.......:}
Historical cognition is a relatively knew field and I also liked the comment that the cause and effect, although still complicated, is much easier to determine in the sciences. A few decades ago, historians were busy trying to justify themselves along scientific lines when it really wasn't a) necessary or b) possible. Learning is an individual experience that can't always be measured from the outside. I think we're rounding that same curve today as the state (and national) education establishment emphasizes the collection of data as the "best way" of "knowing" if students learn.
A point well made was that students often accept the written word as "the one right answer or explanation" - I've known this but haven't thought of a good way to make sure students understand. Bringing them more directly into the process with active reading is one way to do this. Having them develop reading guides can also be useful - if the assignment is taken seriously.
That leads me to thinking something very crucial - all this is assuming that the students want to learn history - if we push them too hard to go beyond the "traditional" way of learning, we can lose them if we don't approach this right. Some of the old styles - like a great lecture - still work. It's just like analyzing people, if we knew the one right way to raise kids, we'd all be perfect. While that is a sweeping generality I'll admit, there is no one right way to do this. Just like the things I still hear today about my early teaching days in the late 80s (1980s that is :} ) at the junior high and senior high level - my high level of concern and caring had a long-lasting impact even if it was not readily apparent in the classroom............and should I say taken advantage of by some students.
I'm going to go wash the windows while it's still sunny outside. The indoor stuff can wait for a rainy day. But the time will help me process further ........... and relax, believe it or not.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]