Comments on: Putting the story before the student: a reply to Colonel Steve about teaching history

By: Col Steve

Col Steve — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:31:10 +0000

Hugo -
I shudder to think of leaving critical thinking to only philosophers (although I did get a kick out of this article - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200606/stewart-business - apologize most of the article is “subscriber only).

Following Cliopatria links - here is a quote from a blog entry

http://doctorhistory.blogspot.com/2006/06/historians-more-likely-to-indoctrinate.html

“I am sure there are some out there who would argue that it is the professor’s job to present all the various interpretations to students and let them decide which is correct. And I think that in upper level classes this is more attainable. But in survey courses, students need some direction - some analysis of events, if history is going to make sense. It is the professor’s responsibility in survey classes to sift through the various interpretations using the analytical skills they acquired at graduate school and working with the accepted paradigms of the profession to present to students the best understanding of events currently available.”

I appreciate the problems in large survey courses. For example, I’m sure a professor could can tell various stories on Margaret Sanger depending on which contributions and which motivations one thinks are her legacy. Large class size and expansive topics don’t allow for the full give and take perhaps due historical people and events. I guess I side on learning the narrative as a vehicle for something greater than just the narrative itself which means I would put the student ahead of the story.

By: sevres

sevres — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:01:07 +0000

You’re of course right to note that class size is a big factor. I think there are lots of things at play here–for one, community college courses vary amongst themselves and are also structured differently than those at big state universities or small liberal arts colleges or online. That’s not to say that there is a hierarchy, just that different courses have different strengths and weaknesses, and profs can serve certain interests in each format. Still, I’m fairly certain from reading your blog regularly that you provide a greater amount of “deconstruction” in the classroom than your original post might imply. To my mind, talking with classes as a whole about arguments that authors make in the readings, or the way that, say, Bush draws on the legacy of FDR, or any of a myriad of other interventions–all of that can constitute the teaching of critical reading/writing skills. I think that may be the way that History can complement what the students get in the Comp classes–a tangible big-picture sense of the way that arguments are made and why they matter. Then the English profs work with them on honing their skills. Well, at least, that’s how it plays out in my mind, for what little that’s worth. :)

By: Hugo

Hugo — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:52:06 +0000

And here’s the other problem, sevres. During the semester I teach seven classes, with 35-45 students each. That’s a minimum of 280 students per term, and I have no TAs or readers. How much time and attention can I give to each student’s writing? I can give everyone a well-constructed and important story, but I can’t have 280 meetings to go over thesis statements! English classes are smaller and the teaching loads are adjusted for the enormous amount of writing the profs are expected to read.

By: sevres

sevres — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:54:19 +0000

I think that you understate in this post the importance of critical reading skills. Sure students can theoretically learn what a “thesis statement” is in a Comp class. But I teach History, and my number one concern is that the students gain the skills needed to embark on a lifetime of learning. It’s great if they learn the key moments of Lincoln’s presidency. It’s even better if they also learn the relationship between “fact” and “interpretation,” so that they can write good essays and also understand the ways that history is used, not only by historians, but also by political figures, journalists, etc. I think students come to college having had the “narrative” of history shoved down their throats, largely to the detriment of learning. I attended a not-good high school very near PCC, and we learned that history came from textbooks. Only in college did I come to see the mutability of the narrative itself, and I am grateful to my professors for crediting us with the intelligence to take learning to a higher level. To my mind, the two skills (learning narrative and critical reading) fuel and inform each other, and true education incorporates the two. In my experience, that was the difference between high school history classes and college ones. Just my two cents, of course.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:10:19 +0000

Thanks for a long and thoughtful response, Col Steve. Here’s where we differ: I certainly think teaching critical thinking skills is one aspect of the historian’s job, but it is not the primary one. In a sense, that is the philosopher’s job –and indeed, here at PCC we have a course taught in the philosophy department called “critical thinking” I’m not qualifited to teach it!

Yes, we ought to teach how to reason and to argue. But teaching skills is less important than making certain that the narrative is learned. That’s the unique job of the historian — to give an account of the past that, while imperfect, is perhaps the student’s only chance to understand how we got here. They can learn what a thesis statement is from anyone — but will they learn about Pompey and Crassus, Elizabeth Blackwell and Lucy Stone?

By: Col Steve

Col Steve — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:34:19 +0000

Hugo -
Landis had a great comeback after the other day - should be an exciting time trial.

Thanks for taking time and space to answer my question. I think have a little trouble with what your wrote though.

>> “History is the record of the human past, the understanding of which is filtered by time and by bias. We see earlier societies and events “through a glass darkly”, but we can still see — and the chief job of the historian is to tell, as honestly and convincingly and effectively as he or she can — what it is that lies on the other side of that glass. Our students might like the narratives to be a bit easier; they might like having to know fewer names and dates and details. But while every good history professor wants to maximize student learning, the good historian’s first professional obligation is not to the student but to the story itself.”

By: elizabeth

elizabeth — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:24:09 +0000

All well and good - except that the traditional Celtic bard spend seven years not simply learning the stories, but learning how to present them in the most compelling form. Antonia Fraser may not be the world’s best historian; but she has made millions of people aware of parts of history because she cares so much about her material that how her audience can recieve it becomes as important.

I certainly like the idea of Historian as vocation; a higher calling. The worse university history teachers are those who crush the excitement of thier students in order to maintain the order of facts and figures. The best were those who taught students to see the interplay and giant soap opera that History really is. The “facts” may stay the same, but one generation’s traitor may become the next generations resistance leader (Che Guevera?) - It seems that the meaning of history is a fluid exchange between student’s needs and shifting understanding.

By: harpy

harpy — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:02:39 +0000

As an aside, have you read Silvia Federici’s ‘Caliban and the Witch’? Not strictly history, more political philosophy, but certainly feminist, and she basically uses historical evidence and analysis. Fascinating book.