What to teach: a body of knowledge:
overview - chronological narrative - conceptual frameworks - thinking strategies

What to teach:
an overview

Meaning as the basis of teaching

As educators we tend to focus on what to teach rather than on what students need to learn. This is a crucial distinction. If the purpose of schooling is to prepare young people for life, then clearly our curricula must be driven by the meaningful understandings students need in order to live effectively in the world, not by pre-conceived notions about content or strategies. We believe teachers should fundamentally shift their thinking and work back from the needs of students to the assessments, lessons and materials that will effectively convey meaningful learning to students.

Because teaching for meaning is so fundamental, it encompasses philosophy, content and methods of schooling. Consequently, it was difficult to decide where on this website to locate the main discussion of meaningful teaching. It is found in the "How to teach" section, where teaching for meaning is compared with the traditional and the progressive philosophies of education.

The present "what to teach" section explores the body of knowledge to be taught in world history and geography classrooms. As you consider these thoughts, please bear in mind that the starting point of "what to teach" should always be the meaningful understandings that students need. The body of knowledge outlined here is a framework for fostering and delivering that kind of meaningful learning.

"Teaching is a complex, confusing, busy and crowded activity." - Chris Husbands

Surprising agreement on a body of knowledge

Until recently, I shared Chris Husbands's view that teaching is a very confusing activity. I was surprised to learn that considerable agreement exists among educators about the general contours of a proper history education. Unfortunately, few teachers are aware of this confluence of opinion, so - under the present circumstances - Chris Husbands is right; confusion reigns.

In preparing this area of the Student's Friend web site, I read books and articles written by more than a hundred (mostly history) educators plus reports prepared by several commissions.1 These writers and documents emphasized various aspects of history education, but when their ideas were considered together, three distinct, yet interlocking, threads emerged. An appropriate body of historical knowledge to be taught in school would include:

• A chronological narrative to provide a coherent overview of history,
• Conceptual frameworks for organizing and understanding knowledge,
• Thinking strategies, or practice in the use of historical knowledge.

If we know what to look for, we can find these elements described in a number of different places. This three-part structure may be perceived, for example, in the six history standards developed by the Department of Education in my state of Colorado. The first standard calls for students to "Understand the chronological organization of history." Standards three through six address conceptual frameworks - or themes - such as diversity, change, economic activity, technology and philosophy. Standard two deals with thinking strategies, declaring that students should "Know how to use the processes and resources of historical inquiry."2

Similar components, under different names, can also be found in the recommendations of the Bradley Commission on History in Schools,4 and in the design of the College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) World History course.

As with most things we learn in life, this three-part structure should be regarded as a provisional revelation subject to modification based on new information or emerging realities. But, for now at least, the discovery of this structure - coupled with a focus on meaningful learning - has produced in me a considerable calming effect. I am no longer confused about my teaching. With signposts to provide direction, I can focus on clear objectives rather than basing my lessons on half-formed ideas and hunches. My teaching can become more "intentional."

Each component of this three-part body of knowledge is addressed more fully in related sections of the website under the present category of "What to teach." But, before moving on to consider these components individually, let's take a few moments to reflect on the pressing need for a coherent body of knowledge in history education, and then to consider the relationships between history, geography and social studies.

The confused state of history teaching

This website begins by asking a question, "Do you know the best way to teach history?" Teachers, of course, don't know, and how could they? Few teachers have ever been introduced in any systematic way to the teaching of history. Regarding U.S. schools of education, researcher Sam Wineburg has noted, "...we would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of courses in the entire nation devoted to the teaching of history."5 Ross E. Dunn agrees, "...universities and educational agencies have so far done an inadequate job of helping either prospective or veteran teachers come to grips with world history as a conceptually coherent subject."6

Nonetheless, the principal who hires us, and the parents who entrust their children to us, expect us to know how to teach history and related social studies subjects. So, what do we do? We grab the textbook, try to round-up a few decent activities, recall our own experience in school and wing it...all the while suppressing profound feelings of inadequacy because we really don't know what we are supposed to be doing as we struggle to meet expectations placed on us

- to be subject matter and pedagogical experts
- to motivate students with our engaging and challenging lesson plans
- to cover vast quantities of material
- to address the individual learning needs of 150 disparate students
- to teach advanced critical thinking skills
- to meet state standards
- to train students to achieve high standardized test scores
- to cultivate democratic and moral values
- to celebrate the diversity of each student
- to coach, sponsor, and perform myriad other teacher chores and duties
- and, oh yes, to prepare young people to live successful adult lives.

As social studies teachers, we come from diverse academic backgrounds. Although half of us are not trained in history, we are nonetheless called upon to teach history courses. Diane Ravich cites a recent study that found that over 49 percent "of those who teach two or more classes of history or world civilization do not have a history major or minor." Teachers who majored in anthropology or physical education are likely to have very different ideas about teaching history than those with a history degree. According to Ravich,

"...it should be a matter of deep concern that so many social studies teachers have neither a major nor a minor in history....How can these teachers enable their students to see the relevance of the past if they know very little of the past themselves?"

Ravich quotes a teacher who said, "People who don't know any history are being asked to train others in historical methods and ideas, and it is not working."7 Meanwhile, teachers work in isolation in their classrooms, having little opportunity to observe and help one another to overcome shortcomings and hone their teaching skills.

Teachers are left on their own to navigate the "smoky battleground" of competing philosophical positions surrounding the teaching of history. Traditionalists believe knowledge to be important, while progressives deemphasize knowledge in favor of skills or "learning-by-doing." Educators debate the relative merits of teaching an historical overview (called coverage) versus instruction based on in-depth investigations of a limited number of historical episodes (postholing). Meanwhile, professors and politicians clash publicly and vociferously over what historical content - whose history - should be taught in the schools.

Teachers may be only vaguely aware of these competing currents of educational opinion, encountering them only as the teacher is buffeted by the shifting winds of education reform measures or the directives of an administrator recently returned from a conference. Teachers change teaching assignments frequently - or they may leave the profession - before they have become truly knowledgeable about the subjects they teach. Meanwhile, some perceptive and talented teachers find ways to bring coherence and value to their teaching.

In short, history teaching is all over the map, hardly an ideal situation for students. Sam Wineburg writes, "...students experience a haphazard diversity, a hodgepodge of different views that they, as novices, are expected to synthesize. A diversity built on acknowledged differences of knowledge, background, and opinion is laudable; but one that results from isolation and ignorance benefits no one, least of all students."8

This condition is not a new one. In 1907 William C. Bagley, founder of the Journal of Educational Psychology, lamented "the waves of fads and reforms that sweep through educational systems," and the reformers who "leave teacher and pupil to work out each his own salvation in the chaos of confusion and disorder."9

Shall we continue to subject our children to chaos, confusion and disorder, to a haphazard hodgepodge? Or, do we have an obligation to identify approaches that can bring a degree of order to the teaching of history so that history education may perform its important functions in society? Ross E. Dunn asserts, "we need to regard world history education as a particularly serious and critical business, not as a low-priority subject governed by fuzzy, contradictory ideas..."10

This web site is based on a belief that a coherent understanding of the history teaching enterprise is possible, and that such an understanding will benefit teachers and their students. But, before we attempt to better understand the nature of history teaching, we should be clear about what we are discussing.

History and geography

Because world history is the story of human experience, it encompasses other human-centered disciplines such as anthropology, economics and geography. The relationship between history and geography is especially intimate.11 Geography, concerned as it is with human-environment interaction, represents the spatial dimension of human activity while history represents the time dimension. Neither can be adequately understood in the absence of the other, so it only makes sense to study them together, especially at the pre-college level. Separating history and geography in school is arbitrary, anti-intellectual and ineffectual. (See: Combining World History and Geography)

Of course, any talk of combining two academic disciplines is likely to raise concerns among their practitioners - will each subject be given its due? While modern historians appear quite willing to acknowledge their debt to geographic thinking, geographers may be less inclined to recognize their dependence on history because history has traditionally occupied the dominant position in the social studies curriculum; geographers may feel the need to protect their discipline from being overshadowed or diminished in a combined curriculum.

Mark N. Krug has written about this sensitivity among geographers:

"For understandable reasons, geographers are somewhat self-conscious about their discipline. They want its integrity and usefulness preserved on its own terns. They object when it is not considered a field of study worthy of attention for its own sake, and are not happy when arguments supportive of geography are based on its usefulness to other disciplines, especially history."

Nonetheless, Krug could not escape the reality that the two disciplines are closely interdependent. He wrote:

"Both geography and history are man-centered. The geographer studies the physical environment, but only as a reservoir or the theater of operations of man...Thus, the geographer, although using different perspectives and foci, is, like the historian, interested in the total, integrated human experience."12

The National History Standards, the National Geography Standards, the Bradley Commission on History in Schools and many others have acknowledged the close relationship between geography and history. School districts across the country have responded to this reality by integrating geography and history in the curriculum. This web site advocates combining history and geography in school because we teachers are concerned about effective learning, not about maintaining artificial and counterproductive shibboleths.

Historians and geographers would do well to repress their turf insecurities and focus on the serious business of educating our young. Geographers need to take a deep breath and acknowledge that history is the broader discipline and that geography is a component of history education in school. Historians, on the other hand, must live with the embarrassing reality that their discipline doesn't really have any content of its own, that their subject matter is derived from other disciplines such as geography, political science, sociology, economics and the like.

History, geography and social studies

What is the relationship between history, geography and social studies? Social studies is a term that refers to the study of any or all of the social sciences, which include history, geography, government, political science, economics, anthropology, philosophy, psychology and sociology. In truth, most high school social studies teachers teach history, geography or government (sometimes called civics). These subjects are termed the "foundational disciplines" of social studies by the National Council for the Social Studies.13 Larger schools may offer courses in other social sciences as well.

Even when schools offer only history, geography or government, other social science disciplines nonetheless contribute to the curriculum as educators draw upon these fields to provide subject matter and useful modes of examining concepts studied in the foundational subjects. The Bradley Commission on History in Schools, which places history and geography at the center of the social studies curriculum, described the relationship with this way:

"...history and geography provide the context of time and place for ideas and methods drawn from the social sciences - anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. In turn, the formulations of the social sciences offer lively questions to explore in the historical narrative, and numberless insights to enrich it."14

Today the term "social studies" generally refers to the academic department in school where history, geography and government (and perhaps other social sciences) are taught. In decades past, however, social studies was promoted as a course of study in its own right. Instead of studying the traditional subjects students would be exposed to an amalgamation of concepts mined from the various social science disciplines. This approach eventually fell into disfavor with critics calling it a "hash," a "useless catch-all" and a "dumping ground for fad courses."15 Schools have since gravitated back to the traditional subjects of history, geography and government which provide more coherent and rigorous frameworks for integrating useful knowledge from the social sciences.

March, 2002

Notes:

1. My review of literature relating to history education makes no claim of comprehensiveness. It has been about as extensive as I could manage within the constraints imposed by a full-time teaching job and a desire to complete this web site during my lifetime. If I have overlooked a useful source, please let me know. Works reviewed include:
- A Vision of Powerful Teaching and Learning in the Social Studies, position statement of the National Council for the Social Studies, 1992 revised
- Barzun, Jacques, Begin Here: The Forgotten Conditions of Teaching and Learning, The University of Chicago Press, 1991
- Bradley Commission on History in Schools, Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools, National Council for History Education,1988
- Bransford, John D., Brown, Ann l., and Cocking, Rodney R., eds, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Research Council, 1999
- Building a World History Curriculum, National Council for History Education, 1997
- Dempster, Frank N.,"Exposing our students to less should help them learn more." Phi Delta Kappan, February, 1993
- Dewey, John, Experience and Education, Simon & Schuster, 1997, original copyright 1938
- Dunn, Ross E.,editor, The New World History, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000, a compilation of articles from fifty-two contributors
- Furay, Conal and Salevouris, Michael J., The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide, 2nd edition, Harlan Davidson, 2000
- Hirsch, E.D., Jr., The Schools We Need & Why We Don't Have Them, Doubleday, 1996
- Husbands, Chris, What is History Teaching?, Open University Press, 1996
- Kohn, Alfie, The Schools our Children Deserve, Houghton Mifflin, 2000
- Krug, Mark M., History & the Social Sciences, Blaisdell, 1967
- National Geography Standards, National Council for Geography Education, 1994
- National Standards for History, Basic Edition, National Center for History in the Schools, 1996
- Ravitch, Diane, Left Back, A Century of Failed School Reforms, Simon and Schuster, 2000
- Roupp, Heidi, editor, Teaching World History: A Resource Book, M.E. Sharpe, 1997, a compilation of articles from fifty-six contributors.
- Southgate, Beverly, Why Bother with History?, Pearson Education, 2000
- Stearns, Peter N., et all, editors, Knowing, Teaching & Learning History, New York University Press, 2000, a compilation of articles from twenty-eight contributors.
- Stearns, Peter N., Meaning Over Memory, The University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
- Wiggins, Grant and McTighe, Jay, Understanding by Design, Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998
- Wineburg, Sam, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts, Temple University Press, 2001

2. Model Content Standards in History, Colorado Department of Education

3. Hitchens, Marilynn, "World History as a Course of Study," in Roupp, Heidi, editor, Teaching World History: A Resource Book, M.E. Sharpe, 1997

4 Bradley Commission on History in Schools, Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools, National Council for History Education,1988

5. Wineburg, Sam, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts, Temple University Press, 2001.

6. Dunn, Ross E., "Constructing World History in the Classroom," in Stearns, Peter N., et all, editors, Knowing, Teaching & Learning History, New York University Press, 2000

7. Ravich, Diane, "The Educational Backgrounds of History Teachers," from Knowing, Teaching & Learning History, Peter N. Stearns et al., editors, New York University Press, 200

8. Wineburg, Sam, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts, Temple University Press, 2001.

9. Ravitch, Diane, Left Back, A Century of Failed School Reforms, Simon and Schuster, 2000

10. Dunn, Ross E., "Constructing World History in the Classroom," in Stearns, Peter N., et all, editors, Knowing, Teaching & Learning History, New York University Press, 2000

11. For a discussion of geography's profound effects on the development of human societies, see Jared Diamond's Pulitzer Prize winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, W.W. Norton, 1997

12. Krug, Mark M., History and the Social Sciences, Blaisdell, 1967

13. A Vision of Powerful Teaching and Learning in the Social Studies, a position statement of the National Council for the Social Studies, 1992 revised

14. Bradley Commission on History in Schools, Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools, National Council for History Education, 2000

15. Barzun, Jacques, Begin Here: The Forgotten Conditions of Teaching and Learning, The University of Chicago Press, 1991