|
|
|
Structuring the Past: Thinking about the History Curriculum
Stephen D. Andrews
| It is familiar territory. |
1
|
|
When newly hired history faculty members arrive on campus for their first semester, they can usually be sure that they already know the curricular landscape. They can safely assume that they will teach courses that trace the expected life cycle of the history undergraduate. Their students will start with large surveys taught in a lecture format, move to slightly smaller, more specialized classes on particular topics or periods taught through a mix of lecture and discussion, and possibly conclude with seminars taught mainly to honors students, senior history majors, or graduate students. In short, it will be the same curriculum they experienced as undergraduates. Although the exact numbers involved and the internal architecture of the courses may vary, the overall trajectory of history education remains remarkably constant in departments across the country.1 |
2
|
|
That relative uniformity is surprising given the extent of change in the college classroom in the past decade. Since the 1960s, many pedagogical theories have encouraged opening and de-centering the classroom, so that students take a more active role in setting the intellectual agenda. More recently, wired campuses have provided a wealth of technological tools, which present another opportunity to rethink the relationship between teachers and students. The availability of primary texts online, the access to video and audio material, and the ease of sharing information have produced new ideas about the boundaries of the classroom experience. Many institutions have recognized the possibilities unlocked by those changes and offer classroom observation and consultation, pedagogical workshops, and instruction on how to integrate technology into the classroom. However, while individual classes are highly differentiated in their pedagogical methods and approach, there seems to be less variety when it comes to organizing an overall curriculum. Over the past two decades, a gulf has widened between the innovation that characterizes individual classes and the uniformity among department curricula. |
3
|
| |
|
The Evolution of the Present Curricula and Challenges to Change | |
| The traditional pyramidal structure, in which students are expected to move from broad acquisition of information toward mastery of a particular subject, has long been the standard format of history instruction. In its most general outline, the now-traditional model was hammered out in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when it replaced older models of textbook recitation. In his brief description of the emergence of the modern curriculum, W. Wayne Dedman argues that "by 1900 the lecture was the accepted method of instruction at the undergraduate level, and shared with the seminar the attention of graduate students." By the end of the nineteenth century, with a proliferation in the variety of courses offered (often following a periodization that would not be out of place in today's course catalog) and the adoption of new methods of instruction, the modern curriculum had emerged. "The day of the 'big' history department," Dedman argues, "as well as the day of the 'big' university was clearly dawning in 1900."2 |
. . . |
There are about 4084 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
