35.3  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
May, 2002
Previous
Table of Contents
Next
The History Teacher

Table of contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 

  


A Decade of Debate: Improving Content and Interest in History Education

Allan E. Yarema
Abilene Christian University


LOW SCORES IN NATIONAL TESTING demonstrated that a need existed to improve history education. During the late 1980s and early 1990s a debate ensued. While many different opinions existed as to why this was happening, differences also were expressed as to the solutions. Traditionally, history teachers had utilized the textbook-lecture approach in teaching history. However, a review of the literature shows that new approaches in history education were being encouraged which would increase both content literacy and interest in history. 1
     In one of the first attempts to assess what American seventeen-year-olds knew about history, Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr. nationally surveyed 8,000 eleventh-grade students. Funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the study found that students could correctly answer only fifty-four percent of the questions. The authors of the study concluded that if a national report card were given based on the achievement of 11th grade students in American history and literature, the nation would have earned failing grades.1One year later, in 1988, the Bradley Commission on History in Schools was created in response to widespread concern over the inadequacy, both in quantity and in quality, of history taught in American elementary and secondary classrooms. Composed of sixteen scholars and teachers, the Bradley Commission reported that fifteen percent of students do not take American history in high school and that more than fifty percent of them study neither Western civilization nor world history.2The Dallas Morning News reported that a 1994 United States history test by the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only ten percent of 22,000 high school seniors in public and private schools were considered proficient. Alarmingly, fifty-seven percent of the seniors did not indicate even a basic understanding of American history.3 2
     Defending the findings and recommendations of the Bradley Commission, Kenneth Jackson recognized that college faculty are responsible for weaknesses in secondary history education.4 George Burson also noted, "secondary school history teachers are the product of their college training. If a high school history teacher graduates ill-educated students, his history and education professors must accept part of the responsibility."5Barrie Ratcliffe claimed that "a bold restructuring of curriculum is a more effective response to the critical problems posed to undergraduate history than stoic resignation, piecemeal course innovations, and minor tinkering with requirements that have constituted the reactions of most universities."6Peter Stearns agreed, arguing that the survey courses in particular must be "overhauled" and that "mere tinkering will not suffice."7Additionally, Liberal Learning and the History Major called for history education reform at the postsecondary level.8 3
     Ravitch and Finn and the Bradley Commission suggested that the cause for low scores in history was a decline in attention given to history and that the possible solution for this dilemma was more history instruction. For example, Ravitch and Finn claimed that to develop an in-depth understanding of history, students needed to sequentially study history for ten or eleven years, beginning in elementary school.9 The Bradley Commission also called for the teaching of history in grades K-6 with four years of history from grades 7 to 12. In addition, the Commission recommended that teachers of social studies in the middle and high schools should have at least a minor in history, with a major in history preferred.10 4
     Others, however, questioned these proposals. Sue Harmon-Byser and Dixie M. Bocallao disputed the assertion of the Bradley Commission that more history was needed.11 Burson claimed that history content was already too extensive and doubted that increasing the amount of time students spend studying history would create a "historically literate" person.12 The challenge, according to Ronald W. Evans, was not more history, but making history "real, vital, and meaningful to our students."13 Rodney M. White asserted that a student in a lecture class often became "a passive receiver of more information than one could ever hope to comprehend, analyze, and encode."14 5
     The traditional curriculum in teaching history was found to focus on a textbook using a narrative, chronological approach. The textbook was utilized in order to provide additional detail, thus saving class time.15 In a case study employing document analysis, classroom observations, personal interviews and questionnaire surveys, Paul Alan Skolnik found that history instruction was teacher-centered and oriented to the textbook.16Others also concluded that teachers generally dominate the discussion and the classroom.17 But the textbook-lecture method also had its defenders because of the great amount of information that can be disseminated and coherently examined.18 6
     Most of the literature on this subject, however, indicated that the textbook-lecture approach does have limitations. Benjamin Conway Gregory found in his study of a 10th-grade college preparatory world history class that history instruction was content-driven with stress on textbook and factual learning. The study also suggested that the teacher's reliance on lecture and the use of the textbook attributed to a poor assessment.19Charlotte Pauley Sellers conducted a study investigating writing assignments in selected United States history textbooks and accompanying teacher manuals in history courses mandated by the state of Virginia. Results indicated that writing assignments in United States history textbooks asked students to recall information and seldom required students to write creatively.20 Marinka Bliss Hervey questioned 492 high school students in northern New Jersey to determine their ability to comprehend their United States history textbooks and their opinions about United States history. Using the Degrees of Reading Power test, PA-form, and a Likert-type scale, Hervey found that only thirty percent of the students could read their textbooks easily.21 7
     Because of the demands of comprehensive coverage, history textbooks generally were found deficient in themes and depth. Consequently, John C. Simmonds claimed that textbooks have included only generalized conclusions, reflecting consensus rather than debating important historical issues.22 According to James W. Loewen in Lies My Teacher Told Me, history textbooks were found to be boring because they were overly full of information and typically omited conflict and suspense. Loewen also noted that textbooks encouraged students to believe that history is comprised of facts to be learned and memorized.23 It was argued that dull textbooks resulted from pressures on publishers to avoid offending powerful groups, and that this led to textbooks that omited any real analysis of American society.24 The academic community was found to be primarily responsible for this condition of history textbooks. Matthew T. Downey asserted that the academic community has neglected its obligation to provide sufficient guidance or standards to the publishers of history textbooks.25 8
     Two years after the Bradley Commission study, one of the commissioners commented that teachers needed freedom from mandates which required certain textbooks. Similarly, teachers required flexibility in choosing teaching methods and teaching materials that enhance the interest of their students. Without this flexibility, teachers were confronted with unforeseen difficulties.26 Teachers needed to help students enjoy studying history. This could be accomplished if the teacher's own attitude toward the subject was enthusiastic and if the teacher interacted with the students. The interaction could be as simple as getting the students to read the daily newspaper. In this way students could see what was happening in the world around them and could seek answers to current problems by looking at the underlying historical background that led to the problem. This approach could act as a "hook" to get students interested in history and to keep that interest by giving assignments that demanded more from the student.27 9
     Part of the problem experienced in teaching history was attributed to students who are "present-oriented" because of technological advances, especially in the media.28 Encouraging students to develop a sense of history and connection with earlier generations was thought to be difficult. Some educators urged that another way to encourage a sense of history and connection was to personalize history by encouraging students to interview relatives, especially those who had lived through events such as the Great Depression, or to prepare short family histories.29 10
     Many professionals suggested that, in general, current events along with the traditional content of history could build student involvement. Thus, beginning with the present, students could be led to seek to explain current events by searching for the roots in the past. In fact, avoiding the association of the present with the past, Gaddis argued, was probably the most significant obstacle to effective history instruction.30 By looking at what was currently happening amd providing current statistics, students could be "challenged to discuss events and processes in the past that cause these differences."31 This suggestion has deep roots. As early as 1964, The Teaching of American History in High Schools argued that American history courses must include discussion of current events, even if that meant excluding some topics.32 After all, it was observed, the work of historians is often affected by current problems and debates that determine what historical issues and questions should be pursued.33 11
     A descriptive study conducted by Stanton Burgess Turner examined the opinions of students, instructors, administrators, and parents concerning the usefulness of history. The study concluded that topics relevant to students' lives were perceived as most useful and suggested that the history curriculum needed to be designed to help students see the utility of studying history. 34 12
     Teachers could also make instruction in history more effective by using literary works such as biographies, historical fictions, novels, and in particular, short stories. This literature-based approach was thought to have the potential to create interest and to help students to experience the drama and excitement of the times, to capture human emotions, to dramatize the issues and struggles of earlier times, to provide a human aspect that names, dates, and places cannot, and to develop reading and writing skills.35A reading list of fiction covering the various periods of history was suggested which might help students to look beyond just the factual material offered in textbooks.36 Students not motivated by the traditional approaches to teaching history could be urged to read prose, poetry, or songs to understand and interpret a particular era.37 13
     Judy Elizabeth Van Middendorp studied eighth-grade United States history students who were given literature related to the topics discussed. She found that these students were capable of higher order thinking skills and their attitudes and perceptions about history were changing.38 Supporting such an approach, Denee Joyce Corbin conducted a study of fifth-grade students from four separate schools, divided into two groups: a textbook group and a literature group. While, both the literature and the textbook groups showed no statistical significance in the rate of achievement when given the California Achievement Test, a statistically significant gain in interest was demonstrated by the literature group over the textbook group.39In a study conducted on sixth grade students learning about China, a literature-based approach group scored better on an eighty-eight-item concept test than the textbook-based approach group.40 John E. Readence, Thomas W. Bean and R. Scott Baldwin argued that a "good novel can illuminate otherwise dull facts in history...." They also added that "fiction by its nature propels students into high level interpretive thinking" that textbooks do not allow because of their narrow, factual scope.41Henry Steele Commager noted that the "average reader, past and present, gets his sense and knowledge of history through fiction, in print, or on television, rather than through formal historical monographs."42 14
     Popular movies also were advocated as an aid to teaching history. Prior to viewing a film, students should be assigned selected readings, and then they should discuss how accurately the film depicted a historical event. However, a movie may say more about an era in which the film was made than the time period it purports to show.43 15
     Taking trips to museums also has been cited as an effective way to interest and teach students about history. John Hensley argued that museums and historic houses "'recapture' the sight and sounds, and smells of the past for students" and "allow museum-goers [to] learn about them [the objects] and the people who made them and used them in a manner that complements what they read."44 It was observed, further, that historic places could be used as teaching tools. Every town, community, and state has a history. Students could be given a work sheet which delineates what to look for and they would benefit from the visit because these places represent a story that ignites student imagination and heightens curiosity.45Besides studying their locality by visiting sites, students could also interview relatives, representative citizens, and local leaders.46 16
     Other instructional techniques for improving history education discussed in this debate included advising students about study strategies. Vivan R. Schlozman conducted a study in which students were taught how to generate content-specific questions as they read their history textbooks. The students were randomly assigned into one of three treatment groups: (1) question-generation, (2) note taking, or (3) control. The question-generation group was told how to ask questions and was given written feedback on how to do so. The note-taking group was instructed on how to take notes, and they also received feedback. The control group was told to read and study their textbooks, and they received no feedback. Results revealed that while an analysis of the data attained from a research-constructed questionnaire showed no positive change in students' feeling more capable of understanding history, both the question-generation and note-taking groups indicated they liked history more and learned important study strategies.47The interaction of the teacher with the students through feedback may have contributed to the students' interest. This aspect of the study was emphasized by David Moore, who acknowledged that part of any teaching strategy must include personal and individual interaction between the student and the teacher. "We must be alive; we must interact; we must give personal, individual attention."48Another writer observed that history can progress from its preoccupation with data accumulation and memorization to promotion of thought by utilizing open-ended questions, questions which provide students with direction but allow them to explore various answers. "With open-ended questions, we provide a direction, point them to it, and get out of the way."49 17
     Not surprisingly, there was much discussion of the use of primary sources. Indeed, as far back as 1892, the National Education Association's Committee of Ten recommended in its report that various activities could be used to teach history including selected use of primary sources.50 While Liberal Learning acknowledged that textbooks are "the old standby" and that they "may well be essential in some courses," it suggested primary documents also could be important as "a mix of teaching methods in sustaining interest in history among today's students."51Rosenzweig and Weinland argued that in surveying the past, a balance of primary and secondary sources was needed.52Primary sources go beyond such things as narratives, poems, diaries, newspapers, and include photographs, songs, cartoons, and paintings.53 John Anthony Scott stated that another way to teach history other than through textbooks was to provide students with original documents. Failure to use this source, Scott argued, made it impossible for students to have direct access to our past.54 However, Gary B. Nash wrote that while primary sources are important and should be used, they should not replace good textbooks, which can integrate and synthesize large amounts of information for the teacher. Nash acknowledged that many new teachers may have taken only a few undergraduate history courses and that textbooks could provide them with needed background. The teacher could then "work outward from the textbook, searching for new materials of many kinds and using these materials to enrich the textbook accounts."55 18
     Another line of argument involved requiring less content and more depth. Too often students view history as "just one-damn-thing-after-another."56 By covering less substance, Loewen maintained, students could more closely examine historical issues and learn that the study of history transcends simple memory learning.57 Paradoxically, Robert L. Hampel observed that teachers who try to cover an excessive amount of content achieve limited results. Not only is "the breathless rush from point to point," Hampel argued, "fatal to rigorous thinking" but "speed can kill thoughtful participation in the arena of the classroom."58 Charles R. Keller noted that the essentials to good teaching include the "courage to exclude" and the "imagination to include."59 Stearns summed up this point bluntly: "The Holy Grail of a total history, in which every piece of the past's puzzle is neatly interlocked, escapes us still and always will."60 Instead of comprehensive coverage, White proposed, students could be better served if they were provided with a basic historical outline. Such a generalized approach would include knowledge of seven or eight of the great presidents, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the two World Wars. Students then could incorporate additional topics within this structure. This approach, White maintained, would allow students an in-depth study of history and its development over time. Additionally, it would free the teacher "from being consumed by the drive to cover the textbook," and would permit "a wider range of activities with greater involvement of students in the learning process."61 19
     The debate that has been surveyed about low scores in national testing and the evidence of low student interest in history indicated a need for improving history education. A review of the literature lends support to utilizing new approaches in order to increase both content literacy and interest in history education. Much of what was observed and advocated continues to be actively debated. Now, however, new technologies have raised new debates about how best to interest students and to teach history. Teachers must continue to be alert to determine if they are effectively communicating with their students, because, after all: "We know that it is the student, finally, who educates himself or herself, and many students must be lured into even trying."62 20


Notes

1 Diane Ravitch and Chester E Finn, Jr., What Do 17-Year-Olds Know?: A Report of the First National Assessment of History and Literature (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).

2 The Bradley Commission in Schools, Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools (Washington, DC: Educational Excellence Network, 1988).

3 "History a Mystery: American Teens Perform Poorly on Assessment Test," The Dallas Morning News, 2 November 1995, 1A.

4 Kenneth Jackson, "The Bradley Commission on History in Schools: A Retrospective View," The History Teacher 23 no. 1 (1989):73-78.

5 George Burson, "A Lack of Vision: The Bradley Commission Report," The History Teacher 23, no. 1 (1989):60.

6 Barrie M. Ratcliffe, "History in Crisis: Crisis Management Through Curriculum Planning," The History Teacher, 21 no. 1 (1987): 21.

7 Peter N. Stearns, Meaning Over Memory: Recasting the Teaching of Culture and History (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 172.

8 American Historical Association, "Liberal Learning and the History Major," Perspectives 28 no.5 (1990): 14-19.

9 Ravitch and Finn, Jr., What do 17-Year-Olds Know?

10 Bradley Commission, Building a History Curriculum.

11 Sue Harmon-Byser and Dixie M. Bocallao, "Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History," Georgia Social Science Journal 21, no. 1 (1990): 17-18.

12 Burson, "Lack of vision," 61.

13 Ronald Evans, "Social Studies Under Fire: Diane Ravitch and the Revival of History," Georgia Social Science Journal 20, no. 1 (1989): 9.

14 Rodney M. White, "An Alternative Approach to Teaching History," OAH Magazine of History, 8 no. 2 (1994): 58.

15 Benjamin D.Tate and Robert C. Durand, "Five American History Books for Survey Courses: A Review Essay," Teaching History 4 (1986): 221-26.

16 Paul Alan Skolnik, "A Critical Analysis of a Middle School and High School Social Studies Program" (Ed.D. diss., Columbia University Teachers College, 1986).

17 James Duthie, (1989). "The Current State of History Teaching. Theme: Why Teach History?" History and Social Science Teacher, 24 no. 3 (1989): 135-138.

18 John Cannon, "Teaching History at University," The History Teacher, 22 no. 3 (1989): 245-275.

19 Benjamin Conway Gregory, "An Investigation of Classroom Interaction as an Influence on Student Perceptions and Study of History" (Ed.D. diss., University of Maryland College Park, 1988).

20 Charlotte Pauley Sellers, "An Analysis of Writing Assignments in Selected History Textbooks for Grades Seven and Eleven" (Ed.D. diss., Virginia Institute and State University, 1993).

21 Marinka Bliss Hervey, "The Relationship Between Secondary Students' Ability to Comprehend Their United States History Textbook and Their Opinion of United States History" (Ed.D. diss., Rutgers The State University of New Jersey—New Brunswick, 1989).

22 John C. Simmonds, "History Curriculum and Curriculum Change in Colleges and Universities of the United States: A Study of Twenty-Three History Departments in 1988," The History Teacher 22, no. 3 (1989): 291-315.

23 James W. Loewen, Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (New York: The New Press, 1995).

24 John Lewis Gaddis, "The Nature of Contemporary History. Occasional Paper," National Council for History Education (Westlake, OH: National Council for History Education, 1990), 4.

25 Matthew T. Downey, "The Status of History in the Schools," in History in the Schools, ed. Matthew T. Downey (Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1985), 1-12.

26 Stephen Goode, "No More Skipping History Classes," Insight/Washington Times, 28 August 1989.

27 Susan Shapiro, "Training Historians to Teach," The History Teacher, 25 no. 1 (1991): 55-61.

28 John Myers, "The Trouble With History," History and Social Science Teacher, 15 no. 2 (1990): 68-70.

29 William Ellis, 1991 "Using the "Great Depression" Experience in a College American History Survey Course," The History Teacher, 25 no. 1 (1991): 87-95.

30 Gaddis, "Contemporary History," 4.

31 Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me, 311.

32 Maurice G. Baxter, Robert M. Ferrell, and John E. Wiltz, The Teaching of American History in High Schools (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964).

33 Ratcliffe, "History in Crisis", 21-27.

34 Stanton Burgess Turner, "Opinions of Students, Instructors, Administrators, and Parents About the Utility of Studying United States History with Respect to Perceived Present and Future Needs of Students" (Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon, 1987).

35 Rodney R. White, "Teaching History Using the Short Story," The Clearing House, 66 no. 5 (1993): 306.

36 Jackie Lawson and Donna Barnes, "Learning About History Through Literature," Social Studies Review, 30 no. 2 (1991): 41-47.

37 Terrie L. Epstein, "Equity in Educational Experiences and Outcomes," OAH-Magazine of History, 16 no.1 (Summer, 1991): 35-40.

38 Judy Elizabeth Van Middendorp, "An Eighth-Grade Literature-Based U.S. History Classroom: Reactions, Responses, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Participation" (Ed.D. diss., University of South Dakota, 1990).

39 Denee Joyce Corbin, "Using Literature to Teach Historical Concepts in Fifth-Grade Social Studies" (Ph.D. diss., The University of Iowa, 1990).

40 Barbara J. Guzzetti, Barbara J. Kowalinski and Tom McGowan, "Using a Literature-Based Approach to Teaching Social Studies," Journal of Reading, 36 (1992): 114-121.

41 John E. Readance, Thomas W. Bean and R. Scott Baldwin, Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach, 6th ed., (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1998), 108, 106.

42 Henry Steele Commager, "The Future of History and History Teaching," New England Social Studies Bulletin, 40 no. 3 (1983): 10.

43 Bruce Kraig, "Visions of the Past: History in the Movies," Georgia Social Science Journal, 14 no.3 (1983): 1-6.

44 John Hensley, "Museums and Teaching History," Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 13 no. 2 (1988): 68.

45 Rita G. Koman, "Historic Places: Their Use as Teaching Tools," Perspectives 32 (1994): 3-8.

46 Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me.

47 Vivan R. Schlozman, "An Investigation into the Effects of Teaching Content-Specific Question-Generation as a Means of Increasing Comprehension and Retention, as Well as Efficacy to Ninth-Grade History Students (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Kansas City, 1993).

48 David W. Moore, "Teaching History," The Clearing House, 62 no. 7 (1989), 304.

49. Shaprio, "Training Historians to Teach," 58.

50 Hazel Whitman Hertzberg, "Are Methods and Content Enemies?" in History in the Schools: What Shall We Teach? ed. Bernard R. Gifford (New York: Macmillan, 1988), 13-40.

51 American Historical Association, "Liberal Learning," 17.

52 Linda W. Rosenzweig and Thomas P. Weinland, "New Directions for History Curriculum: A Challenge for the 1980s," The History Teacher 19 no. 2 (1986): 263-277.

53 Epstein, "Equity in Educational Experiences and Outcomes," 35-40.

54 John Anthony Scott, "There is Another Way: United States History Texts and the Search for Alternatives," Perspectives 29 no. 5 (1991): 20.

55 Gary B. Nash, "Response to John Anthony Scott's There is Another Way," Perspectives 29 no. 5 (1991): 23.

56 Stearns, Meaning Over Memory, 172.

57 Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me.

58 Robert L. Hampel, "Too Much is Too Little," Social Education May (1985): 364.

59 Charles R. Keller, "Needed: Revolution in the Social Studies," Social Education 49 no. 5 (1985): 60.

60 Peter Stearns, "Teaching Social History: An Update," Perspectives 27 no. 7 (1989): 20.

61 White, "An Alternative Approach," 60.

62 Moore, "Teaching History," 304.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.

 



May, 2002 Previous Table of Contents Next