Reading Newspapers for Their Shock Value

“[Newspapers] too frequently provide a mode of entertainment to enliven lessons, entice students to a subject, and stimulate their interest. They give teachers a sense of modernizing instruction and relating the curriculum to students' lives and interests. However, as long as these sources of information are not subjected to critical scrutiny for their role as producers of knowledge, the prevailing view of media as natural and neutral conveyors of reality 'will have been smuggled in under the guise of educational progressivism and relevance.'” p.92

Segall, A., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Reading the newspaper as a social text. The Social Studies, 97(3), 91-99.

     This quote begins to describe some of Segall and Schmidt's criticism of the way that newspapers are used in classrooms as they will go on to describe how to correct this. Newspapers are not always used in classrooms, but when they are they are only used at a minimal surface level. They are often used as an example of truth or to back up a commonly help conception about a theme or topic. Segall and Schmidt have found in their research that newspapers are usually used as a way to increase student interest in a topic. It is not entirely clear how newspapers have this affect on students, especially students of the 21^st century who tend to give the newspaper little credence as an interesting medium to begin with, unless there is a current “hot topic” discussed in the newspaper. The only other logical interpretation of this motivation portion of the passage would then be the connection between newspapers and truth, the idea that newspapers present the facts and the facts are good. What teachers fail to do is have students really think critically about what's in the newspaper, how it is presented, what is left out, the balance of so called fact and opinion, and other areas of inquiry that get beyond the face of the source. This is a dangerous possibility as students will subtly and gradually learn that newspapers always tell the truth and that there is even one truth to be learned. In the course of doing this they will learn that are being educational or scholarly in doing so.

     Where I see this as having the greatest impact on students in practice (depending of course on the degree to which your particular students believe in the absolute truth of the newspaper) is using historical newspapers in conjunction with discussion of formerly controversial issues. These could be things like women's suffrage or the slave trade (applicable in both US and World History), or topics like racial segregation (especially applicable in US History). The lesson would teach content as well as skills, but would be particularly skills-focused. Assuming that students have little experience with newspapers or critically examining them the teacher could ask something to the extent of “What do the newspapers report?” or a similarly non-leading question. Once students generate answers (news, truth, facts) the teacher would then pass around a news article on the relevant controversial issue from a well respected local or national paper, but an article which has a different perspective (such as supporting segregation) than it would have today. Depending on the age and level of the students it would take differing amounts of structure for students to come to the realization that perspectives change and newspapers report someone's perspective. This could be paired with a more recent article relating to the issue to show how that perspective has changed, but in any case it should be accompanied by a discussion about how and why we look at newspapers with a critical eye. A perspective which seems so obviously “wrong” today seems like it would provide the appropriate amount of shock value to have students on their own come up with the idea that newspapers display one perspective. This would hopefully lead to a habit of healthy criticism when approaching newspapers in the future, if not sources in general.

Skills, Skills, Skills

“Self-government requires far more than voting in elections every four years. It requires citizens who are informed and thoughtful, participate in their communities, are involved in the political process, and possess moral and civic virtues.”

Gould, J (Ed.). The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics, (2011).Guardian of democracy: The civic mission of schools. p.6

     This quote lays the groundwork for why the authors of the report believe that it is crucially important for students in a democracy to have a thorough and interdisciplinary grounding in civics. They believe that merely pushing a button, filling in a circle, or any other method of voting every four years only barely scratches the surface of democratic action. Voting is a key component of democracy, especially when compared to other methods of government, but it represents at best a passive form of self-government. Many people, certainly more than would be willing to admit it, only go that far in their involvement and then sit back and complain about the result of said elections. To truly have self-government, people need to get involved in the process at every level (local, state, national). Not everybody will be involved to the same extent, but a real democracy requires people to be continually engaged in the democratic process, not just engaged for a few minutes every few years. Where the authors of this report eventually tie it into schools and education is in terms of of how citizens get the background and interest in the appropriate level of involvement. The authors believe that this is best accomplished in the schools for several reasons. One is that everyone up to a certain age has to attend school, and public school is the option open to the greatest number of people. Schools then serve as the place of instruction for not only specific subject areas, but for democratic, self-governing life itself. They do this both through explicit instruction of concepts as well as important interdisciplinary skills.

     Where I find the greatest connection between this quote and my own beliefs about the purpose of teaching social studies is in the emphasis on skills. These skills can be things like critical thinking, effective oral and written communication, or how to discuss divisive issues, among others. Aside from their applicability to life in general, these issues are not only important in the social studies but also in other subject areas. While students certainly need exposure to a wide range of concepts and topics, often skills can be most important. Whether a Socratic seminar is focused on Ancient Chinese philosophies, Civil War leadership, or competing economic systems, if students can use their reading and discussion skills well, they will have increased access to future knowledge on all sorts of topics. If only by virtue of possessing these skills, students will become more involved in the world around them. What I don't completely agree with, if only because there are a lot of unstated specifics about the matter, is the single-minded focus on democracy as opposed to creating generally well-rounded thoughtful individuals who just happen to agree that democracy is a worthwhile system of government. If people are well-educated on good principles for daily life which just so happen to also be central principles for democracy, then why obsess over whether you're teaching them for democracy or not? If these principles are so worthwhile (and I believe they are), then they should be worthy independent of their alignment with democratic ideals. As an aside, I wouldn't want students to be aware that they are being taught with democratic ideals (except in classes like Civics or US History where the connection is blatant) as students (particularly those relatively unfamiliar with democracy) should discover the merits of these ideas and their connection to democracy themselves in order to make these ideas their own and central to their being and acting.

Making Connections

 “Exhibition also would be more useful if they allowed audiences to relate the displayed information to their own ideas, perspectives, and questions. This is a basic tenet of contemporary theories of education, and George Hein suggests that museums should be guided by a similar principle: For visitors to learn from displays, museums must allow them to ‘connect what they see, do and feel with what they already know, understand and acknowledge.’”

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. New York, NY: Routledge. P.123

Barton and Levstik focus this chapter on the ways in which people express historical knowledge, especially things that they themselves have learned. They have already discussed doing so for personal enjoyment and because there are some kinds of government or state requirements related to the subject. They choose to devote the last few pages of the chapter, more than in the previous two sections combined (at a rough estimate) to the display of historical knowledge as a service to the public, particularly in museums. In this section they have already criticized museums that have not allowed a full picture of the issue or historical time period to be displayed, or ones that do not have a purpose other than displaying their collections of artifacts. In this particular section Barton and Levstik argue that museums should go beyond the basic presentation of facts, beyond advancing whatever their particular agenda is, and create exhibits that let visitors really interact on an intellectual level. They should structure information in such a way that people can relate what they’re seeing (regardless of time period or topic) to what they already know. Barton and Levstik suggest that museum visitors of all ages will be unable to learn anything from the museum unless it can in some way be made relevant or relatable to what they already know.

Where this quote and this entire section holds the greatest relevance for me in terms of teaching social studies at a secondary level has to do with presenting information and making connections. Barton and Levstik’s argument about museums seems a little shaky with regards to the implication that the museum is supposed to do all the work in terms of presenting information in a way that everyone is going to be able to easily relate to it or easily draw connections. However I believe that any museum visitor must be responsible for pulling their intellectual weight as well. The museum should not be expected to make the connections between their subject matter and the type of prior knowledge the visitors may have (assuming of course that it is easy to predict and generalize about this) explicitly clear. Museums do not have to ‘allow’ visitors to make connections, visitors should be willing and able to do so themselves. Similarly, there is a tension in teaching social studies at the secondary level of where and how to draw the line between providing students with necessary information and expecting the students to take a step beyond explaining basic facts and detail why a time period or historical event was important. They are at a level where they can at least begin to take this step. This does not mean that teachers should just throw information at them and expect these connections to come naturally, especially early in the secondary years, but there is a new level of expectation for students to work towards making these connections. The role of the teacher shifts from more of an information conduit to a guide. Teachers need to provide background information (especially for topics that are less familiar to students) and they need to scaffold processes, but it is the student's job to take that leap and make that connection. Similar to museum visitors, students need to be willing and able to make connections themselves. There is only so much presenting of information that teachers can do without students getting involved in thinking about historical topics and their connections. This is a crucial skill particularly in the social studies and one which should be integrated into the calendar and curriculum at every available point so that students will build up their skills over time as they build their dexterity at this skill.

You Want Me to Do What Now?

“Once students have developed their initial interpretation, I present them with a final piece of evidence. I ask them to reconsider the chronology of events and how this new source might challenge their interpretation. Because historians do not always find all the sources they need as soon as they approach a historical problem, this activity is not any less genuine than those experienced by any historian researching a historical issue.” 

Lesh, B. (2011). "Why won't you just tell us the answer?": Teaching historical thinking in grades 7-12. p. 110

     One of Lesh's greatest purposes throughout the whole book has been the idea that students should not just passively receive history, but rather that they should be actively engaged in the process of doing history. Here he is describing one part of an activity in which his students were supposed to, based on exploring primary sources, come up with an understanding of why the Bonus Army was forcibly removed from where they had set up camp. Once students had arrived at a conclusion based on the documents that they have reviewed and shared with the other students in their group, he gave them a new document which caused them to rethink their entire reasoning. Some of them arrived at similar conclusions and some of them drastically revised their original conclusions to take this new information into account. Lesh did this to reinforce the idea that history does not stay the same once it is decided on. Even if people decide on the same interpretation (rare), new information can come to light weeks or years later which necessitates taking another look at that interpretation. Taking this new look may or may not change the overall interpretation but is a central element to what historians actually do. Even if one gets “all” the pieces at one time to a historical puzzle (however that is determined), time has a way of revealing new information or interpretations. Lesh put his students in the role of historians who have to deal with these kinds of issues.

     I find Lesh's method and strategy to be a great teaching idea, especially when taking into consideration the idea that he reinforces over and over that one must do history, not just talk about it, in the same way that one must play basketball and not just talk about it. Where I find it less helpful is in considering how to put it into practice in a classroom where students are not used to actually doing history. Whether it is a part of the school's educational culture that they have never been exposed to more than listening to lectures and taking down notes or they are just getting to an age or comprehension level that allows them to engage in this process, a teaching idea can be groundbreaking, but if it is not introduced effectively it might as well have been a terrible idea. This is something that I think I will struggle with the most (or one of the top three things) namely introducing all of these engaging teaching ideas in a way that will not scare students off of doing something that they have never done before. I have seen several good ideas and strategies in a middle school classroom that I would consider using in my own classroom, but what would be most useful (for those strategies as well as for Lesh's idea of getting students to interpret historical events based on chronology and causality) are specific strategies for getting students on board with these new ideas.

Teaching for Cultural Competency

“A student in the class asked whether this curriculum was followed in other parts of the world, and she was told that in other countries, elementary children learn about their own history, of course, not ours. That 'of course' turned out to be misguided. Although assertions like this are common, it is not true that children invariably study the history of their own countries, at least not in the ways that we take for granted in the United States.”

(Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. p.4)

     This passage lies within the larger context of the authors discussing how curriculum has in recent years (recent to the time of their writing) expanded to include focusing on other cultures and histories around the world. The assumption was made that students in other countries study their own history just as much as students in the United States, but that simply isn't true (for a variety of reasons). While it specifically refers to elementary school students, it could logically be extended to higher grades as well. The authors imply both that it is important for students to learn about the history and cultures of other countries and groups as well as learning about the United States as their own country, and that this has been a increasing trend in social studies education. Knowing what students learn in various countries (and why) sheds some light on what the purpose of education in the social studies is. An understanding of what is taught is essential to Barton and Levstik's further exploration in search of an understanding as to how and why it is taught. This passage also reveals an important note of inquiry. Moving from assumptions, however commonly made, to a true understanding of the situation is also a theme which Barton and Levstik advocate for in social studies education as a whole.

     If I had read this passage several weeks ago, I would not have given it any special notice beyond a sentiment perhaps that it was an interesting bit of information but otherwise unremarkable. It would not have held much significance for me if I had not recently heard that DC Public Schools are going to drop the graduation requirement of having to take a US History course. I don't know any further details than that, though as I consider the source to be reliable it is safe to conclude that someone of importance has decided that it is no longer worthwhile for students to have a thorough understanding of United States history by the time they reach adulthood. Of course a student will have had it to some extent in earlier years but not with the depth and recentness of a high school course. While I agree with Barton and Levstik that learning about other parts of the world is important, what I find so jarring about this situation is how it violates one main reason that I believe is central to teaching social studies (and particularly US history), namely cultural literacy and competency.

     It is certainly possible that many students will choose to take a US history course even if they are not required to, but a number will certainly miss out on content that they may not have had a very good understanding of to begin with. Students will not be equipped to live in a city and country that uses imagery, symbolism, and concepts from its past on a daily basis. This can range from understanding serious matters such as freedom and what it means to US citizens as well as more frivolous matters such as why it is both amusing and apt that Taft was chosen to be the next racing president of the Washington Nationals. They cannot understand how certain specific individuals and types of people were subject to erasure if they do not understand the histories from which they were erased. They cannot understand why some gestures and phrases garner different reactions from different people without understanding the history behind them. Taking US history is not important from a position of self-centered obsession but rather because it, especially with the reflection and analysis typically required at the secondary level, equips students to understand the environment in which they live.

Introduction

Welcome to my blog, created for CPED 6368: Perspectives and Research in Social Studies Education.  To others who may be reading this, I am currently in a Master's program at George Washington University to teach social studies at the secondary education level.

Having grown up in Washington, DC, the field of social studies has always been important to me (you really can't live here more than a day without feeling the effects).  This has had the downside of making me more than a little tired of the government and civics aspects, but all the different aspects of the field are crucially important to our understanding of both everyday life and human existence in general.  I am not content with merely educating myself but see my role as more of a guide to help future learners discover what all aspects of social studies are all about.