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.