“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.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteIt is daunting to consider how to go about doing this, especially if your school's culture is based on note-taking and testing. I keep reminding myself that Lesh starts early in the year introducing these concepts gradually, and reinforcing them over time. He's not suddenly introducing this Bonus March lesson out of the blue, which would flop miserably. It's hard to apply in a student teaching (or long-term-subbing) capacity, except in very small doses. Lesh addresses those concerns (sort of) later in the book, in Chapters 9 and 10. I'm losing the war with coverage right now (I think I've already lost it, actually), so spending even one entire class period on this seems like a wild dream. I can't decide which is more (or less) irresponsible as a teacher -- scrambling to "cover" it even it that just means a shallow introduction -- or going deeper into something like the Civil Rights movement and say, ignoring WWII as a trade-off. The good news is that I'll have a full seven weeks AFTER our end-of course tests (yes, almost a full quarter) to go back and delve more deeply into some topics and techniques. (If they haven't fired me based on the SOL scores of my class :)
These are both good posting/comments. I want to second Sarah's comment that Lesh actually spends the first week or two of the school year primarily focused on skills and not content to help "break" students out of a more traditional mode of learning. The key to his success (and yours) is scaffolding these skills for the students so it's not sudden. Sarah, your comment about breadth/depth (AP history, right?) is a perennial struggle. However, spending some in-depth time on primary sources can be extremely beneficial for students on the AP exam (and in life). The hardest part is trusting the students to read/understand the parts of U.S. history you can't address in class -- especially if you devote more time to historical thinking.
ReplyDelete