What do historians do?

by Kev

Mar 26, 2011

This may seem like an odd question but it is one my department has been grappling with.

In math class our kids problem solve just like a mathematican. In science class our kids do experiments just like a scientist. In English they read, write and analyze - just like an author or editor.

What would they be doing in history to be historians? Surely not copying vocabulary, filling in maps and answering chapter questions. While there may be a place for some of that (and of course you find that in other subjects at times too) but that isn't the work of a historian.

So, what is?

Comment

(4)

report post

Sara On 3/26/11, Kev wrote: > This may seem like an odd question but it is one my > department has been grappling with. > > In math class our kids problem solve just like a > mathematican. > In science class our kids do experiments just like a > scientist. > In English they read, write and analyze - just like an > author or ed...See MoreOn 3/26/11, Kev wrote: > This may seem like an odd question but it is one my > department has been grappling with. > > In math class our kids problem solve just like a > mathematican. > In science class our kids do experiments just like a > scientist. > In English they read, write and analyze - just like an > author or editor. > > What would they be doing in history to be historians?

Historians create history. History happens of course, people live their lives etc but who decides how that was done and what should be said about it? History and the writing of it is no less an experiment than is science. Rather than use beakers and Bunsen burners, historians use the documents and records of the past to determine what happened in the past and then they write it up as they decide it happened.

The textbooks (ugh) used in schools are usually compilations of what historians have decided is history - but the textbooks distill it, put it into very stilted language and add a lot of politics into it. (hence the textbook wars)

Of course historians battle too and history has changed a great deal over the years - even if the past hasn't changed one whit. What historians write about it, their take on it, their perspective on it has changed dramatically - and then changes again. (let's not forget science does the same thing - remember when high fat milk was supposed to be good for us?)

We call original records "primary sources" and we call the works written by historians 'secondary sources' though the lines between the two get blurred. The first historian is generally considered to be Herodotus who wrote an account of a battle shortly after the battle thousands of years ago. The first professional historian is a man named Von Ranke who said we should study history "wie es eigentlich gewesen" - as it actually happened.

And we've been trying to do that ever since. There are hundreds of primary sources online now - or your students' diaries and letters and e-mails would count as primary sources of this time period. Let them read a primary source and make sense of it. The Strange Case of Silas Dean is a good introduction to the interpretation and construction of history but it's a bit cerebral and maybe too difficult to follow.

Historians do what archeologists do but they dig in the real dirt to do it. > Surely not copying vocabulary, filling in maps and > answering chapter questions. While there may be a place for > some of that (and of course you find that in other subjects > at times too) but that isn't the work of a historian. > > So, what is?

Mar 26, 2011

report post

TeachLikeYoda "In math class our kids problem solve just like a > mathematican. > In science class our kids do experiments just like a > scientist. > In English they read, write and analyze - just like an > author or editor."

I see where the confusion lies - you're writing about two (possibly three) separate entities here. Analytical/crit...See More

Apr 2, 2011

report post

Kev Make sense?

Not even a little bit. Quite honestly it sounded like a pie-in-the-sky way of saying we just teach a bunch of random stuff because that is what education is.

Apr 3, 2011

report post

TeachLikeYoda It’s easiest to think of the elements of classroom instruction in a flow chart:

Foundational Skills --> Comprehension Strategies --> Tasks --> Content

Actually, a four-tier pyramid would be more appropriate (skills at the bottom, content at the top.) The reason you want to think of them this way, is because the upper ti...See MoreIt’s easiest to think of the elements of classroom instruction in a flow chart:

Foundational Skills --> Comprehension Strategies --> Tasks --> Content

Actually, a four-tier pyramid would be more appropriate (skills at the bottom, content at the top.) The reason you want to think of them this way, is because the upper tiers are dependent on the lower tiers for meaningful learning to occur. Case in point: You can throw as much content as you want at a student; if they don’t have the strategies necessary for understanding the texts/discussions, expecting them to truly grasp that concept is unrealistic. Now that you have the pyramid visualization, let’s define each level:

Foundational skills are among the most basic building blocks of intelligent thought. They can be divided into many sublevels, some of which include items like phonemic awareness, fluency, problem- solving, analytical- or critical-thinking, short- and long-term memorization, motor coordination, visual/audio processing, etc. Depending on which researcher or method you follow, there are between 5-10 comprehension strategies which students need to employ so they can create meaning from texts or discussions. These are items like finding main ideas/details, summarizing, inferring, predicting, generating and answering questions, categorization, classification, repetition, and activating background knowledge. I would place vocabulary development in here too, although some would say it is a foundational skill.

Tasks are the activities that allow students to practice those strategies. When I think of these, I think of content and language objectives. Reading, writing, listening, speaking, and performing are the five main types of tasks. You can get even more specific like, “Reading a textbook chapter,” or “performing a pantomime” or “speaking and listening in a debate.”

So far, these tiers are not subject-specific. In other words, EVERY teacher (P-12 at least), regardless of content area, should know exactly what each of these tiers are for every part of every lesson. In my opinion, skill and strategy development should universally be 50% of instruction (give or take, depending on circumstances). Up to this point, all classes look similar.

Only now do we get to content. This is where the disciplines diverge. Using my above examples, we can see how this would look different in a science and social studies class: “Reading a textbook chapter on zygote development” compared to “...the storming of the Bastille.” Or in math and social studies: “Performing a pantomime of the concept of area” compared to “…the concept of international trade.” Or in language and social studies: “Speaking and listening in a debate on the prime motif in Huckleberry Finn” compared to “…on the reasons and legitimacy of the Monroe Doctrine.” Content comprises the other 50% of instruction, and for upper-level high school teachers, could mean as much as 70 - 80%.

You see that, up until the last pyramid tier, all teachers are essentially teaching the same things and having their students perform the same kinds of tasks. Thus, in most respects, a historian is a scientist is a mathematician is a novelist. The skills they use, the strategies they develop, and the types of tasks they perform are essentially identical. The only thing that differs is the content of those tasks.

Apr 3, 2011

report post