“The goal is not to train a new generation of
historians. Instead, the historical
investigation model is designed to generate student interest in studying the
past, engender competence with a set of thinking skills that will benefit them
beyond the school walls, and promote an understanding of the major events,
people, and ideas that populate the American past.”
Lesh, B. A. (2011). Why
won’t you just tell us the answers? Teaching historical thinking in grades 7-12.
[73].
After reading Barton & Levstik’s high-level view of the
purposes for learning (and teaching) history, and after reading Wineburg’s
persuasive arguments for grappling with the pitfalls of applying modern
understanding to the past, I found this week’s reading to be refreshing and
real. I was particularly struck by his
goals for teaching with history labs, so clearly stated in the excerpt
above. While he engages students both in
authentic inquiry and in questioning the text, context, and subtext of primary
historical sources, he is clear and modest about his purpose. He is not trying
to create mini-historians or promote historical thinking as an end in itself;
nor is he out to change the world. He is
simply trying to spark a bit of genuine interest in the topic, to empower
students with transferrable skills to question and think for themselves, and
(hopefully) learn something about American history. What I like best about Lesh is the strong
presence, not just of the classroom, but of the actual teenager throughout the
book. I can see the cell-phones and the
bookbags just as well as the political cartoons and primary sources. He never forgets his target audience, likely because as a classroom teacher, he's looking at them every day.
Lesh is also realistic (and compassionate) about how he
defines “competence” in the thinking skills he teaches. He doesn’t apply adult
(or grad student) standards to his students.
They are teenagers who are just developing the ability to do the types
of critical thinking and writing that he’s teaching. They won’t all “get it,” at least not at
first, and some perhaps, not at all. The
spark of interest and the fruits of the critical thinking were not fully
apparent in the performance or final products for many of his students. But Lesh encourages us not to give up. It seems almost radical to suggest that the
attempt and the exposure to a new way of thinking about history – that it is
not just a litany of facts to be memorized and regurgitated – may be a success
in itself.
I find Lesh to be inspiring in a
“doable” way. In my own practice, I am
still struggling to master content, ensure “coverage” (that word!) of key
material for AP and state tests, and keep my head above water with grading,
assignment prep, test-writing, and staff meetings. Taking two or three class periods for a
in-depth inquiry into one topic – not to mention carefully selecting the
resources and adapting them to my students (who I’m still getting to know) just
does not seem feasible….but does it ever?
Likely not. Lesh makes me think I
might be able to take that leap of faith and spend 45 minutes this week examining
primary documents about the Rail Strike of 1877 before we “cover” it in
class. Baby steps are ok – after all,
Lesh taught for two years before he really began implementing this approach,
and he’s been adapting it and reflecting upon it for over a decade. I've been at it for six weeks. We will still be “behind” where the syllabus
says we should be, but I’m tired of watching my students take notes while I
lecture, or answer questions from a reading guide. I feel like I’m doing them a disservice. I want to encourage genuine interest and the
sense of agency that Lesh promotes as students examine visuals and documents,
and construct “history” for themselves.
Baby steps.
