Closing Essay2

Keith Benson Intro to Social Studies Dr. Ben Justice 5.1.2008 Final Essay In reflection of my thoughts of the Curriculum Analysis class, I have been most impressed by the various ways social studies teacher can use history. This idea, even in my fourth year teaching was an enlightening concept. The belief that historical events can actually be used as determinative information that can explain much more than is written in a textbook, or even communicated by a teacher, as opposed to useless data was a thought I hadn’t had prior to January 2008; and I am sure I am not alone. One minor complaint I have about the class is I believe this class should be taught earlier in the program, probably along with Introduction to Social Studies. I feel this way primarily because this class seemed geared more toward students looking to become social studies teachers, as opposed to being for social studies teachers looking to become more informed about their craft, or improve their pedagogy. And also, the disparity between the undergrad students and graduate students, to me at least, seemed apparent. But overall, the class was informative and at the very least expanded my perspectives concerning the goals and implementation of social studies. Social Studies, in classrooms of today, is taught usually in the same mode as has been for over a century; the teacher being the sole purveyor of facts and the information in textbooks representing the “truth”. Prior to this class and being exposed to the readings of “Schwiegen! Die Kinder! and “Does Postmodern History Have a Place in Schools?” by Peter Seixas, Anver Segall’s “What’s the Purpose of Teaching a Discipline, Anyway? The Case of History”, and “Two Cheers for Postmodernism” by William Stanley, I had

not realized their existed various schools of social studies pedagogies. Personally, even as a teacher, it whether a teacher is boring and authoritarian or lively and facilitating knowledge allowing students to think as the gauge of a good social studies teacher. I had never heard of a disciplinarian approach, “best story/collective memory” or postmodernism. These varying approaches can be explained as both contributors to our American un-universalism, yet paradoxically can provide a bridge to greater understanding. The “best story” method, I learned can be described as the idea that in the interest of preserving and forming a nation’s common identity and values, and to convey a consistent, albeit, simplistic message expediently, most primary and secondary schools, public and private, employ a linear story/message approach. Contrarily, the post-modern approach, one upon first exposure I was admittedly skeptical of, is method that seeks to take the disciplinarian method level to higher cognitive levels by adding elements of application and synthesis of historical information by considering the context in which the information was conceived and relating it to the prevailing climate of the present. The understanding that different mechanisms existed for me to teach my students was eye-opening, and this came in the very first set of readings. And while I was made aware there we multiple methodologies to teach social studies, the problem of implementation reared its ugly head. While trying to steer clear of the best story method and become more post modernist, real ground level questions of how to transition my approach emerged. The distinctions between the pedagogical methods had been made through the readings and class, but suggestions about how to implement the more complex postmodern approach within a 42 minute class, within the confines of a state

mandated curriculum, among students with different learning abilities, which by the way, probably have no interest in becoming professional historians remained and still largely remains elusive. Even as I reflect on my own scholastic and even early undergraduate experiences in history classes, the best story method always seemed the approach employed. It was not until I declared history as a major, and began doing the discipline, was I introduced and taught in other fashions. From understanding there are in fact more ways to teach social studies outside of the traditional authoritarian “best story” mold, I was then exposed to how the history we teach even becomes “history” worth learning. The readings “The Landscape of History” by John Gaddis, “The Historian and His Facts” and “Causation in History” by EH Carr, helped explain how we history teachers came to teach what we teach. I never really spent much time noticing the history that is taught and fills textbooks is flexible and fluid based off “someone somewhere’s” personal opinion of an events’ importance. I just though history was history; it was always there and always the same, for the most part. I learned in this class to change the way I view what I teach. Now I recognize history is a series of events, interpreted, processed, and repeated, based on a historian’s appraisal of their relevance and importance. And that appraisal is largely based on the current zeitgeist and environment in which the historian lives and that, Carr adds, “consciously or unconsciously, reflects position in time, and what view we take of the society in which we live.” While this should have been obvious to me, I was still amazed. This class and its readings explained the reliably cyclical shifting ideological interpretations of historical phenomena by historians.

From there we delved into “Who’s Story Should be Told?” by historians and from there I began to recognize the story that is presented by historians, may be much less a conscious decision by the historian than I previously believed. While it is easier to classify individual historians and being patrician, consensus, new-Left, or post-modern the Curriculum Analysis class, taught me that prevailing movements of the day largely influence whose story will be told by historians. That in essence, the times dictate the interpretation and telling of the story. And to develop true understanding, the post modern pedagogical approach should be employed for greater student understanding. I also learned that I shouldn’t be afraid of employing non-traditional informational media as valuable post-modern tools to heighten understanding. Reflecting back to my first and only exposure to Gone with the Wind, while the movie itself provided little in the realm of factual, applicable information, what can be gleaned from the movies’ insulting portrayals of blacks and women, and the movie’s outrageous success is valuable teaching moment that shouldn’t be discredited or shied away from do to its “out-of-the-box-ness.” What was upsetting during our viewing of the “classic”, was that I remembered history teachers using Gone with the Wind, as an instructional, illustrative tool to show students how southern life “really was back then”. The distinction and possible psychic consequences from using Gone with the Wind as a “best story” approach, as opposed to a post-modern subject cannot be overestimated. Further, I began to see the messages children are taught in a different light. The sanitized accounts of our American heroes told to children to unite us through universal story-telling serve actually to further dis-unify American students later. People commonly celebrated as national heroes in American history like Thomas Jefferson, Christopher

Columbus for example, upon greater in depth scrutiny become much less heroic. This apparent iconoclasm can breed resentment from those who don’t consider these figures heroic toward those that hold to the view they are. I would argue after having this class, the conveyance of the most complete truth at younger ages is best and could potentially avoid later frictions between opposing groups. Resistance to changing the scope of history learned in school to a more complete and inclusive approach is vigorously resisted within more conservative circles, while being advocated by postmodernists. Thus the eternal see-saw between conservative and liberal ideologies continues in social studies. In conclusion, after writing this essay I realize how much I have learned and grown during the course of this class. While the sequence of this class could have been altered it has been a fruitful experience toward breeding more intelligent, well-rounded social studies instructors and has been my pleasure to be part the progression. Thanks Dr. Justice for everything and Good Luck in the future!