Last summer, a team from @historians.org issued a report on the teaching of history in U.S. K-12 schools.
We asked them to write an essay-length version of that report for History of Education Quarterly.
And then we invited four leading scholars to comment. In this thread, I'll post links to all.
We asked them to write an essay-length version of that report for History of Education Quarterly.
And then we invited four leading scholars to comment. In this thread, I'll post links to all.
Comments
My particular take (since noone asked) is that Natalie Petrzela has it right - students need to be engaged, and the route to that is provocative questions without a "right answer."
1/
Often this takes the form of a question that is seemingly debatable. . . .
2/
"Did Native American boarding schools benefit or harm the students"
"Was the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII justified?"
Yes, these are questions about which people might disagree. . .
but everyone in that class knows the right answer. And that is. . . boring.
It's the argument that makes it interesting, because it requires higher order thinking, which is the concept left out of each of the articles linked in the thread.
Except Petrzela's.
Did you read the whole thread?