The Eagles are Super Bowl Champions (Week Four)
Hail Brutus, Caesar (Brady & Kraft) have been slain!
Is it true that primary sources help you and your students get as close as possible to what actually happened? They may indeed be artifacts like the author states, but we should be very careful when introducing them in class and should make sure when we do to bring in multiple secondary sources in order to provide a context for the students beforehand so they can make the most of the lesson by already having a superficial context just like a lawyer, investigator or politician would have from his/her intern before diving into the case.
Newspapers utilized in history learning are a great opportunity as well to introduce students to the concept of deliberate bias in the media in the present; in a covert but deliberate manner. Instead of critiquing a ready-made target like Trump with data and facts and comparative analysis that while all true, risks alienating parents in unnecessary ways that only provoke an emotional and often anti-intellectual reaction, one can promote critical thought via integration of newspapers into analysis of Nixon's Watergate, contentious Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's, etc.
Let's take Civil Rights, for example. By providing a series of different interpretations of the same event, for example Medgar Evans, using newspaper articles from Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. and introducing secondary students to the business of manufacturing/manipulating public opinion and its inherent benefits, we can open their critical lens via their own reactions to start thinking more critically about current events and civics in their own contemporary world.
We shouldn't shy away as academics of political science or history from recognizing a would-be tyrant/neo-fascist when we see one, but in this nasty and divisive time of remarkable anti-intellectualism and far too much complacency from many of our kids' parents, we must teach civics in a more subversive manner that doesn't challenge views directly but uses primary sources to promote critical thinking and challenging of standard interpretations of history while providing scaffolding through a strong balance of secondary sources, literary sources, graphics and simulations that give multiple pathways to understanding somethings very complex and broken narratives that aren't fully accounted for, even by eyewitnesses.
The business of teaching history is very complex, the use of primary sources has to be done in a way in which they don't become stale and over-utilized and thus just another task. They must be used with discretion and with precise purpose because kids can easily reach cognitive overload trying to make sense of 17th century speech and lose patience with the lesson rather quickly and disconnect from the content before the teacher has a chance to really engage them. By this point, one of the only chances to win them back is through video, audio or video-game stimulation that requires a very well thought out lesson plan with several backups and emergency exits.
Yes, primary sources are certainly a very important part of historical thinking. But they require moderation, supplementation and contextualization through contemporary literature, music and art in order to give students multiple pathways beyond just text.
Is it true that primary sources help you and your students get as close as possible to what actually happened? They may indeed be artifacts like the author states, but we should be very careful when introducing them in class and should make sure when we do to bring in multiple secondary sources in order to provide a context for the students beforehand so they can make the most of the lesson by already having a superficial context just like a lawyer, investigator or politician would have from his/her intern before diving into the case.
Newspapers utilized in history learning are a great opportunity as well to introduce students to the concept of deliberate bias in the media in the present; in a covert but deliberate manner. Instead of critiquing a ready-made target like Trump with data and facts and comparative analysis that while all true, risks alienating parents in unnecessary ways that only provoke an emotional and often anti-intellectual reaction, one can promote critical thought via integration of newspapers into analysis of Nixon's Watergate, contentious Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's, etc.
Let's take Civil Rights, for example. By providing a series of different interpretations of the same event, for example Medgar Evans, using newspaper articles from Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. and introducing secondary students to the business of manufacturing/manipulating public opinion and its inherent benefits, we can open their critical lens via their own reactions to start thinking more critically about current events and civics in their own contemporary world.
We shouldn't shy away as academics of political science or history from recognizing a would-be tyrant/neo-fascist when we see one, but in this nasty and divisive time of remarkable anti-intellectualism and far too much complacency from many of our kids' parents, we must teach civics in a more subversive manner that doesn't challenge views directly but uses primary sources to promote critical thinking and challenging of standard interpretations of history while providing scaffolding through a strong balance of secondary sources, literary sources, graphics and simulations that give multiple pathways to understanding somethings very complex and broken narratives that aren't fully accounted for, even by eyewitnesses.
The business of teaching history is very complex, the use of primary sources has to be done in a way in which they don't become stale and over-utilized and thus just another task. They must be used with discretion and with precise purpose because kids can easily reach cognitive overload trying to make sense of 17th century speech and lose patience with the lesson rather quickly and disconnect from the content before the teacher has a chance to really engage them. By this point, one of the only chances to win them back is through video, audio or video-game stimulation that requires a very well thought out lesson plan with several backups and emergency exits.
Yes, primary sources are certainly a very important part of historical thinking. But they require moderation, supplementation and contextualization through contemporary literature, music and art in order to give students multiple pathways beyond just text.
Comments
Post a Comment