I've only been perfecting my trade for fourteen years here at CBC, so it should be no surprise that I find myself, once again, nearly through the quarter and behind where I should be. How does this happen every quarter?
Here are some of the issues at play:
1. Depth vs. Coverage: The first is the age-old conundrum of history teachers everywhere--how does one balance in-depth analysis with broad coverage? If you are determined to talk about EVERYTHING, then you will talk about NOTHING in depth. Conversely, if you wish to enthrall (fun note: also means to enslave) your students with a particular topic's subtle intricacies and confounding ironies, then you will get behind and be forced to jettison large portions of the historical record. That's what the dustbin of history is for, after all.
Obviously, there is a middle ground here, as with everything, and the goal is always balance. But it can be hard to do, especially if you really want your students to "get it" and understand a particular topic well. There is always a trade off, especially in history teaching, because your choices are nearly limitless. That unit on feminism, complete with a day discussing documents by Steinem and Schlafly, is going to come at the expense of Nixon's foreign policy or Carter's domestic policy (please let it be Carter's domestic policy!). And never mind the Red Power Movement, the Brown Berets, the Grey Panthers (militant old fogies), or the Pink Panthers (the Gay analog to the Black Panther Party). It ain't happening, bro.
2. Discussion vs. Lecture: Another facet of this epic conflict involves teaching choices. If you lecture in a unilateral (dictatorial) fashion (my favorite style, best when done in jack boots, because what do students know anyway, until you tell them!), you can march through a lot of material very quickly. It just feels good to check off the list of topics covered each day. It gives you a profound sense of accomplishment, kind of like conquering small countries. On the other hand, if you ask your students to read documents on a specific topic and discuss those documents in class, you could spend an entire week on just one theme. And that's fun too!
3. What do students really need to know? A lot of this boils down to what you believe students really need to know--and what your goals are as a teacher. If you believe that students need to be introduced to the "facts" of history and it's your job to give them those facts, then lecture away and sleep peacefully at night knowing that nothing is being left out. By God, those students are not going to leave MY class without learning about Ogden vs. Gibbons or the Tariff of 1828 (yes, guilty as charged, I have indeed lectured about both those topics).
But if you believe that your job is to teach students how to "think critically" about history (and information generally) because they'll soon forget the "facts" anyway, then you should spend more time on fewer topics, allowing students the time to really sink their teeth into the subject matter.
4. Buddhist (Eastern) approach vs. Western goal-oriented approach: This Herculean struggle can also be seen in the light of East v. West. If you want to take the Western approach and make progress, then forge ahead in linear lecture mode, progressively laying claim to ever larger swathes of historical territory. This approach is largely about conquest--mapping and making order of a disorderly and unwieldy human past for your students. This approach requires a firm hand on the wheel , a clear destination, a steady course.
If you want to take the Buddhist approach, then take each class as it comes. Live in the moment. Enjoy the now. The question is not, did we get through enough material to stay on schedule (see Western approach above), but rather, was today's discussion illuminating and useful in itself? Who cares if you spent four days discussing the Constitution, making it so that you'll never get to the Civil War unless you jettison the entire Jacksonian Era: as long as students got to think about and discuss important issues (something that takes time), it was worth it.
There is also the Pure Land Buddhist approach, which entails having your students meditate and visualize, while occasionally whacking them with sticks in hopes that they obtain enlightenment.
Really, you know, just pick an approach and go with it, man. It's all good. *
*I'm lying.
How can you spend an entire week on a discussion topic if you can't get them to talk? BTW, I've had an idea about that: have them start the discussion online, in Angel. Might help with this too - if you feel like the topic has been covered adequately online you might choose not to devote class time to it.
ReplyDeleteStephen, this is a great idea. And, actually, I do that very thing in my hybrid classes where we meet two days a week and discuss on Angel the other days. In that class (I only teach one class that way) I always feel like I can get them talking because I KNOW they have something to say, because they already said it online. Good point. I guess I should try something similar in traditional classes, but I think I'd get too overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the discussion traffic. Something to think about. And as for your question--how can I spend so much time on a discussion topic when I can't get them to talk? Two answers: first, I talk too much; second, they actually talk more than I suggested in my earlier blog about how they don't talk. I was probably overstating that to make a point, I guess, about how I wished they talked MORE. But they do talk. Unfortunately, too often "they" tends to be a really outstanding handful of students. Thanks for the comment!
Delete