Barton and Levstik make some controversial claims in Chapters 1 and 3, specifically regarding the construction of a national identity, pluralistic curriculum and the ways in which students in the United States make connections between the past and present. The authors attempt to ground their analysis in research and empirical evidence, and cite many surveys and student responses when making certain arguments.
One of the interesting ideas presented in Chapter 1 was that students feel most connected to history that they are personally engaged in, including visits to museums, talking to grandparents, etc (13). To this day, I still vividly remember when WWII veterans came into my 8th grade classroom and spoke about their experiences and allowed us to ask questions. Even though some of their stories did not always fall in line with the broad generalizations and rhetoric of my textbook, I felt as though they were even more authentic and accurate because I was hearing them firsthand. Museum trips and other interactive experiences may afford students with similar results. I also agree with Barton and Levstik’s claim that students who “know nothing” of History are actually those who do not conform to “an abstract standard of ‘correct’ historical thinking or understanding” (17) and that all students bring pre-existing knowledge, and even those that differ from the standard may be equally valid.
In Chapter 3, the authors claim that teachers should not make connections between current events and relate them to past events, (and apparently we should not want students to admire the Bill of Rights or believe that we are a nation of freedom.) I wholeheartedly disagree with this. The reason why I became interested in History and chose to pursue it in college was because I had a History teacher in high school who made connections between current events and what we were learning in class. It made the content seem relevant, “real”, meaningful and frankly less boring and out of touch with my life. By creating a link between the past and present, I found the concepts to be very pertinent and I could more relate to the “characters” of History. I also disagree with the author’s assertion that minorities will either have to deny their ethnicity or their nation unless teachers abandon a traditional view of American history (64). If we abandon the study of European conquerors and the role of white men in the development of US History, exactly what will student learn?
Hi Jayme,
ReplyDeleteI find your commentary interesting, but I guess some of the issues raised in your final paragraph, I saw as challenges that the authors addressed rather than unanswered questions. I think the authors resolve the issues of minorities "denying their ethnicity" by pursuing a more inclusive definition of a national identity. And when they talk about "abandoning" identities for a greater good, it seems as though there is some positive relevance to this notion, because students will not develop empathy if they do not learn to relate to others who are unlike themselves, or see beyond their identities. And this will limit their ability to participate in a democratic society, since this participation is predicated on the belief that a person belongs to a community to begin with. There has to be some sense of a national identity (from the authors perspective). I agree with you though, the way they highlight issues of identity can be challenging from a variety of perspectives.