Thanks to Jeff and Rory’s list I found Chris Lehmann’s blog: Practical Theory. The title of the blog itself aligns with my own beliefs about education. Oftentimes, I feel bogged down by theory over maybe I’m simply overwhelmed. Finding a balance between practice and theory is maybe difficult. I typically side toward practice. As John Dewey would say we learn by doing. We learn by doing. But, reading through Mr. Lehmann’s blog, it seems that he has found that balance between theory and practice hence: Practical Theory.
The blog post that intrigued me most was his new idea
of teaching American History backwards starting from the present. I just thought
it was an interesting approach that I otherwise would not have thought about. In
one of my current classes, we discuss problematizing history and teaching
history at different scales/perspectives. So, this blog post, in particular,
really resonated with me. It made sense. Essentially, Mr. Lehmann is
experimenting in a new way that focuses on these two key facets of teaching
history: using a new perspective and problematization. The discipline of
history should be inquiry based and investigative in nature.
In my response, I thanked him for providing a unique
idea. Sometimes, I struggle thinking outside the box. I discussed some of the
things I’m currently learning in class. I also suggested Thomas Bender’s Nation
Among Nations which places America’s national history in the context of world
history. Mr. Lehmann responded by thanking me for my input and explained that
his grand experiment of teaching history backwards was going quite well. I hope
to continue to learn more about his process.
Wait, what? Teaching history backwards? This is interesting, so please tell me how this works. I'm guessing that he presents a current event (the effect) and asks students to look into the causes. I really want to take his class now and think I would have remembered much more of American History if I took a cause-and-effect point of view rather than a spread of dates, names, and events. Although it was pretty clear when I learned it in high school, it was difficult for me to connect events from one side of the world to the other, and today I retain only remnants of history class. Definitely something for me to think about and put a science spin on thinking outside the box.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great idea! I am a fan of the backwards design teaching strategy for math. Engaging in history from the present to the past would allow the examples to be real-world, authentic and much more brief in explanation. You might be able to propose this in your job interviews as a way to cross-discipline between history and government... Do you think you would be caught referencing the past in your explanations of the current events? I am very curious to learn more about this topic. Please keep me in the loop if you pursue the concept in your field assignment or future classroom. Or, perhaps I will continue to read your blog posts! Thank you for sharing your ideas and opinion!
ReplyDeleteHey Stephen! I'm with everyone else on this one. The idea of teaching history backwards is fascinating to me, and I am totally with you that history should be problematized and investigative in nature. How exactly does Mr. Lehmann teach this way? If it's like Melissa was saying, a cause-and-effect kind of thing, then that is brilliant. It makes me wonder if it would be possible to teach a similar class in English. I am thinking it would be possible to use literary texts to examine cause and effect of a certain topic or historical moment... Thanks for the insight!
ReplyDeleteI would be intrigued by the prospect of teaching history backward. I think that it could be a good way to look at historical problems and would certainly throw the typical temporal periodization of history for a loop. As a fellow history teacher, I am constantly looking for new ways to problematize history that are fresh, valuable, and most importantly, gel with student learning. In addition, I am glad that you found a bog that strikes a good balance between theory and practice which is something that I struggle with as well. I feel that a lot of the time theory focuses more about my reflection than it does about the actual teacher moves that I am using in the classroom. Thank you for drawing my attention to this blog!
ReplyDeleteI've heard of this idea before - to teach history by linking it to the present (working backwards) rather than as a chronological story. I'm trying to remember where I heard about it - really having trouble with that, but I feel like I remember reading about how controversial this method is. On the one hand, it seems to make perfect sense: we learn by adding to our existing knowledge. Before learning any history in school, we only have the existing knowledge of what happened previously in our own lives. If we extend this knowledge by building backwards (what caused the conditions in which we live?), then this represents a very natural method of inquiry. (And this sort of method maintains the integrity of "So what?," i.e. it is obvious to the student the meaning of the content: these historical events helped create the world we live in.)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, history backwards after a while gets to be confusing: why would you learn a long, complicated story backwards when you could learn it in the chronology in which it unfolded?
Similar to the way Bob discusses in his class how there is no perfect scale in which to study history, I'd argue that there is a time and a place for both chronological history teaching/learning and backwards history teaching/learning.
I really like the idea of teaching history backwards. I think that it would be extremely helpful and relevant to take a "backwards design" approach to learning history; perhaps it would make it easier for students to put it in context and to truly relate to it. I always loved studying history, but for some who may not be able to see the significance, using a "flash-forward" approach might be useful. It's a very interesting concept. Thank you for the post.
ReplyDelete