News media and the classroom

“The content and layout of newspapers inform us about the ways society organizes and structures itself and how different social groups are allocated specific roles, spaces, and positions from which they are heard, marginalized, or silenced. Critically reading a newspaper requires an examination of how its content and layout maintain social relations and power structures that advantage some and disadvantage others” (Segall and Schmidt, Reading the Newspaper as a Social Text, p. 96).

In this passage, the authors make the argument that newspapers and the people behind them act as “gatekeepers” of information. In other words, it is they who control what is being discussed in the political arena and who decide what the most important issues are. Whether overtly or not (some media are more explicit about it than others), newspapers will often take a stance on the issues being debated. As someone who has been trained extensively in journalistic theory and practice, I know firsthand the importance journalists place on objectivity in their writing and production. This notwithstanding, however, human beings always view matters through a subjective lens. Even if a reporter is completely objective, the editor will make a decision about certain words or facts to use, and a superior will make more decisions regarding placement and publication. It is for this very subjectivity that there are different sources of information, with different opinions and information in the first place. If journalists and their superiors were truly as objective as they wished they were, every newspaper would no doubt look the same. Because the public reads newspapers to become informed and acquire information, they often subconsciously acquire the agenda promoted by the publication of choice, hence the importance of acquiring multiple sources of information. The subjective lens discussed here, however, does not exclusively refer to content. The placement of stories on the front page or further back indicates its priorities, as those which are most accessible will be the most consumed by the public.

From an instructional point of view, this article was fascinating. To be sure, most “current events” instruction that I have observed in classrooms was mostly tangential, to be added on to the content that was being taught at the moment. While many teachers encourage the use of newspapers as a means of relating or teaching content, they seldom view newspapers as a source of content in their own right. The passage above illuminates some key understandings that students should acquire about newspapers, namely this idea about how information is presented, both visually and in writing. Most high school students have at least some exposure to news media, and the classroom can be an excellent place to explore how the different news media present ostensibly the same information, but in very different ways. Students, for instance, could be asked to separate into groups, looking at different newspapers and analyzing their characteristics. While most would be encouraged to look for a bias or angle, it would be interesting to compare the work of all the different groups. This would give rise to one of the key questions of the chapter, and indeed of the social sciences as a whole: Whose truth do we listen to? It is a question that no one has the answer to (although many think they do), but one that is vital to our democratic society. Students will be able to critically analyze different sources, and realize that there are a multitude of truths, through which we make our own.

Justice in the classroom

“[W]e need to provide a chance for [students] to move beyond their preexisting, common-sense ideas about what counts as fair and unfair and toward consideration of a broader and more inclusive conception of justice” (Barton and Levstik, Teaching History for the Common Good, p. 99).

            In this passage, the authors argue for a new and different role for the social studies teacher in presenting historical content. While at the elementary level students are often taught to treat their peers and other adults with respect, and to make sure they are respectful and fair with everyone, here we see the introduction of a far more universal and complex concept – justice. Justice, as it is referred to in this context, is a more universal idea expressing adherence to and reverence for ideas central to democracy, namely that all people are equal and that diverse communities should be respected under the law. Furthermore, it posits that all humans are entitled to a certain level of liberty and certain inalienable rights.

While this idea of justice is seemingly a pillar of democracy, there exists no authoritative, widely accepted definition. For this reason, in the classroom teaching about justice can lead to ambiguity and certain misconceptions. In short, the ideas of fairness and justice are connected, but they are by no means one and the same. Whereas fairness concerns the actions of one entity being matched by those of another, justice is an expansion of the idea of fairness, one that can help students to begin thinking critically about historical events and issues. Justice is all-encompassing, granted to all democratic citizens by birthright. If this message is effectively communicated to students, they can go on to become more productive citizens in the future.

            As I previously mentioned, while the teaching of justice is essential, it can often lead to a problematic, if not outright dangerous, ambiguity. Students with different ideas about morality may find it difficult to understand the nuances of the idea of justice, or may develop ideas about it that are at odds with the democratic ideal. This ties in to various issues about teaching morality. While it goes without saying that a teacher should not impose his/her own moral system on students, there is without a doubt a certain morality that we are trying to teach, namely that democracy is a worthy political system and one worth defending. The idea of social justice and the guarantees that all citizens have is central to democratic thinking, so instructors must be very careful about how they approach it.

            Personally, I believe that while certain ideas about justice can be taught as central to the functioning of our system, it is ultimately up to students whether to accept them or not. Being able to observe how well they work, most students will probably choose to accept democracy and the idea of universal justice. I do believe, however, that there are all-encompassing ideas about justice that transcend politics and have their roots in the more elementary ideas of fairness. These ideas are typically found in all ideologies and can be used by a teacher to contextualize democracy, portraying it as encompassing the best of human political development and advancing that as yet another reason for it to be defended.

The other type of exhibitionism

"[T]he exhibition of historical information is inseparable from interpretation, and museums and historic sites reflect a host of social, cultural, economic and ideological underpinnings" (Barton and Levstik, Teaching History for the Common Good, p. 121).

The exhibitionist is a familiar sight to virtually everyone in most professions. As the anecdote at the beginning of the chapter suggests, academic exhibitionists are people who display their knowledge of information largely for their own benefit, often unconcerned if others are listening or not. While the exhibitionist might derive a great deal of pleasure from showing how much they know, it often prevents others in a classroom setting from actively participating (or participating at all), and can make others feel inferior. Teachers who are prone to lecture for an entire class period are similarly guilty of educational exhibitionism. The main problem with this pedagogical approach is that it rapidly bores and disengages students, who can easily conclude that they simply need to recite information back to the teacher if they want a good grade.

Thankfully, most institutions devoted to exhibiting information (aka a museum) are aware of this. Generally, they make an effort to provide context for their articles from the past, but of course, it is the institution that is acting as a gatekeeper, and they have total control over how information is presented. Basically, what that means is that it is impossible to present information objectively in an exhibition. Even with those that have less context (such as the example of the Scottish folk museum in the chapter), museums display a selection bias in what objects they choose to present. When museums present information, they can determine not only what people see, but how they are most likely to perceive it.

Connection to practice:

With respect to teaching, thinking about exhibitions (both in museums and in the classroom) is extremely important. When individuals love or are interested in something, the tendency is to want to talk about it. Ideally when we do this we are speaking to people that are interested and engaged, but in a classroom full of students this is not always the case. As such, when we exhibit or project our knowledge, it is often for our own benefit and not for that of our students. Many times, instructors will mistake their own enthusiasm for a topic for that of their students.

Outside the classroom, however, teachers should realize that, properly done, a field trip can be a valuable pedagogical experience. The field trip allows students to see historical artifacts firsthand and can provide a valuable reminder that history is not an abstract discipline - it is as real today as it was in the past, and as such very relevant. However, if students are not provided proper context and meaningful activities with which to accompany the trip, it will simply become time away from the classroom under the false pretense of learning - a literal waste of time.

As with film and other classroom activities, a field trip should have scaffolded activities accompanying it. An example might be a graphic organizer, or guiding questions that students complete while in the museum. One might also take advantage of the frequent use of multimedia and film in museums, encouraging students to think about these more critically. Without these supplementary activities and the valuable context they provide, a field trip can rapidly turn into a field day for students, so caution and extensive preparation must be used. However, when all is said and done: "[I]n its role of providing service to others, we find an admirable use for the exhibition of historical information, and we believe such displays can be an important part of educational endeavors, whether inside or outside formal institutions" (Barton and Levstik, p. 124).

The role of narrative in our classrooms

"Narrative is one tool students use to make sense of history, as they take the variety of historical people and events they have learned about, both in and out of school, and collapse them into a simplified cause-and-effect chain with each of the expected elements. Perhaps the most important affordance of this tool is that it aids students in their search for coherence in history" (Barton and Levstik, p. 136).

This chapter on narrative structure in the history classroom was an excellent and illuminating piece of work. This passage in particular allows the reader to understand the rationale that many teachers use for the narrative structure of their curriculum. Essentially, the narrative serves as a large-scale work of metacognition, whereby the students can contextualize and simplify the content, even individualize their understanding. The argument is also that this would make the content more engaging and accessible, thereby promoting greater retention by students. This argument is not totally without merit, and indeed the use of narrative in the American history classroom is so ubiquitous that most of us actually have trouble conceiving an alternative form of teaching history. As the passage above reminds us, it really is a grand way to string together different effects, examine causality and contextualize different events.

As beautiful as it may seem, not all is well with the narrative structure. The most obvious drawback has to do with the fact that it has the effect of simplifying everything that is taught. A number of studies cited in the text repeatedly showed that all the historical knowledge students showed was in the context of the narrative. Interestingly, students did recall basic facts, but often out of order and always in the context of the narrative. Therefore, it is obvious that there is some danger in using the narrative as a framework for the history classroom, but most American teachers see it as inevitable and would continue to frame their classes around it.

In an instructional context, it is very obvious to see how the narrative structure could be used. Basically, it works as a sort of meta-instruction, a kind of bare bones instruction in to which students and teachers alike can insert information. However, the teacher needs to be constantly assessing and monitoring the narrative to ensure that the information taken away is not only correct, but that it also contains a certain depth for students to grasp. Furthermore, it needs to emphasized that there are different types of narratives for consideration. Not only are we dealing with the overall narrative of the class (for example, that of European or American history), but we are also dealing with a number of smaller narratives that will complement the principal one. For instance, narratives about the lives of individuals can provide insight into the lives of those who changed their society, on the one hand, and on the other can provide insight into the daily lives of the average person during a certain time period.  

The quaint old history classroom and why it needs to be changed

-->

“[H]istory and social studies are the only disciplines in which students are not explicitly taught the tools necessary to understand how knowledge is created” (Lesh, p.11).

            Independence and individualism are key American values, and this should be most apparent in studying our own past. Sadly, this has not generally been the case.  Throughout most of the first three chapters in his book, Lesh states repeatedly (based on interviews and other anecdotal data) that the most common association people have with history and social science instruction is that of rote memorization – specifically of dates, historical events and key individuals. As anyone familiar with the study of pedagogy knows, this approach is extremely counterproductive to authentic learning and does a disservice to the very people we are trying to serve – students.

            Indeed, as Lesh points out, social studies education is very much alone in being conventionally taught this way. Science and mathematics emphasize procedure, which leads to the procurement of a desired result. Similarly, English courses rigorously teach reading and interpreting skills; more often than not, it is these skills that students are expected to take from the class, with content being somewhat secondary. In the social sciences, argues Lesh, a similar procedure and emphasis on the decoding of historical sources is desperately needed.  

            Ultimately, social studies and history teachers have a huge responsibility to understand that “historical thinking”, and the methods for being able to think this way – will be essential to students years after they leave the classroom. As an educator, I also think that this approach would make learning much more engaging for both students and instructor, and as such much more valuable in the long run. Just like science and math emphasize procedures used to obtain a desired result, history education has the potential to do the same, and the widespread implementation of these has the potential to revise social science education around the nation.

About me:

My name is Angel, and I am originally from Chicago, IL. I obtained my B.A. from the George Washington University in Political Science, with a journalism minor. Since then, I have worked as an assistant in an autism classroom and as a second grade Spanish immersion teacher. Prior to that, I worked for two years as a full time tutor, catering to students of all ages. 

At the moment, I am pursuing a Master's in Secondary Education at GW with a major in social studies and ESL. After obtaining my B.A., I discovered that I have a burning passion for instruction, both in the fields of ESL and social studies. I believe that ESL is the gateway which allows people from other countries to become part of our society, and that education in the social sciences is what allows these same people (and those born here, for that matter) to fully appreciate and participate in our society, and make it a better place. 




In my spare time, I enjoy cooking, watching independent film, and discovering new music.