“[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.
