A New Approach to Teaching History

The assumptions we make about the nature of history naturally lead to our beliefs in how history should be taught. If we think that history is nothing but dates, names, and places, then we will teach students to memorize facts and then locate them on a multiple-choice test. If we think history is much more than this, then integrity demands that we re-think the way we teach history in our schools. In other words - is history static and unchanging, or is it a more dynamic subject that demands the use of critical thinking skills?

Five Myths of Teaching History

The following are five "myths" that are perpetuated in our schools and communities. They often come in the form of reactionary complaints from educators, parents, and policy makers about how we should be teaching history in our classrooms. (Notice that I don't include students in that list. I've never heard students complain that they don't get enough multiple-choice tests, worksheets, or lectures!). 

The "truths" that debunk these myths are a composite of things I have learned about the teaching of history from my own personal teaching experience, from instructional methods based on educational research, as well as from my personal ideals and vision for the teaching of history in our schools.

Myth #1: History happened chronologically, therefore we need to teach it that way.

Truth: Yes, historical events happened chronologically, but that's not how history was created or written. History is not linear. We cannot truly place all human events onto one large timeline. Some events happen simultaneously whether related or not.  

There are two kinds of history: History 1 which is the actual event itself and History 2 which is our interpretation of an event. When we think of history, we usually think of History 1. History 2 is often called historiography or the study of history. We need to teach both kinds of history in our history classes. Otherwise, it would be like teaching a science class without teaching the scientific method. We can teach the periodic table and all the planets and the parts of a cell, but it does not mean as much to the students unless we also teach them how we know what we know. They need to understand that science (or any knowledge for that matter) is not given to us on a silver platter or in a petri dish. It was discovered by individuals - people like you and me - who were willing to ask questions, often really hard questions. Historiography is an integral part of any successful history class. 

The second part of this truth is that it is OK to teach history thematically instead of chronologically (more on this below). We don't need to adhere to a strict chronological sequence when teaching history. History may happen in chronological order, but it is not created in chronological order. History is created as individuals examine and interpret primary sources - newspapers, speeches, letters, laws, photographs and maps. Students must learn to do the same by learning to interpret primary and secondary sources.

Myth #2: But, like the physical sciences and math, history is not subject to interpretation. We can't change history because we can't change facts.

Truth: History is created in the context of contemporary events and as a result of current events, as well as the interpretation of both of these sets of events. In other words, we can return to a historical event and re-write it based on our understanding of current events and new information about past events. Events do not happen in a vacuum. There are other events that happen before, after, and during any one historical event that influence how people approach that event. Again, think of History 1 and History 2. For example, the history of the Vietnam War has been written and re-written based on new information about past events and in light of current events, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Arab Spring. Yet, the basic facts - dates, names, and places, have not changed. What has changed is the meaning these facts holds for us. 

Myth 3: We just need to teach kids "the answers" to history and have them memorize them. We shouldn't waste time talking about interpretations and opinions; kids just need to know the facts!

Truth: This myth first assumes that the facts are the "answers" to history. The "answers" in our history classes keep changing, because history keeps changing. Aside from dates, names, and places, there are no correct answers in history. It is not like math in which there may be several ways to get to the one right answer; history is more like English in this regard. Learning about history is learning about humanity - ourselves - and certain human values and principles. History should teach us how to act and how to think. This is the ultimate value of studying history - the untapped potential to teach valuable life lessons to our rising generation. 

Myth #4: History can't be "done" by children and teenagers. They just need to focus on learning it; they aren't yet at that cognitive level that they can use their higher order thinking skills to properly analyze and then write history. 

Truth: Teenagers never cease to surprise me. They use the principles of historiography on a daily basis - they just don't recognize it. They tell stories all the time. They are social creatures. They can recognize (and need to be able to recognize) that other people have different perspectives about the same event. We need to hone and refine those in-born skills that they already have and already use. We need our younger generations to be more involved in writing their own history, rather than having it handed to them in pre-packaged form. The making of history should not be left solely to university professors and academics, and especially not to politicians! 

Myth 5: We need to teach kids that there is a right and wrong side of history. We need to teach them to be on the 'right side' of history by promoting a progressive agenda and view the progress of society as inevitable.

Truth: There is no 'right' or 'wrong' side of history. Such assertions are not logically sound if one accepts a dynamic view of history. But there is a right and wrong side of morality – which can be defined as that which is helpful over that which is hurtful. Morality is not always subject to interpretation, but history is. What is moral is often incorrectly labeled as the "wrong side" and vice versa with the right side of history. Political correctness, as a rule, has no place in a history classroom. What may be politically correct today may not have been 100 years ago. Historians must be honest enough to recognize that fact without necessarily agreeing with it. 

I am not a revisionist. I'm not one of those people who take advantage of the broad nature of history in order to promote a political agenda or ideology by ignoring a specific set of facts. But, I do believe that each generation, each society, each individual must create their own history; in this sense, I am a devout revisionist. We all have the right to create our own history. We cannot change or ignore the facts, but we can choose how we view those facts and what they mean for us. In other words, we cannot change History 1, but we can change History 2. Our history is our identity, and surely we have the right to create our own identity and not to be given our identity by others.  

How Do We "Do" History?

So, if we do not subscribe to these myths of viewing history as static, then we must re-think the way we teach history in schools. We need to get our students to DO history, not just learn it. And if we feel we may be teaching history wrong, we should also take the time to ask, "Am I just teaching the wrong history?"

"You're not one of those teachers that gives worksheets, are you?"

Let's be honest; we've all had a teacher (or been that teacher) that gives worksheets. Worksheets are OK. They may be necessary now and then. But it is important to know how to use worksheets effectively. They must be used only if they work to achieve the class objectives. Rarely will a worksheet align with a teacher's objectives, because the teacher often does not create their own worksheets - someone else did. Students must understand and create their own history, not someone else's. 

I propose a new curriculum that is based on a dynamic view of history. This approach is standards-based, and uses global, course, unit, and daily objectives, and is built on essential questions, inquiry-based lessons, performance assessments, and primary sources. 

Elements of a Dynamic Approach to Teaching History

Standards – A dynamic approach uses specific standards and objectives that define what the students will be able to know and do at the end of each lesson, unit, and course. If something does not help students reach these objectives, teachers should seriously re-consider their use of it. 

Essential questions – Lessons are built around questions that provoke thought and encourage the application of the content to real-life scenarios and contexts. Good essential questions personalize historical principles and life lessons.

Inquiry-based models - History is a subject that is perfect for allowing students to create their own knowledge, rather than relying entirely on the teacher. Students ask the questions, examine primary and secondary sources, conduct research, and make conclusions based on supporting evidence. 

Performance Assessments – Students need a way to prove to the teacher that they know the content and that they can DO history, and not just be able to regurgitate facts on a test. It doesn't need to be multiple-choice questions. MC is often the worst way to assess a student’s knowledge and understanding of history. Essays, research projects, portfolios, book reports, and people reports are some of the many effective ways of assessing a student's knowledge of historical principles.

Reading and writing skills - These are the bread and butter of history and the humanities in general. History is best learned when it is read AND written, and then subsequently re-created or discussed openly. 

Primary documents/sources

The clincher: There is no textbook! Textbooks are easily outdated and often contain subtle biases that only confuse students. It can be expensive for a school to buy one for each student. Sharing them makes them wear faster and forces the teacher to keep the books in the classroom. Textbooks are not viewed as the objective and infallible source of historical knowledge. A dynamic approach uses a series of primary and secondary sources that are reliable, timeless, and re-producible (unlike textbooks). Primary sources can be collected into a set or book for each student and they can be available online. Primary documents do not need to be updated on a regular basis as do textbooks. They allow students to study history the way it was meant to be – unfiltered! New primary sources can be added as the curriculum evolves and new events occur. We don’t do history by looking through a book until we find the ‘right’ answers. The answers are inside of us and all around us. 

Examples of primary and secondary sources include letters, journals, newspapers, books, photos, maps, quantified data, speeches, artifacts, tours, museum visits, guest speakers, etc. 

Each unit of the course is connected to current events in the world, the nation, and the community. This allows students to connect historical principles to real life situations by creating tomorrow's history today. This is best done when using a thematic sequence instead of a chronological one. 

Thematic approach - This is one viable alternative to teaching chronological history. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages that need to be weighed. A thematic approach includes big, overarching themes (several weeks) and sub-themes (few days or a week) instead of units and chapters. It allows students to see the patterns and principles of history in more contained chunks, and then use those principles to make connections to current events and real-world scenarios. 

Claiming that history is better taught thematically does not mean that all subjects need to be taught this way. It is only a new way, the best way so far. Some students may still learn history better another way. These are only generalities in how to teach history. They are not hard do’s and don’ts. Teachers still have (and should have) a large degree of discretion in the classroom.

Copyright © 2013 Russell C. Duncan. All rights reserved.

Two Truths and a Lie

God's prophets have told us repeatedly that marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who claims otherwise is being deceived by the devil.

All men are created equal and should be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Anyone who claims otherwise does not see other humans as fellow brothers and sisters.

Somehow these two truths must be reconciled. These two truths were given to us by God and are endorsed by God. God's house is not divided against itself. If it were, it could not stand. But we know it stands. God is not dead. His prophets walk the earth! His Church has been restored and will fill the entire earth! Let's not find ourselves on a side that seeks to tear down God's house or His laws. Somehow, He believes these truths can be reconciled. It is up to us to find out how.

Congress, the courts, and every president to-date has failed to uphold these two truths by seeking to reconcile them. Instead, both sides of the political spectrum have chosen to take the easy way out by choosing to compromise one or the other of these two truths. When we as a society choose to betray one or both of these truths, we will do so to our own destruction.

Our civic and religious leaders must do the hard work and preserve these two eternal truths. They must find a way. There is a way. I know there is.

NOTE: This post has been edited since its initial publication. 

The Great Awakening

The following is intended to be an analogy. While based on actual experiences, it is not a declaration of religious belief or manifestation. It is merely meant to draw connections between modern political parties and religious sectarian conflict. Readers are encouraged to take interpretive license.

"There was in the place where I lived an unusual excitement on the subject of politics. It commenced with the Democrats, but soon became general among all the parties in that region of country. Indeed, the whole country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different political parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Look, here!” and others, “See, there!” Some were contending for the Democrat party, some for the Republican, and some for the Libertarian.

For, notwithstanding the great love which the members of these different parties expressed at the time of their joining, and the great zeal manifested by the respective leadership, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of political feeling, in order to have everybody "converted," as they were pleased to call it, let them join what party they pleased; yet when the voters began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the leaders  and the voters were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—candidate contending against candidate, and voter against voter; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in the strife of words and a contest about opinions - all noise to my ears.

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Republican party, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different parties, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Democrats were most decided against the Republicans and Libertarians, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Republicans and Libertarians in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

I eventually came to the logical conclusion that I need not join any of the parties in order to obtain and hold to the truth. I promised myself to not join any of them; and many other things I thought to myself, which I cannot write at this time. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that partisan politics is not true.”

It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of this "kingdom of noise;" else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? Why should political parties, of all things, be a cause - even a tool to be used - for such division, persecution, and confusion?

Some few days after I came to this conclusion, I happened to be in company with one of the local party leaders, who was very active in the before mentioned political excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of politics, I took occasion to give him an account of the conclusion that I reached. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as moderate, open-minded statesmen or transformational leaders in these days; that all such things had ceased with the Founding Fathers, and that there would never be any more of them.

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among party leaders and advocates, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure young man, barely out of college, and my circumstances in life such as to make a man of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the parties—all united to persecute me.

I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the political world was concerned—that it was not my duty or obligation to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed."

Reference: Joseph Smith History

Marriage Equality

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I also believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. You might wonder then, how can these two statements be reconciled?

First, you can't change the definition of marriage any more than you can change the definition of other family relationships. For example, if I have a new nephew, can I refuse to be called his uncle and demand that society identify me as his aunt instead? Some may refute this by saying that there are no rights associated with being an uncle as there are with being a husband or wife.

My answer: my point exactly.

Why shouldn't other relationships have the same rights? If marriage is just a relationship of love and is about receiving benefits, why can't a father and daughter get married? Can two first cousins get married so they can visit each other in the hospital or receive other benefits as a husband and wife do? What about two siblings? Or can three women get married to each other?

If same-sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy must be legalized; incest must be legalized. If marriage is a relationship of love - and I can love whomever I want - why can't I marry my sister or brother or marry more than one person?

Do I have the power to re-define "uncle"? No. And if I disagree with that definition, perhaps I should take up my cause with the dictionary, not the government.

The federal government should not be defining marriage one way or the other. It has no right to determine what the dictionary says. I am 100% supportive of guaranteeing gays and lesbians full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals under the law. But, whatever relationship two individuals of the same sex make with each other - whatever it may be - it should not be called marriage! We need to get government out of marriage in order to protect and preserve it.

Government should instead institute a program in which any two citizens can designate each other as their beneficiary. Such a designation would have no sexual connotations whatsoever - thus avoiding the issue of incest. Any TWO people would be able to designate each other (regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or age) as the recipient of their benefits - thus avoiding the issue of legalizing polygamy. It would purely be about who gets what benefits. Under this system, a traditionally married couple would still enjoy their benefits and the sanctity of their religious marriage. A same-sex couple would enjoy all the rights and benefits they demand that are currently enjoyed by married couples.

We do need to preserve marriage. Countless studies have been done in recent years that support the idea of traditional marriage as a societal good - economically, psychologically, and socially. We as a society are attempting an experiment with same-sex marriage and like any experiment, the results may not be what we expect; there will be disastrous consequences for a failed experiment such as this.

Right at the core of it all, the issue is not about same-sex marriage. Society has already re-defined marriage for us. We're just waiting for our government to catch up with "modern" society. Same-sex marriage is only the logical conclusion of society's view of marriage as a mere contract for adults and is a result of the overall decline and transformation of marriage over the past 50 years.

Parenthood - built on the foundation of traditional marriage - is the ultimate role of selflessness. Those "who have a value system that causes them to subordinate their own needs to those of others, especially to the welfare of children" should support traditional marriage...."We need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests" - Dallin H Oaks.

The Tipping Point

In 2013, the balance of power in our Federal government will stay the same. The House is controlled by the Republicans; the Senate controlled by the Democrats. The White House will be occupied by the same person for the next four years. Yet, the election of 2012 will go down in history as a tipping point. 

Does much change? No, not in the short term. President Obama will continue to support bailouts, unrestricted drone attacks, taxing the wealthy, and unlimited deficit spending - many things that have been happening the past four years, and even the eight years before that.

It's not necessarily what the American people have chosen - it's what they have not chosen - that makes the difference.

In order to know the long-term effects of this election, we must look at the changing demographics - specifically the rising generation. This new generation has soundly and silently rejected traditional marriage (and by extension children). They have done it in large measure by refusing to participate in this age-old institution we call the family, or by simply changing the definition of "family" to suit their personal preferences. But, this is not an opinion piece against gay marriage. The great travesty of our day is not necessarily the rise of gay marriage, but the decline of heterosexual marriage. This rejection of traditional marriage as a priority in society and in politics is reflected in the outcome of the 2012 election.

According to The Weekly Standard, the election of 2012 is quite possibly the most anti-family vote in US history. Single people went to the polls like never before and elected our current president and congress. The health care reform law discretely favors singles. Several states have legalized gay marriage and the use of addictive family-destroying drugs. The Democrats' fiscal cliff "compromise" contains a tax penalty for those filing jointly. In short, tell me your marital status and I'll tell you how you voted in 2012. 

The Democrats would be wise to stop their subsidization of singleness. Our public policies on the state and federal level are increasingly anti-family. (Ironically, it is the segments of our population with families and the highest birthrates - Hispanics, Mormons, and immigrants - that will reproduce new voters. In two generations, these groups could be in the majority.) But now, the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping people single. Singles overwhelmingly vote for them for various reasons. But, Democrats are not dumb - they know that singles and gays don't reproduce. The only way to get more followers is to convert them by promising them benefits. They will not easily abandon such a large and loyal constituency. 

A pure democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the country collapses over loose fiscal policy. Singles are rapidly becoming that majority. 

Our public policies must be biased towards traditional families. It is the fundamental unit of our economy and the backbone of our education system. Marriage and family is the only way to preserve and improve our society. 

The Trouble with Representative Government

Representative government - is it of the people, by the people, or for the people?

One of the basic functions of a government official is to represent the views and opinions of the people. This includes officials on all levels - from city councils to school boards, and from state legislatures to Congress and the President.

But what exactly do we mean when we say a person 'represents' us? Is the President bound to follow the wishes of the majority? Literally speaking, the president is not a representative. His is an executive function. We hire him to carry out the laws. We hire actual 'representatives' to make our laws, as we would like them to be made.

So, is the government some alien body that rules over us? Or is it only an embodiment of the voice of the people?

These are two extremes. On the one hand you have representatives that will vote however and say whatever their constituents want them to. On the other hand, there are those representatives that do their own thing. They don't really care what people think- and if the people don't like the way they vote, they should vote them out. But, having been voted in, they take that as a license to do what ever they want.

Somewhere in between these two extremes we find most of our representatives. Many are willing to listen to the voters and at least consider their viewpoints. There is a wide range of approaches in representing a large body of people.

A representative is not a flip-flopper when they change their position with their constituents' disapproval. Neither are they a flip-flopper if they always vote how their constituents want. But, it can be difficult to listen to a silent majority. A representative can only listen to his voters as much as they are willing to speak up. "The squeaky hinge gets the grease" as they say.

So, if a representative is elected and makes it clear that she will listen to her constituents faithfully, which part of her constituents does she listen to? She can't take an accurate poll of every person on every single issue to get the majority's opinion. But, she can't ignore 49% of her voters either. A wise representative then, takes a wide range of viewpoints into consideration and uses their judgment to determine what is in the best interest of the most number of people. In short, an effective representative is a discerning judge of the public good.

Whose War on Women?

I'm a fairly laid-back guy. But, once and a while, something comes along that just gets me going. Sometimes, it comes from the Right. Most of the time, it comes from the Left. But, regardless of where it comes from, we must be willing to stand up and say good is good and bad is bad.

For those who have not heard or seen the latest ad from the Obama campaign, here is the Video.

My first thought was "No, this couldn't be an official Obama ad, right? Its got to be from one of his extremist surrogates." Nope. Only the video itself was able to prove me wrong. 

I've been thinking about this a lot, and it just blows me away. I'm shocked. I have no words for it. I'm also disappointed by the way the media has handled it. Why aren't more women - conservatives and liberals alike - crying foul over this? This is far worse than Mitt Romney's 47% remark or even Todd Akin's rape comment. Obama owes America an apology for this offensive video.

If the fact that it is gross and vulgar isn't enough, the ad doesn't even address the important issues of the election (like the economy or unemployment). Its just a crude attempt to sensationalize the election in its last moments (an election that Obama seems to be losing more and more as each day passes).

The ad also implies - no, outright states - that voting is a right of passage to become a woman - just like the loss of one's virginity. (Of course! Why didn't I think of it like that? I guess I must have missed something when I turned 18.) Nothing could be further from the truth! The ad also perpetuates the false notion that women are overtly sexual creatures and that they think of little else but who they want to lose their virginity with. As if voting for Obama (instead of another candidate) is some erotic act that turns women on?

Finally, the ad is short sighted. It acts as though the next 'four years' are all that matter. Getting birth control right NOW is important (oh yeah, and let's not forget about that war over in Afghanistan or Iraq, er- where is it again?)