Beiheft 22
The Philosophy of History Teaching
Cover image: from the Museum of Yugoslavia’s “The Nineties: A Glossary of Migrations,” shared by Ivan Aleksic (1 February 2020)
+ DENIS SHEMILT, The Devil's Locomotive, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 1-18.
That history has its characteristic logic, methods, and perspectives follows from its being what Paul Hirst calls a "form of knowledge." The British Schools Council Project "History 13-16" was founded on the assumption that history should be taught to adolescents as such a form. An analysis of "History 13-16" suggests that adolescents can address highly abstract questions when they are appropriately presented. There are four general, selective, simplified, and idealized models of adolescent construction of historical narrative. At Level I historical narrative is seen as lacking inner logic; logic enters the story as the simple linkage of events contiguous in time. At Level 11 historical narrative is seen to embody a Calvinistic logic in which everything is connected and continuous. At Level III adolescents are impressed by the complexity and density of the story. At Level IV adolescents develop an inkling of period as something more than a chronological connection. There is a firm understanding that events cannot be dissociated from their specific contexts. "History 13-16" students show a more sophisticated grasp of history than do children following conventional content-based courses, although only a minority construe at Level IV. If the levels of construal can be interpreted as developmental stages, as seems reasonable, it should be possible to "spiral" a history curriculum around basic structural concepts. The aim of teaching history should be the liberal one of enabling children to make sense of and to see the value of history, not the vocational one of training historians.
+ P. J. LEE, History Teaching and Philosophy of History, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 19-49.
The work of Bruner and Hirst suggested to history teachers that history might have its own structure but left open the answer as to what that structure might be. The three most popular approaches to new ways of teaching history state that teaching history: 1. is a matter of handing on substantive historical concepts; 2. must in the end come down to developing children's understanding of structural second-order concepts; and 3. is teaching historical skills, abilities, or procedures. Much of the emphasis of the "new history" has been on giving children experience in handling evidence; not until recently has there been a corresponding interest in historical understanding, explanation, and connected notions of empathy and imagination. A discussion of empathy and imagination shows some of the ways in which assumptions about them affect arguments about history teaching. Philosophy of history is necessary in any attempt to arrive at a rational way of teaching history.
+ DAVID STOCKLEY, Empathetic Reconstruction in History and History Teaching, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 50-65.
As Collingwood notes, every historian has not only a personal perspective but also the constraint of operating within a public tradition of truth and acceptability. This background of knowledge, experience, emotions, and so forth may necessarily be more truncated for an adolescent than for a mature historian. Empathetic reconstruction is both an imaginative and analytic act. The process of bringing about empathetic reconstruction in the history classroom will take a long time, will need to be structured and systematic, and so will require constant striving on the part of the teacher. The essential point is that children must be encouraged to grasp the world-view and frame of reference of the historical agents and to overcome their own prejudices and misconceptions. This is best achieved through such devices as the structured dilemma.
+ KIERAN EGAN, Accumulating History, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 66-80.
There is no logical or empirical connection between the successes of the Schools Council Project "History 13-16" and the "forms of knowledge" approach out of which it was composed. A sounder process whereby children can be led to historical understanding can be sketched as a gradual accumulation of particular skills, concepts, and knowledge, within four distinct, relatively discontinuous paradigms. The process is designed to capitalize on dominant interests at each stage. The ironic paradigm, achieved last, is made up of the contributions of each of the earlier paradigms, and it provides the epistemological sophistication which controls and gives proportion to the gradually developed constituents of mature historical thinking. It combines the affective-orienting, mythic ability with the vivifying, romantic imagination with the generalizing, pattern-seeking philosophic search.
+ JAMES FITZGERALD, History in the Curriculum: Debate on Aims and Values, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 81-100.
Three powerful arguments have dominated discussion on the educational purposes of historical study: 1. history serves as the collective memory of mankind; 2. it enlarges our experience and extends our perspective; 3. the actual process of acquiring historical knowledge offers reward in itself. Recent debate has restated and sharpened, rejected and superseded this traditional framework. In the United States, the inquiry approach, which emphasized historians' tools, has been criticized by those who feel the new "social studies" have moved too far in the direction of the social sciences. In Britain, the "form of knowledge" approach has been highly influential. Clearly, skills cannot be divorced from content. The nature and structure of history is such that it embraces not only methodology, inquiry, and concepts, but also message and experience. It is the narrative framework of history which informs understanding. We need history as story as well as history as inquiry.
+ M. B. BOOTH, Skills, Concepts, and Attitudes: The Development of Adolescent Children's Historical Thinking, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 101-117.
Research into children's historical thinking based on a view of Piaget's theory which emphasizes the age-stage structure and the development of hypothetico-deductive thinking appears to be inappropriate, for such thinking has only limited connection with imaginative, empathetic response, which is the hallmark of historical understanding and the purpose of historical study. Content and teaching technique are more important than increased maturity and intelligence. A teacher's concern should be with the elements of historical thinking--knowledge, concepts, cognitive skills, empathy, interest, personal experience--and the ways in which these can be woven together to produce adductive historical thought. The eight-year old's historical understanding can be considered on its own terms: genuine historical thinking which is more limited than the older pupil's, but comparable and equally valid.
+ FRANCES BLOW, A Note on Computers, the Counterfactual, and Causation, History and Theory 22 (December 1983), Bei. 22, 118-121.
The computer is an appropriate tool for three levels of activity in teaching history. It is efficient in analyzing quantities of statistical data into manageable and relevant units of information. It is effective in making the structure of events salient. Above all, it is a valuable device for exploring the structure of the possible. The simultaneous presentation of actual and alternative pasts can be effected, for example, by programs embodying the counterfactual principle. The computer program can, by virtue of its prescribed logical structure, force the pupil to recognize and reflect upon his own mental processes. The computer is a great asset in teaching history, a subject so complex and replete with information that the significance of that information is often obscured for the child.