TEAC 451

I found this article very interesting because I had never before questioned the way in which we teach students throughout the entire history education curriculum. The focus on national identity and community is something I considered universal, just like the author states in the introduction. It wasn't something I had ever thought about before.

I especially connected with the idea that educators in Northern Ireland view that the goal of history education is to teach students historical skills that they will be able to use throughout their lives. I was honestly kind of appalled when I read that some even consider our methods as "unacademic" "immature" and "unreliable". And while I agree that often they are unreliable and immature, I don't think the way we view and teach history is specifically unacademic.

I was particularly struck by the ways in which we as teachers can raise ourselves from the "stories" and national identity-centric view of history we have now to a more well-rounded one. For myself, I still sometimes struggle with the idea that "those people just didn't know any better" especially when confronted with a time and place in history that I don't know a lot about. I think the melding of societal factors in with the focus on individuals is key in allowing students to see these connections. I also believe that introducing contrasting or comparative global events alongside US events is a relatively easy thing to do and will bring lasting effects for students. I, for one, never learned about the French Revolution specifically, so using the American Revolution as a stepping stone to learn about global history would have had a great impact on my life.

TEAC 451: Blog #9

I really enjoyed reading this article, although I was a bit worried about the length of it when I first opened the document. I think all three "types" of citizens are important to have in a democracy. Not everyone can be a participatory or justice-oriented citizen, and the personally-responsible ones contribute to society and democracy as well.

I did find the differences between participatory and justice-oriented citizenship compelling. Both are important, but in different ways. I think the examples from the two schools that they studied really brought out the contrasts well. Although the Madison County students were actively involved with issues in their community and working to make it a better place, they didn't get the background knowledge of the social, political, and economic ideas that brought those issues into place. They also didn't learn about the reasons people would be for or against the things they studied, but they gained the experience to participate in the community and (hopefully) it instilled a desire to continue to participate in civic activities. The Bayside students, on the other hand learned more about those social, political, and economic issues that underlie the problems in their community. But, as the article points out, they didn't gain the experience in social change initiatives that revolve around personal involvement, only the collectively driven ones. So, they would be less likely than the Madison students to participate in further community enhancement projects.

I think both of these types of education involve lots of planning on the teacher's part. For the Madison County school, there were two teachers who planned and followed through with these lessons. As a pre-service educator, this seems kind of daunting to me. I think maybe if I could partner with a more experienced teacher and have both our classes do this, I would be more comfortable. Or maybe this type of learning could be something I do as I gain more experience and become more comfortable in my school and with my own teaching style.