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.