How would you ...

Pima

Private
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Location
Italy, Piedmont
Hi, first thread and first curiosity to accomplish. The question is simple: how would you teach History if you were a teacher ? Now I'Il try to explain my position to create a fruitful debate.

Here we all like History. Maybe se like more a certain period than another, for example I really like the Civil War while I absolutely hate the Italian Renaissance. In addition everyone in his experience will form in own opinion on History. In my opinion, in Italy History at school la very boring. The book in particuliar does non attract a student so if you have to study for an oral text that will be extremely difficult and long. I personally think that the text is boring becouse what it tries to do is just a big overall summery of an argument. The teacher knows that so she does not follow the book. The problem is the way she expains History becouse all she does is talking while we take notes. So we students seem like amanuensis. My schoolmates really like this method, not becouse she is good at teaching but just becouse they won't need to study on the book, that as I said is boring. The teacher will ask us only what she said on the notes so everyone at the end is happy. I personally survive just becouse I have a general knowledge and I read some books on the topic ( WW1, WW2 and so on, I'm in the last year) but while she was talking today a question came in my mind. What would I do if I were a techer ? So I started this topic.

What would I personally do is a middle-way. I know that it is boring and I'Il try everything to attract the students but I would also avoid being too precise. If you are wondering I'm not willing to be an History Teacher neither an Historian, I would prefer to be a museum guide.

I'm really looking forward to see your answers. I have been here for a while here without making a profile and you are all very experts of the topic. So, let's make an example: if you have to talk the class about the big topic Civil war what would you do ?

Sorry for my bad English, I will try to get better :smile:

PS: A curiosity of mine, in the good old USA how is History teached at school ?
 
Having taught older (20's and above) firefighters, I found that if you kept it simple and something that the students could relate to they seemed to take more of an interest and if you can involve them that's even better. These days from what I've been told Civil War history has been relegated to just a handful of pages in the History books and that it is covered in only one or two days.
 
Having taught older (20's and above) firefighters, I found that if you kept it simple and something that the students could relate to they seemed to take more of an interest and if you can involve them that's even better. These days from what I've been told Civil War history has been relegated to just a handful of pages in the History books and that it is covered in only one or two days.

Involving the students is the way ! That is not a bad thing to do if only our teacher would do that ...
But could you possible explain what you mean with " The students could relate to" ? I'm very interested in that concept and I'm afraid I did not compleyely understad what you were meaning.

I get your feeliing, in my book last year only to pages were about the Civil War. And we did not even studied them.
I did not thought that in America they did the same thing, maybe you study more contemporary History ?
 
Such as what did they eat, what did they wear, what did they do for fun -put the students into the picture of the past. You'll never explain combat to them, but you can help them see into the past through modern eyes or how did we get to here from there and what was it like to be there back then.
 
Wow, that is a wonderful thing to do, History with a bit of immagination ( that is just as you said the creation of a picutre of the past not inventing it ) is interesting. A question to all the people of the topic: would you make a psicologicol point of view of the mai protagonists of History. An example: I have to do a presentation about the WW1. I want to make them interested so I try to create a profile of Francesco Giuseppe by saying that he was an old man of about 86 years old that after Sarejevo did not have an heir. Moreover in his life he had many mourning: the brother, the son that sucides himself ( first heir), the wife in an assassination, so that was the last straw that breaks the camel for him, so he declared war to Serbia to heavily punish the outrage. This in your opinion can make it more interesting ( the pain may have made him blid ) or not ?
 
Wow, that is a wonderful thing to do, History with a bit of immagination ( that is just as you said the creation of a picutre of the past not inventing it ) is interesting. A question to all the people of the topic: would you make a psicologicol point of view of the mai protagonists of History. An example: I have to do a presentation about the WW1. I want to make them interested so I try to create a profile of Francesco Giuseppe by saying that he was an old man of about 86 years old that after Sarejevo did not have an heir. Moreover in his life he had many mourning: the brother, the son that sucides himself ( first heir), the wife in an assassination, so that was the last straw that breaks the camel for him, so he declared war to Serbia to heavily punish the outrage. This in your opinion can make it more interesting ( the pain may have made him blid ) or not ?
 
Such as what did they eat, what did they wear, what did they do for fun -put the students into the picture of the past. You'll never explain combat to them, but you can help them see into the past through modern eyes or how did we get to here from there and what was it like to be there back then.

I agree.

I think I'd also try to show them why it mattered by linking things we have to deal with today that have roots in the CW and Reconstruction. That would also involve showing them that while it seems like ancient history it's really not that long ago: there are a few people living whose father was in the war; the last veterans died in the 1960s so somebody my age could have actually met a veteran; the parents of people my age would have known many people who lived through the war. So, we're only a few generations separated.
 
To teach anything, but especially history, you have to "make the connection!" That is a relatively vague quote from the '80s but one that is so important to being a successful teacher. A teacher has to:

1) Connect the subject with the student(s).
2) Connect with the students.
3) Connect their passion for history with their teaching.

While keeping in mind that you cannot reach all of the students, you can/will reach a large majority of them. I have taught history and other subjects to classified students and non-classified students for 38 years. This approach has worked the best for me. I've watched some of the best in the profession and came away a much better teacher for it. It keeps you fresh and keeps the subject clear of "dust.":thumbsup:
 
Involving the students is the way !
Very important, particularly at an early age. I recently heard of a school in Britain that was teaching medieval history to the students through organized recreated battle formations. What better way to demonstate a shield wall than to have the young students form one and move forward while throwing harmless, soft projectiles at them.
I've also heard of teachers encouraging their young students to research their family history as a way to personally connect with the past.
In my opinion, the worst thing that has been done in teaching history over the years is concentrating on rote memory of dates and obscurities. That simply makes what should be a fun course boring.
 
Wow, that is a wonderful thing to do, History with a bit of immagination ( that is just as you said the creation of a picutre of the past not inventing it ) is interesting. A question to all the people of the topic: would you make a psicologicol point of view of the mai protagonists of History. An example: I have to do a presentation about the WW1. I want to make them interested so I try to create a profile of Francesco Giuseppe by saying that he was an old man of about 86 years old that after Sarejevo did not have an heir. Moreover in his life he had many mourning: the brother, the son that sucides himself ( first heir), the wife in an assassination, so that was the last straw that breaks the camel for him, so he declared war to Serbia to heavily punish the outrage. This in your opinion can make it more interesting ( the pain may have made him blid ) or not ?
The more a student can relate to a story or vignette the better he/she will learn. Bring historical figures to life by showing their personal side. A student of British history might not remember much about Henry I, but if he/she learns that he died from eating eels....
 
Hi, first thread and first curiosity to accomplish. The question is simple: how would you teach History if you were a teacher ? Now I'Il try to explain my position to create a fruitful debate.

Here we all like History. Maybe se like more a certain period than another, for example I really like the Civil War while I absolutely hate the Italian Renaissance. In addition everyone in his experience will form in own opinion on History. In my opinion, in Italy History at school la very boring. The book in particuliar does non attract a student so if you have to study for an oral text that will be extremely difficult and long. I personally think that the text is boring becouse what it tries to do is just a big overall summery of an argument. The teacher knows that so she does not follow the book. The problem is the way she expains History becouse all she does is talking while we take notes. So we students seem like amanuensis. My schoolmates really like this method, not becouse she is good at teaching but just becouse they won't need to study on the book, that as I said is boring. The teacher will ask us only what she said on the notes so everyone at the end is happy. I personally survive just becouse I have a general knowledge and I read some books on the topic ( WW1, WW2 and so on, I'm in the last year) but while she was talking today a question came in my mind. What would I do if I were a techer ? So I started this topic.

What would I personally do is a middle-way. I know that it is boring and I'Il try everything to attract the students but I would also avoid being too precise. If you are wondering I'm not willing to be an History Teacher neither an Historian, I would prefer to be a museum guide.

I'm really looking forward to see your answers. I have been here for a while here without making a profile and you are all very experts of the topic. So, let's make an example: if you have to talk the class about the big topic Civil war what would you do ?

Sorry for my bad English, I will try to get better :smile:

PS: A curiosity of mine, in the good old USA how is History teached at school ?
Watch a good Civil War movie such has Glory , Cold Mountain, Ride with the Devil
Jones County and have the students discuss what they thought. Also the teacher would point out what was true vs false in the movie.
Definitely every middle or high school age student should see the movie " Birth of a Nation" no other movie really shows the Confederate point of view like that 1915 classic .
Leftyhunter
 
Take a class to a cemetery, National if a Civil War, WW II for example, non military if a civilian history class. Allow the student to select an individual then have them study the person or select a period during their life to prepare a theme.

Doing this permits the student to decide what aspect they want to study or report about their person from history. Just rambling thoughts from an old educator.
Regards
David
 
Hi, first thread and first curiosity to accomplish. The question is simple: how would you teach History if you were a teacher ? Now I'Il try to explain my position to create a fruitful debate.

Here we all like History. Maybe se like more a certain period than another, for example I really like the Civil War while I absolutely hate the Italian Renaissance. In addition everyone in his experience will form in own opinion on History. In my opinion, in Italy History at school la very boring. The book in particuliar does non attract a student so if you have to study for an oral text that will be extremely difficult and long. I personally think that the text is boring becouse what it tries to do is just a big overall summery of an argument. The teacher knows that so she does not follow the book. The problem is the way she expains History becouse all she does is talking while we take notes. So we students seem like amanuensis. My schoolmates really like this method, not becouse she is good at teaching but just becouse they won't need to study on the book, that as I said is boring. The teacher will ask us only what she said on the notes so everyone at the end is happy. I personally survive just becouse I have a general knowledge and I read some books on the topic ( WW1, WW2 and so on, I'm in the last year) but while she was talking today a question came in my mind. What would I do if I were a techer ? So I started this topic.

What would I personally do is a middle-way. I know that it is boring and I'Il try everything to attract the students but I would also avoid being too precise. If you are wondering I'm not willing to be an History Teacher neither an Historian, I would prefer to be a museum guide.

I'm really looking forward to see your answers. I have been here for a while here without making a profile and you are all very experts of the topic. So, let's make an example: if you have to talk the class about the big topic Civil war what would you do ?

Sorry for my bad English, I will try to get better :smile:

PS: A curiosity of mine, in the good old USA how is History teached at school ?
A good technique might be to assign a student at least parts of a biography on a Union and Confederate soldier.
For example take two individual soldiers from Tennessee. One fought for the Union has did forty two thousand men from Tennessee see "Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the South" Richard Current North East University Press. Marcus Woodcock was from Tennessee and early in the war he fled to Kentucky and joined the the 9th Kentucky Infantry Union.
Woodcock wrote a biography shortly after the Civil War " A Southern Boy in Blue" and then contrast that biography with " Company A t o c by Sam Watkins.
Leftyhunter
 
my interest is because of Gran't bio. Here he was living as a bum living off family charity to generlisimo in three years. I find that fascinating as a concept. Grant himself is so self effacing that he doesn't live large in his own story.

Everyone comes to the story in a different way
 
I agree.

I think I'd also try to show them why it mattered by linking things we have to deal with today that have roots in the CW and Reconstruction. That would also involve showing them that while it seems like ancient history it's really not that long ago: there are a few people living whose father was in the war; the last veterans died in the 1960s so somebody my age could have actually met a veteran; the parents of people my age would have known many people who lived through the war. So, we're only a few generations separated.

Good Point !

Unfortunately I belive that this approch will be quite difficult by time. Maybe to aplly your point I would also use the internet to hear and watch a witness talk about his / her experience. The internet sometimes is magic when you need to rack up information or get people involed in the topic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top