teaching history from present-back...

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

I heard about this the other day. While I am not a big supporter of this guy's politics, his morals, etc, his way of teaching history, from present, back, was intruiging.

It was in Colorado and he was told not to teach that way, even lost an appeal on the matter, then was moved out of history, into another Social Studies type class that didn't have a chronological type of subject. I think most of his problems came from his politics though.

But either way, what's the consesus of other SS teachesr

[Mr. H]

Wouldn't it be difficult to understand the whole cause/effect relationship if the class was taught backwards? I, as part of my courses, teach French history. I don't think I would understand it all were I to teach it in reverse order... it loses context.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

the way it's taught now - This is the cause, here's the effect

Teaching it backwards would show you the effects, and then show the cause later.

it would challenge the kids to think about it more, that's for sure.

[Mr. H]

Well, I see how it would challenge students (as I would be challenged as well) but what about the fact that we live in a society that values linear thought? The whole idea that cause and effect is something that the students should learn to understand in their personal lives?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

well, as it is now... you give an event and say "here's what happened, now wait to see the effects"

the way I'm proposing is "here's what happened" pique their interest in the outcome, then that leads into "want to find out what caused this?"

I haven't done this, just toying with the idea if/when I ever find myself teaching a linear history (I teach geography right now, so I can't do this currently)

The teacher I heard that did this, as liberal granola eating leftist as you can get, was told not to do it this way and was put into a different class like geography, where he couldn't do it. What got me is why he lost the appeal, and why it got that far to begin with. As long as I cover standards, let me teach the way I want. The guy must have been a failure in the game of workplace politics, which I am not, so I want to try it someday.

[Mr. H]

but couldn't you do the same thing with linear means...? ex:"here is what happened, what do you suppose happened next?" Or maybe you could teach it backwards and have the students put it in order, or vice/versa. Interesting...

[Unregistered]

Linear order of teaching only encourages more memorization. Teaching history as events happen is like telling a story and asking the students to memorize it.

However, teaching it backwards is more like just telling students out of the blue "this happened," the student would naturally be curious and ask "why?" even if subconsciously. This gives them a chance to do some critical thinking, and then you give them an answer by telling them "because this happened before that." This way, the students are more involved in the learning process and they're more interested in the cause-and-effect factor than "which came first and which came after." Instead, they'd be thinking "this came first, and it caused that to come after."

At the same time, with a reverse-order approach, as students learn more and more, they'll reach further and further into the past, and what they learn would seem to be more and more significant. This reverse-order approach also builds up the sense that all things in history is interconnected. Whatever they learn, they'll realize what they are learning at the time has a relationship with our current point in time. This reverse order learning focuses less on memorization and more on understanding.

I quite like it. Does anyone know any stories where it's actually tried out?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

Linear order of teaching only encourages more memorization. Teaching history as events happen is like telling a story and asking the students to memorize it.

However, teaching it backwards is more like just telling students out of the blue "this happened," the student would naturally be curious and ask "why?" even if subconsciously. This gives them a chance to do some critical thinking, and then you give them an answer by telling them "because this happened before that." This way, the students are more involved in the learning process and they're more interested in the cause-and-effect factor than "which came first and which came after." Instead, they'd be thinking "this came first, and it caused that to come after."

At the same time, with a reverse-order approach, as students learn more and more, they'll reach further and further into the past, and what they learn would seem to be more and more significant. This reverse-order approach also builds up the sense that all things in history is interconnected. Whatever they learn, they'll realize what they are learning at the time has a relationship with our current point in time. This reverse order learning focuses less on memorization and more on understanding.

I quite like it. Does anyone know any stories where it's actually tried out?

The only time I had heard about it was a highschool teacher in Colorado. He was a typical leftist, tree-hugging, granola eating hippie, but the story broke when he was forced into retirement at the end of this previous year. He taught a history class 2 years ago like I mentioned, and Colorado told him he couldn't, and then he lost an appeal. Then, he was removed from the history class, and given another social studies class that didn't revolve around timelines (geography, or something)

I'm having issues finding it in a search though

[teacher]

Linear order of teaching only encourages more memorization. Teaching history as events happen is like telling a story and asking the students to memorize it.

No offense, but History is memorization whether its told backward or foward.

[SunshineSkate]

I think this would be a really neat approach to try. Certainly not all topics in history could be taught this way, but many could... It encourages higher-level thinking. Social Studies was always so boring for me in school, I think this approach would have made it more of a 'thinking-thing' instead of just listening and memorizing stuff I couldn't see the point of knowing after high school.

(Oh my God, I can't believe I'm in agreement with CNO on something for a change)

[TeacherJay]

I would support teaching history from current times and moving backwards. I recall several times as a student that the school year ran out while we were still learning about WWII... there was just no time to cover more recent history. Moving backwards would also help to explain why some events occurred. The key to teaching history to separate it from a large accumulation of unrelated dates and facts and get them to think critically about it. Remember that the reason we teach history is to put some context around current events... that should be what is important. I just posted a blog entry on this very topic at: < href="http://teacherjay.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/history-lessons/>

~ TeacherJay

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

I think this would be a really neat approach to try. Certainly not all topics in history could be taught this way, but many could... It encourages higher-level thinking. Social Studies was always so boring for me in school, I think this approach would have made it more of a 'thinking-thing' instead of just listening and memorizing stuff I couldn't see the point of knowing after high school.

(Oh my God, I can't believe I'm in agreement with CNO on something for a change)

wow, makes you think what other things I have been right about on the site. :D

Unfortunately, I am not teaching any linear time subjects, I am teaching Geography again. Well, it's not unfortunate as I have my year already planned out. But I won't be able to try out this strategy this year.

[klkatz]

No offense, but History is memorization whether its told backward or foward.

history is undoubtedly telling stories and learning from them.... it is not memorization... it is a rare occurence that dates and names take precedent over the actual happenings....

i don't care if my students can't name more than 5 signers of the declaration of independence as long as they know the risks they took.

[Unregistered]

This seems a little like how history documentaries are structured. They usually start with some acievement that a culture has produced and then spend the rest of the hour explaining how and why it happened.

[Unregistered]

I searched for this topic in order to find support for teaching an ESL civics/American History class from present to past. My instinct was that doing so would engage my students more since they know and understand current events pretty well.....they would have a frame of reference for the beginning lessons. Then the following lessons would be built on previously learned information and thus be contextualized once again. For ESL students this type of contextualization is essential.....they need to have background information about a topic in order to be able to comprehend the lesson.

I disagree that teaching the subject matter "backwards" would undermine our American value of linear thought. A line is but a line....in whatever direction it goes. In my case, teaching from the known to the unknown only makes sense.

Thank you to all who have contributed! Now I feel much more confident in my plan.

Amy (ESL teacher in NYS)