Teaching Second-Order Concepts in History
These social educators pointed out that a history education that concerns itself exclusively with teaching substantive content is dismissible as a lightweight subject. For under such education, students’ progress in history education would mean only their accumulation of information about past events, and their ability to regurgitate this information when asked (Lee & Shemilt, 2003). The development of the students’ critical thinking—one of the raisons d’être of social education—is neglected.
Another important point raised against the view that teaching substantive content is what history education is all about is its lack of appreciation for the controversial nature of historical accounts (Seixas, 2000). Because this view regarding history education proceeds from the assumption that students only need only to know “the past,” it fails to address itself to the problem of which version of the past must be taught to students. One does not need to be a postmodernist in order to see validity of this criticism. Indeed, any person who has had a good grounding in history would know that there is no one-to-one correspondence between past events and the accounts that purport to report them.
The foregoing are the rationales behind the call for the teaching of second-order knowledgein history, as well as substantive ones. Second-order knowledge, or procedural knowledge, refers to the understanding of and ability to use the conceptual tools with which historians deal with historical data. This includes the concepts of time, causation, change, evidence, accounts, empathy, etc
This type of history education, in contrast to the history education that is limited to the teaching of substantive content, is what is needed in the classroom if higher-order thinking skills are to be developed among students. This is because by teaching students second-order concepts, they would be equipped with skills and understanding that may be applied to various other situations—very much like Physics (Lee & Shemilt, 2003). For instance, by teaching students the concept of empathy, students would be able to appreciate the role of history in the formation of values, beliefs, and attitudes of historical actors being studied.
For example, why did the people in the Middle Ages punish so severely individuals who committed felony. Back then, those who were found guilty of high treason (crime against the king and his family) were sentenced to be drawn, hanged, and quartered publicly, i.e. they were hanged publicly until they were almost dead, their entrails (lamang-loob) were removed and burned while they were still alive, and then their bodies were chopped into pieces like chickens. Is it because people back then lacked morals? Was it because they were less intelligent than we are? Or is it only because their moral code were different from ours, and that what we find disgusting and offensive were not necessarily so to them. An understanding of the concept of empathy would enable students to respect differences in beliefs, attitudes, and behavior among people, not as a matter of charity, but in recognition of the fact that the human code of conduct, like everything else, is a product of historical conditioning.
Another advantage of a history education that puts a premium on the teaching of second-order ideas is that it acknowledges the existence of different versions of the past and points it out to students (Seixas, 2000). Whereas the traditional history education is concerned only with teaching “the past,” under the history education that emphasizes the teaching of second-order concepts the students are given opportunity to decide on the basis of evidence which version of the past to believe in. This type of history education is the one which is compatible with a democratic country, where the existence of competing ideas must be acknowledged instead of suppressed and denied.
Still another good reason for teaching second-order concepts along with substantive ones is that research suggests that students’ state of understanding of second-order ideas tend to enhance or limit their grasp of substantive concepts (Lee, 2005). That is, if students’ understanding of second-order concepts remains backward, he might find difficulty in understanding certain substantive concepts. For example, if students lack understanding of the concept of change and time (second-order) as a gradual phenomenon, he might be hard put to understand the concept of revolution as a social change occurring over a long period of time (substantive).
Finally, teaching second-order concepts in history is advantageous because it would enable educators to predict the kind of thinking students might be operating with—and which might get in the way of their further learning in history—and plan instruction accordingly. In the 1950’s to 1980’s, numerous studies were conducted in order to come up with a model of progression that would aid educators plan instruction in history that take into account students’ mental development. They sought to apply the Piagetian developmental theory, which was based on learning in mathematics and science, to history learning (Downey & Levstik, 1991). However, the success of their efforts was dubious at best. For instance, one of the findings of such studies which suggest that as far as history learning is concerned students reach the formal operational stage at a much later age have been proven wrong by subsequent studies (Barton, 2008).
With the emphasis on the teaching of second-order concepts, the construction of models of progression based on research, became possible. A large-scale study conducted in the United Kingdom, for example, came up with several research-based models of progression (Lee & Ashby, 2000). These models were formulated by mapping students’ responses to the researcher’s questions that sought to measure their understanding of specific second-order concepts (for every second-order concept, one model of progression was constructed; the premise is that students’ understanding of different second-order concepts do not develop at the same time). These models are useful because these would enable history educators to plan history instruction across different grade levels. By locating the students’ level of understanding of a specific second-order concept within an existing research-based model of progression, the teachers would be able to identify and correct the misconceptions that students are likely to have regarding second-order-concepts. This would also enable them to record and analyze the development of students’ learning of second-order concepts over a period of time (Lee & Shemilt, 2003). Ω
References:
Barton, K. C.(2008). Research on students’ ideas about history. In L.S. Levstick & C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 239-258). New York: Routledge.
Downey, M.T. & Levstik, L.S. (1991). Teaching and learning history. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (400-410). New York: Macmillan.
Lee, P. & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in historical understanding among Students Ages 7-14. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (199-222). NY: New York University Press.
Lee, P. & Shemilt, D. (2003) ‘A scaffold not a cage: progression and progression models in history’. Teaching History, 113. Creating Progress Edition, Historical Association.
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History
in the classroom. Committee on how people learn, A targeted report for teachers, M.S. Donovan and J.D. Bransford (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11100.html
Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! die kinder! or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools?. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (19-37). NY: New York University Press.
Comments
Post a Comment