Now can we talk about history philosophies? :)

[Aspasia]

What can I say? I guess I'm feeling philosophical this week. ;)

 

I'm wondering about people's history philosophies. What do you consider to be the goals of history study in the early elementary grades? Do you think history should be taught chronologically? Are you a fan of the four-year cycle? The six-year cycle? No cycle at all? Do you give more time to American history than WTM suggests? Do you teach history out of order? Do you think it's important for kids to study English history a la many CM websites? Or any other history?

 

Just stuff along those lines.

[Hunter]

I don't think people liked it when I talked about my history teaching philosophies in the papoose thread :lol:

 

In my opinion hiSTORY is a STORY. An individual author's story is more about HIM than the events he is writing about about. As for primary sources, I think looking at them is little more than eavesdropping, and like any eavesdropping, likely leads to all sorts of foolish ideas.

 

I strive for some basic cultural literacy and some fun. I do NOT look for truth; I don't believe there even is a truth. I teach a LOT of history, but I approach it similar to literature. I just don't work up a sweat over it. It's just not that big of a deal.

 

Also, I think the WHOLE curriculum is more important than any individual subject. The history curriculum chosen should be integrated into the rest of the package, if possible. The history portion shouldn't be overwhelming in volume. The whole packages should be balanced for mind, body, and soul. Students should have time to pursue interests other than the spines for each subject.

[Hunter]

Okay, now to your individual questions. I don't think it matters if you do Waldorf, AO, TWTM, Principle Approach or any other history. I don't think it matters the worldview, or the order, or the topics chosen. But, I think it's a LOT easier to pick an approach and stick to it. It's cheaper and will get DONE.

 

So what am I doing right NOW? SOTW, Mr. Q, Grapevine and LLtL/RLtL. Why? Nice neat 36 week schedules. Very little controversy. Finished rotations. It all can be stored on my iPad. All of it is reasonably affordable and/or was on sale in December.

[Haiku]

I started off a fan of the 4-year cycle, but now, after 1.5 cycles, I'm starting to feel boxed in. I feel like we are missing too much cool stuff. My dd has always wanted to do a Native American study, but we never have. I think I want to spend more time on American history than SWB allots. I feel like I have looked at so many things that got dismissed because they were the wrong time at the wrong time, iykwim. My kids will be bored stiff reading ancient Roman authors in 9th grade, and I'm planning to do American lit that year, anyway. I think after we finish up Renaissance and Reformation this year, I'm going to abandon the cycle and go with interest-led history. Or at least do a good, solid year of American history and civics.

[maize]

I see history at the elementary level as primarily familiarization and fun. The stories of human experience are great stories, sometimes frightening, sometimes tender, they touch us because we are human and they are our stories.

[deerforest]

My personal goal was just to inspire a love of history. She has no interest in facts, dates, "important people", or wars. So, we don't bother with them. We focus pretty much solely on the social history--who were the people (emphasizing the common folks more than the "important" people), why did they do the things they did, what can we learn about that, how does it apply to us today. I focus on topics that were interesting to us. I spent a full year on pre-Columbian history reading and talking about native people throughout the Americas. I spent another full year on US history from the Age of Exploration through the American Revolution. We just spent about 5 months just talking about the 1800s--not a lot of time on the wars and none at all on Civil War. Instead, we focused on motivation, relationships, daily life, etc. among pioneers and Native Americans, Industry Revolution, impact on society, etc. 

 

I'm about to kick off study of Hispanic American history from the same time periods--Age of Exploration through the 1800s. 

 

My daughter is Guatemalan (we are an adoptive family), and I decided that it was pretty critical to give her historical and cultural ancestry equal attention.

 

Next year I'm starting with ancient history because she's now interested in that. I'm already starting planning it.

 

I make up all our curricula. I spend ridiculous amounts of time tracking down resources. We start our day with history read-alouds, and it's the favorite part of our day. DD also has assigned history reading to do daily--some factual stuff and usually has a historical fiction book going too. I pull from just about anything I can, and we read, read, read, talk, talk, talk, discuss, discuss, discuss.

 

She loves history so I've done what I set out to do so far! 

[Pen]

What can I say? I guess I'm feeling philosophical this week. ;)

 

I'm wondering about people's history philosophies. What do you consider to be the goals of history study in the early elementary grades? Do you think history should be taught chronologically? Are you a fan of the four-year cycle? The six-year cycle? No cycle at all? Do you give more time to American history than WTM suggests? Do you teach history out of order? Do you think it's important for kids to study English history a la many CM websites? Or any other history?

 

Just stuff along those lines.

 

We used SOTW all of it, mainly in Jim Weiss's audio form, in 3rd grade, partly due to finding it late and partly due to my son liking to get the story moving along and not liking to stop for projects, and largely in audio due to dyslexia.  

 

He came to love history, and while I have done some emphasis on the basics of American history this year, he mostly unschools history and it has mostly turned into a world modern history year, with a heavy emphasis on WWII. We have also sometimes jumped around out of order usually because something he is reading gets him interested in something else--for example, the Kane Chronicles might result in an interest in ancient Egypt. Or if there is something that has seemed suitable to his age, especially in film, like Liberty Kids, we've used it when it fits his age, rather than fitting into where we are in a history progression.

 

My son has gotten some English history due to such rabbit trails, not due to a theory based on CM , rather Twain's Prince and the Pauper and Shakepeare's Henry VIII might lead to looking into that period, or Shakepeare's Henry V might lead to looking at that time. He has also gotten some perspective from the Gandhi and Michael Collins sides starting from biopic movies--and of course from the American perspective regarding the American Revolution.

 

We have also sometimes taken a current event and looked backwards from it toward the past to try to understand the situation. And my son has loved the James Burke Connections DVD series, and Take Back Your Power as a current situation that sort of flows from some of the things he had already learned via Connections. (We have done quite a bit of history that overlaps with science.) Each Connections episode is chronological in itself, but one follows a this led to this led to that and came together with this other thing that led to that other thing sort of threads. However, all this was grounded in a first time going through history chronologically in terms of SOTW, and he wants to do that again in more depth probably next year--probably pretty seriously because he wanted to be taken to a bookstore to buy history books.

 

It isn't so much a philosophy as what we did, and it worked for us.

 

Out of that, my philosophy is to do what works well for the actual child/student and parent/teacher.

[HS Mom in NC]

What can I say? I guess I'm feeling philosophical this week. ;)

 

I'm wondering about people's history philosophies. What do you consider to be the goals of history study in the early elementary grades?

The Grammar Stage: the facts of who,what, where and when.

 

Do you think history should be taught chronologically?

Yes, because the second stage of the Trivium is the Logic Stage which is cause and effect: or one aspect of why. The final stage, Rhetoric is application and persuasion.  No one without the who, what, where, when and the why part of Logic is competent when it comes to applying the life lessons of history to their own lives and worldviews.  Formal argumentation (an aspect of formal logic which includes persuasion) requires multi-level understanding like the Trivium provides. I'm not suggesting the Trivium is the only way to be thorough, but it's the best way I've found that suits my preferences.

 

Are you a fan of the four-year cycle?

 

The first time around, yes.  The second time around, we do a shorter cycle with World History and combine some amount of stage 2 and 3 when we can.  My older kids started college at 15 and 17.

 

 Do you give more time to American history than WTM suggests?

 

Yes. 

 

Do you teach history out of order? Do you think it's important for kids to study English history a la many CM websites? Or any other history?

 

I focus more on European History than some would as it directly relates to American History.  Charles Coffin's The Story of Liberty and Sweet Land of Liberty are examples of this.

 

Also, I do SOTW as unit studies, so we're not strictly chronological bouncing from one people group to the next and back again later.  I wanted my kids to have better sense of each people group as distinct from each other, so in the Ancients we do a chronological unit study of one group at a time.  (Mesopotamia, China, Greece, Rome, etc.) In the Medieval period there's more interaction between different people groups, so I still group somewhat according to region, but not as exclusively as before. 

 

Just stuff along those lines.

 

I heavily supplement with books like those suggested in the SOTW Activity Guides.  I've found it important to be able to find my own with local library search engines because not every library has every book Bauer suggests.  We do a lot of reading aloud (see the current thread about doing more reading aloud) with library books related to history: mythology, folklore, biographies, additional non-fiction, literature set in the same time and region, etc. I also look for hands on activity books for each region and/or era to add to the activity suggestions in Bauer's SOTW Activity Guides.  That doesn't mean I do all the suggested  activities and then some, it means I have more activities to pick and choose from as time and energy allow. I like to have lots of options.

 

We do map work directly related to SOTW readings.  I use (because I've been doing this 14 years) Terri Johnson's Blackline Maps of World History which is now updated and repackaged as MapTrek.  It's full of maps of major historical events chronologically.  It dovetails beautifully with SOTW or GreenLeaf Guides.  (Probably more but that's all I know from personal experience.) You print out the master map and the corresponding blank map-simple and effective.

 

Everything we do for each history unit is put into a lapbook or notebook format.  Anything too big to put in it is photographed.  All narrations, maps, activities, art projects, field trips and a list of every related read loud goes in.

 

 

 

[jar7709]

Personally, I prefer to see history as a tapestry or landscape rather than a story.  Some might argue that's semantics, but to me there's an important difference.  "Story" implies a direct cause -> effect narrative, when really, history is much more messy than that, with multiple causes and perspectives influencing a variety of people, places, situations, and events.  Of course, a complex approach could easily overwhelm an elementary student! But I think it can be introduced early if the teacher and student are on board. 

 

To that end, I do like generally-chronological approach that cycles through the same content as students mature, a la WTM, and I don't have a problem with using roughly 4-year increments for those cycles, but I'm not wedded to "the 4-year cycle" iykwim.  And obviously you're not going to throw the same stuff at a 2nd grader as you will an 8th grader, etc.  But I do think the tapestry/landscape approach can be started early and I really like Loewen's Teaching What Really Happened as a way of getting there.  We use a variety of sources that utilize a variety of historical methods (archeology, primary sources, retrospectives, etc.) and different authors and approaches.    My kids  stay engaged this way, and in the elementary years I am less concerned about having dates memorized than keeping their interest high and their curiosity sparked for finding out more.   

 

After two years of world history, we're now in what'll probably turn out to be the first of two years of American history with some additional world and Canadian history sprinkled in.  We're currently using History of Us as a spine, with lots of supplementary books and materials and field trips.  For my kids, they find just learning about the big events a little dry (and frankly I find teaching it that way a little dry, too) so we take a lot of side trips with biographies, science and technology, etc.  My kids LOVE the books that talk about how one thing has been used and changed throughout history (like city streets, or cotton, or oil, or corn, or toilets :D to give a few examples), which I find give them a lot of context for a lot of the more traditional history books.     

[Farrar]

As background, I used to teach history at the secondary level and was a history major in school, so I feel pretty comfortable teaching it however I like.

 

Goal for elementary: exposure and enjoyment.  We've used it as a jumping off point for myths, art, literature, early thinking about cause and effect, looking for cross-cultural connections, social justice issues, and other things, but in the end, it's just been exposure and enjoyment for the most part.  The exposure part has been important because I feel like the kids have a loose (well, very loose as their retention isn't always so keen) framework for the future.

 

For middle and high school: a platform for analysis and critical thinking.  I definitely believe that we study history so we can understand the world around us.  History is a writing subject to me for high school.  In English you analyze literature, in history you analyze events and documents.

 

In general, including the history of everyday people as well as big names is important to me.  And emphasizing how things are different and the same over time.

 

I started out our homeschool journey keen on the 4 year cycle.  Now, looking at the end of the first go around, I've made alterations - we had a year of American history too - and I am much less keen.  I liked going chronological at first.  I think it has been important and I wouldn't change that.  But I'm thinking of leaving it behind when we wrap up the modern world and not returning until high school.  I feel like middle school is all about finding depth and learning to love learning when you're in the middle of this huge transition - in your body and your brain and your way of thinking - and I just don't know if we're going to be so married to chronological history and the cycle that we'll want to keep following it during this tumultuous time.  We'll see.  I'm working out what I want to do, but right now I'm leaning toward interest led for history and doing a year of geography to really emphasize it.  That will mean we did 5 years (more or less) of chronological history, followed by 3-4 of interest led and special topics, followed by 4-5 years of chronological again.  If that makes any sense.

[Pen]

My personal goal was just to inspire a love of history. She has no interest in facts, dates, "important people", or wars. So, we don't bother with them. We focus pretty much solely on the social history--who were the people (emphasizing the common folks more than the "important" people), why did they do the things they did, what can we learn about that, how does it apply to us today. I focus on topics that were interesting to us. I spent a full year on pre-Columbian history reading and talking about native people throughout the Americas. I spent another full year on US history from the Age of Exploration through the American Revolution. We just spent about 5 months just talking about the 1800s--not a lot of time on the wars and none at all on Civil War. Instead, we focused on motivation, relationships, daily life, etc. among pioneers and Native Americans, Industry Revolution, impact on society, etc. 

 

I'm about to kick off study of Hispanic American history from the same time periods--Age of Exploration through the 1800s. 

 

My daughter is Guatemalan (we are an adoptive family), and I decided that it was pretty critical to give her historical and cultural ancestry equal attention.

 

Next year I'm starting with ancient history because she's now interested in that. I'm already starting planning it.

 

I make up all our curricula. I spend ridiculous amounts of time tracking down resources. We start our day with history read-alouds, and it's the favorite part of our day. DD also has assigned history reading to do daily--some factual stuff and usually has a historical fiction book going too. I pull from just about anything I can, and we read, read, read, talk, talk, talk, discuss, discuss, discuss.

 

She loves history so I've done what I set out to do so far! 

 

 

The bolded part esp the goal of inspiring a love of history is true for us too--though I did insist on a few dates like 1492. I would prefer to focus on social history as you are doing, but I have also accepted that my son is fascinated by war, weapons, motors, inventions, and the like, and to get him to love history I had to focus on what he was interested in, at least in large part. This may be individual or at least in part a boy/girl difference. I have also given my personal opinions against war. Your mention of pre-Columbian history reminds me that we also read Charles Mann's 1491 and Thor Heyerdahl's Kon Tikki at one point and enjoyed those, though my ds has since forgotten them. And your mention of the emphasis on common folk reminds me that my son has very much liked Zinn's A People's History, and a cartoon history book based on that.

 

I also realize from what you wrote, that my other goal in addition to inspiring a love of history is to come to understand the current world and to be able to take a part in thinking about its future.

[deerforest]

Yes--I used Mann's and Zinn's materials a lot in our studies! Also pulled in a ton of other materials. I get a bit obsessive I think.

 

I should mention too that I do plan on delving into the more factual bits about history, wars, those "important" folks as we move into middle and high school. I do think they are important too, but just not the right fit for inspiring her interest at the elementary age.

 

[Pen]

 

Goal for elementary: exposure and enjoyment.  

 

For middle and high school: a platform for analysis and critical thinking.  I definitely believe that we study history so we can understand the world around us.  History is a writing subject to me for high school.  In English you analyze literature, in history you analyze events and documents.

 

In general, including the history of everyday people as well as big names is important to me.  And emphasizing how things are different and the same over time.

 

I'm leaning toward interest led for history ...

 

 

Yes.   All of the above!   And also to the underlined, I'd add also so that we can make decisions, large and small, as they may affect the future with some degree of thought and understanding about how choices at one point in history affect the future.

[Pen]

Personally, I prefer to see history as a tapestry or landscape rather than a story.  ...

 

 But I do think the tapestry/landscape approach can be started early and I really like Loewen's Teaching What Really Happened as a way of getting there.  We use a variety of sources that utilize a variety of historical methods (archeology, primary sources, retrospectives, etc.) and different authors and approaches.    My kids  stay engaged this way, and in the elementary years I am less concerned about having dates memorized than keeping their interest high and their curiosity sparked for finding out more.   

 

 

 

And yes to all this also! I also was influenced by Loewen, and had at one point a thread on that, with many sources people found linked. The James Burke Connections materials and a flow of that into Take Back Your Power have recently been extremely helpful with the sense of tapestry or landscape. Not for younger kids, but as an adult I am also enjoying some James Carroll materials such as Jerusalem, Jerusalem, and want to read Loewen's Sundown Towns which I expect will also be in a landscape/tapestry mode of understanding.  On a more personal history sense, Michael Apted's Up film series has been very meaningful to me, and I think ds is also getting something out of it, though I'd be hesitant to suggest the ones after Seven plus Seven for kids not past 8th grade...PG would be needed in any case since it has adults speaking about life. I have decided to go ahead and let ds11 watch, but it does have things like the 4F's mentioned.

[jar7709]

And yes to all this also! I also was influenced by Loewen, and had at one point a thread on that, with many sources people found linked. The James Burke Connections materials and a flow of that into Take Back Your Power have recently been extremely helpful with the sense of tapestry or landscape. Not for younger kids, but as an adult I am also enjoying some James Carroll materials such as Jerusalem, Jerusalem, and want to read Loewen's Sundown Towns which I expect will also be in a landscape/tapestry mode of understanding.  On a more personal history sense, Michael Apted's Up film series has been very meaningful to me, and I think ds is also getting something out of it, though I'd be hesitant to suggest the ones after Seven plus Seven for kids not past 8th grade...PG would be needed in any case since it has adults speaking about life. I have decided to go ahead and let ds11 watch, but it does have things like the 4F's mentioned.

 

Yes! Connections was so personally influential to me back in the day.  :)  Along these same philosophical lines, I loved Gaddis' Landscape of History-- which is more about the craft of being a historian than about the act of teaching history, but it resonated with me (a history minor in college, now with a science/history hybrid of a career).  Those crazy interactions are where it's at!

[KrissiK]

For early elementary - exposure, familiarity.

 

For older kids, and adults, I think the only way we can fully appreciate and understand today's world in all its conflict is to understand history. The things that are happening now on the world stage are not new. These conflicts have been going on for thousands of years. How can we truly understand our own country and constitution if the Mayflower is our starting point. I grew up believing that the Founding Fathers just kind of made all that stuff up. A new idea. I always thought it was truly the American Revolution. But it really wasn't a revolution. It was just a bunch of colonies who grew up and didn't want Mother England telling them what to do all the time.

 

I guess I think that the study of history is not just an end in itself. Knowing a bunch of dates doesn't make you a better person. A good foundation in history includes study of people groups, religion and political philosophy.

[73349]

My purpose is to give my son a sense of time and place, and of connectedness to other peoples. My "big idea statement" says that "Humanity has a history, and that history is still happening--we are part of it. History is affected not just by individuals, but by places and by groups and their cultures."

We're doing a skim of geography first, and then we'll do one round through SOTW and see what happens from there. I do think history should be done chronologically at some point to give coherence.

[Another Lynn]

When my oldest hit logic stage, we tried to do our 2nd trip through the 4-year history cycle.  We tried WTM, approach, HOD, homemade, AO, etc.  We never did recapture the delight of our first trip through.  I agree with several pp who suggested doing something different during the logic stage.  I think it would be a great time for interest-led, or whatever.

[Mrs Twain]

I don't like any of the history cycles because they don't give enough review.  My kids would not remember much if I only taught them things every four or six years.

 

Since first grade, I read aloud a world history overview book in the fall semester, and then I read aloud an American history overview book in the spring semester.  I have been repeating this every year through 5th grade.  Perhaps you could say I do a one-year cycle.

 

In addition, we do three projects per year to focus in depth on certain subjects.  Generally, the projects have been to do a lapbook, read at least one extra supplemental book on the subject, and write a 3+ paragraph report. 

 

We also work on memory work for history and civics (basic facts such as major American wars, and excerpts from documents and speeches).  This year we have started CC to increase our history memory work (timeline and history sentences). 

 

My goal for grades 1-5 is for the kids to internalize the big picture overview of world history and American history.  Reasons for this have to do with evidence (E.D. Hirsch, Willingham books I have read).  So far, I think it is working well. 

 

I have never used EpiKardia, but they use a very similar approach to history, though more CM-ish.

 

I am planning to do something a little different for 6th-8th, namely more in-depth world history for 6th and 7th, and American history with study of original documents in 8th.  That plan is a work in progress.

 

 

[My3girls]

I'm new to this so I could change my mind. Right now, we are studying history in chronological order. I'm not sure if that will take 4 or 5 years, but I doubt 6. Some parts of history we will get through quickly and others will take longer just depending on their interest. I fully expect to follow rabbit trails as they arise. In High School, I plan to have one year dedicated to U.S. History, one year as an overview of World History just to tie things up, and one year for government and economics.

 

Dd12 will only get the one pass through before high school, since she was in PS through 5th grade, so we're just going to get as much as we can out of it. For the youngers, I am looking for exposure and to spark interest on the first pass through with more analysis on the second.

[Kevin'sMom]

E. H. Gombrich A Little History of the World.

 

This is a wonderful book, written for children

. Listening to a series of Yale lectures on the American Revolution(on ITunes University) awakened an interest in the early history of our country. I listened to the lectures and then told them as stories to my son. I have taught him to try to create a timeline in his mind and then "store" the history he learns in  about 500 year increments. That is what I do when reading history, so hopefully it will work for him.  We all enjoyed listening to the BBC History of the World in 100 Objects. Just some history ideas, for whatever they are worth.

[Korrale]

We are doing a year of Americana. American history, geography, civics intertwined. I am going to see how we do sticking to chronology. But we might end up breaking everything down to location or mini eras.

What resonates with my son about history are day to day lives. We got hooked on the westward-Ho era by reading books like Little House on the Prairie. And by visiting local canals.

Johnny Appleseed owned land in our town and we visit his former land holdings. We love to attend living history places also. So my son is getting a feel for local history with immersion.

We also read a lot and watch shows. Either non fiction books or documentaries or fictional books and shows set in a certain era.

My son has broken history down into 2 parts. Before automobiles and after automobiles. It is a good start as he just turned 4.

 

Next year we intend to switch over to SotW with lots of supplementing.

[Korrale]

If I do cycle through history I do think I would do it faster than 4 years. Maybe 4 years in a year. And I would keep repeating it until my son has a pretty solid idea of the order of things.

Then we when he is older we will delve more deeply.

[Hunter]

We loved Connections too. We watched it twice.

 

Breaking history up into before and after automobiles is cute!

 

When it comes to history, the more I learn, the more I know I do not know.

[Aspasia]

If I do cycle through history I do think I would do it faster than 4 years. Maybe 4 years in a year. And I would keep repeating it until my son has a pretty solid idea of the order of things.

Then we when he is older we will delve more deeply.

That's insanely fast. Even with the four-year cycle, it feels like we're barely skimming the surface. In fact, ancients feels kind of choppy to me because of it.

 

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because while dd shows some interest in the SOTW stories (the audio version has really helped), she doesn't seem to be catching the ancient history bug in quite the same way as she catches the American history bug. I'm assuming a large part of it has to do with the fact that we live in Northern Virginia and we're surrounded by so much hands-on, right-in-front-of-your-face history, it's hard NOT to be really fascinated by what happened here.

 

When I first read WTM many years ago, SWB's history philosophy really resonated with me. It does make sense to learn history chronologically. It does make sense to start at the beginning of time, rather than starting with the child and family, then moving to the community, then the state, then the country, then the world (like most public schools do).

 

Or does it?

 

It makes sense to my adult brain, and I do wish I had a better grasp on world history. It just doesn't feel like a good fit for my 6-year-old. It means nothing to her. To be sure, she does find things like mummies and pyramids pretty amazing. And she likes the Arabian Nights stories.

 

But I am thinking I might change up our history approach. I'm thinking I might rather just do unit studies, maybe repeating some, maybe not, depending on interest. I love CM's idea of a book of centuries to keep everything straight. Or perhaps we'll just keep notebooking whatever we study for history and file it away chronologically in a huge history notebook. But as long as we have something to organize what we've learned and contextualize it, I'd rather spend our time on things that dd finds inspiring. And while I personally love the whole idea of SOTW, it just isn't doing it for her.

 

So I guess my current philosophy of early elementary history education is about piquing interest in the stories of past people and how things came to be the way they are. If that can be accomplished by studying it chronologically, then that makes good sense to me. But if not, then I think other routes are equally valid.

[Soror]

I would agree w/ farrar although I didn't even stick w/ a 4yr cycle the first time. We're going for exposure and fun and lots of input. I want to focus on the connections.

[Hunter]

When I first read WTM many years ago, SWB's history philosophy really resonated with me. It does make sense to learn history chronologically. It does make sense to start at the beginning of time, rather than starting with the child and family, then moving to the community, then the state, then the country, then the world (like most public schools do).

 

Or does it?

 

It makes sense to my adult brain, and I do wish I had a better grasp on world history. It just doesn't feel like a good fit for my 6-year-old. It means nothing to her. To be sure, she does find things like mummies and pyramids pretty amazing. And she likes the Arabian Nights stories.

 

 

I've wrestled with this. Some curricula are a lot more developmentally appropriate. I've done top down teaching and I've done developmentally appropriate. I've learned I'm a better TEACHER when I use less developmentally appropriate materials that match my OCD tendencies. I now give myself permission to use things that I teach well. Yes, this can be taken WAY too far, but anyone that is talking about it. isn't going to be the type to do that.

 

I don't do well with really student centered methods. I spent a lifetime of being subhuman, and catering entirely to others. If I'm not careful, I can get into really co-dependent relationships with students. I need to exert MYSELF a bit as a TEACHER. I can get so lost in being a facilitator. that even the student gets harmed.

 

When I noticed that I was getting into a very similar pattern with a couple tutoring students that I got into with one of my boys, I stopped being so student centered. And learning increased. And better relationships as a whole developed.

 

I think there are healthy individuals that can be totally student centered with GREAT results. I'm just not healthy enough to do that. I've got too much PTSD and OCD.

 

I send the students that are better taught elsewhere, where their needs will be met. And those that have no where else to go, I offer what I have to offer. I'm learning I need to strengthen myself and teach with my strengths, to do the most for them in the long run.

 

It's a marathon right? Getting too student centered is sprinting for me.

[Haiku]

This is a really great thread! Thanks for all the neat ideas!

[Embassy]

In elementary we have focused on enjoyment of history through unit studies.  We have done a chronological approach, but not in a 4 year cycle.  Our cycle was taking much longer.  As we get into the middle grades, we are progressing quicker through history, but have a documentary-focused approach rather than unit-studies.  I haven't focused on memorization of dates and names, but understanding the whys and hows.  

[Rosie_0801]

I like the idea of chronological history teaching because my history education was a pathetic, jumbled mess. I know stuff, but most of it is too fragmented to use. I'm not sure how deep dd will be able to go, with her learning challenges, when I have no intention of obliging her to study history in high school. 

[Aspasia]

I like the idea of chronological history teaching because my history education was a pathetic, jumbled mess. I know stuff, but most of it is too fragmented to use. I'm not sure how deep dd will be able to go, with her learning challenges, when I have no intention of obliging her to study history in high school.

My history education wasn't terrible, but yeah, it feels jumbled and messy. I'm hoping that keeping a Book of Centuries or just a giant chronological history notebook will help to contextualize everything and make it less jumbled for my kids.

 

In thinking about my own history education, the biggest reason I didn't get much out of it was that I hated it. I thought I hated history altogether because of the way I was taught. It was such a snooze fest for me. Only as an adult have I realized how much I actually love history. The problem for me was that history in school consisted mainly of wars and legislation--this act and that act. That stuff is just not interesting to me. At all. Still. But I actually love the more personal aspects of history--I love learning how people lived, I love biographies, etc. Had I known how much I love history, I may have actually minored in it in college. So, for me, it's very important to help my kids find the things about history that can fascinate and inspire them. If they don't know about all the major wars or something else generally considered "important"...well, they can join the rest of us who "learned" it but really didn't because it didn't fascinate or inspire. (For the record, I actually got a 5 on the AP American History test...and I still didn't really learn much.)

[Rosie_0801]

I majored in history at uni!

[Pen]

In thinking about my own history education, the biggest reason I didn't get much out of it was that I hated it. I thought I hated history altogether because of the way I was taught. It was such a snooze fest for me. Only as an adult have I realized how much I actually love history. The problem for me was that history in school consisted mainly of wars and legislation--this act and that act. That stuff is just not interesting to me. At all. Still. But I actually love the more personal aspects of history--I love learning how people lived, I love biographies, etc. Had I known how much I love history, I may have actually minored in it in college. So, for me, it's very important to help my kids find the things about history that can fascinate and inspire them. If they don't know about all the major wars or something else generally considered "important"...well, they can join the rest of us who "learned" it but really didn't because it didn't fascinate or inspire.

 

 

I agree with this in general--though I decided to add in some American history when after going through SOTW and then various rabbit trails, my ds turned out not to recognize the name Benjamin Franklin (who would have been of interest at least as an inventor, if not for other reasons). There was a point at which I felt like he needed to know some of what/who is considered "important" even if it did not lead to an interest, but just not to say, "hunh, who?"

 

In many cases though I see that the way we are doing it is leading to him knowing a lot of things I never knew, for example, that WWI Battle of Verdun was deliberately intended by the Germans to be a long war of attrition to kill as many as possible and keep it going for a long time. I always feel so undereducated when I learn things like that, and I had what is considered an excellent education, and I even did pay attention, but I think the way things were taught were terrible.

 

So I am trying to do it differently, for ds and I think on the whole succeeding in a better result where I think he knows more history at age 11 than I did by end of high school. But his tends to be more in depth on subjects that interest him, while mine was more a matter of knowing a date and event, a date and event, but often not the why's and wherefore's and importances of those.

[Rosie_0801]

Is there a reason people don't slot their country's history into their world history routine? Or do they and just don't talk about it?

Or perhaps everyone else's history is so much more interesting than ours that they really *like* spending an entire year on it here and there...

[Chrysalis Academy]

I like doing chronological history, but I'm not married to a 4-year cycle.  We'll probably go through the cycle twice in all, spending extra time on American history and any particular eras that catch our interest.

 

In high school we will definitely take more of a "global history" approach than we have so far.  

[Aspasia]

I agree with this in general--though I decided to add in some American history when after going through SOTW and then various rabbit trails, my ds turned out not to recognize the name Benjamin Franklin (who would have been of interest at least as an inventor, if not for other reasons). There was a point at which I felt like he needed to know some of what/who is considered "important" even if it did not lead to an interest, but just not to say, "hunh, who?"

 

I totally agree. I think it's probably important for my kids to know what the American Revolution was, and things like the War of 1812. But for any children I have who may not be war enthusiasts, I think I'll teach that in the context of other aspects of that time period. We'll learn mostly about the way people lived, read biographies, and touch on how the wars affected them.

[Syllieann]

I like chronological but I don't have strong feelings on 3, 4, or 5 yrs. I did have some concerns about retention, specifically those that Mrs. twain mentioned because I put a lot more weight on evidence-based than well-reasoned with a bit of anecdotal evidence. The cycle lends itself to homeschool though, while Hirsch's methods don't make it especially easy to fold in a sibling. This is why the memory work is important to me. Timeline and history sentences are regularly reviewed, not left in the dust for the next 3 years. I don't know how this will pan out in the long run since we're only in the first year. I would be interested in hearing results from those that did the memory work with the cycle vs those that just moved on to the next thing.

[Hunter]

I'm realizing that one of the benefits of a standard rotation, is that other curricula writers can produce complementary curricula that plays nice with your history.

[Korrale]

That's insanely fast. Even with the four-year cycle, it feels like we're barely skimming the surface. In fact, ancients feels kind of choppy to me because of it.

.

Skimming was the idea. :) we will only be 5 years old at this point and I think that if I go with a more indepth 4 year cycle he would have forgotten the ancients by the time we get to modern history. I want to just touch on the eras and read books set or about those eras. Just so he knows the difference between an Egyptian and a Roman. Or that he knows that the colonial age is before the Victotian age.

1st go around I just want to put a timeline in place in his mind. Second go around he will be 6 years old. And we may get into more details. But maybe still not indepth.

I know at some point we will revisit Americana. And I have to incorporate Australiana.

 

By the time he is 8 or even 10 we will be starting more indepth stuff. We will be doing the crafts, notebooking, unit studies etc.

[Momling]

We did the ancients in 2nd and 3rd grade, Medieval in 4th and Renaissance in 5th.  That was all great.  But during that year I realized that we couldn't really address the crusades or colonialism or slavery or anything after the 16th century when things started getting more international.  I felt I was doing a disservice to my kids by not giving them opportunities to learn the history of other areas too. So this year we are doing world history in a unit study format... We're devoting about a month or two for each unit -- Africa, Asia, Middle East, Americas, Australia (sorry -- only 2 weeks), Europe (mostly 18th-19th century).  Like previous years, they have a portfolio (blank from history portfolios) and they draw pictures, maps, flags, write paragraphs and do timelines for each period. They read OUP or HO or research online, watch documentaries, memorize the countries of that area, learn about the religions, read a book from the country and write an essay.  When appropriate, I tie in literature, science, art, music, philosophy, political science etc...

I had originally thought we'd do a single year of US History next year, but I think we'll extend it to 2 years and have a heavy international "Modern History" focus.  After that I think we'll move to focusing on an AP History syllabus.

 

Anyway, I guess my philosophy is to use history as a basis for all other subjects and to spend time focusing on our own western history without disregarding the rest of the world. Although we do sometimes focus on facts and memorization, from the start, I've always aimed for having my kids look for bigger questions and repeating themes like: what happens when cultures interact with each other, what happens when people are dissatisfied with their government, how do scientific and philosophical ideas build on each other, what happens when empires get big...  I guess that's my philosophy on history education.

[Pen]

That's insanely fast. Even with the four-year cycle, it feels like we're barely skimming the surface. In fact, ancients feels kind of choppy to me because of it.

 

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because while dd shows some interest in the SOTW stories (the audio version has really helped), she doesn't seem to be catching the ancient history bug in quite the same way as she catches the American history bug. I'm assuming a large part of it has to do with the fact that we live in Northern Virginia and we're surrounded by so much hands-on, right-in-front-of-your-face history, it's hard NOT to be really fascinated by what happened here.

 

When I first read WTM many years ago, SWB's history philosophy really resonated with me. It does make sense to learn history chronologically. It does make sense to start at the beginning of time, rather than starting with the child and family, then moving to the community, then the state, then the country, then the world (like most public schools do).

 

Or does it?

 

It makes sense to my adult brain, and I do wish I had a better grasp on world history. It just doesn't feel like a good fit for my 6-year-old. It means nothing to her. To be sure, she does find things like mummies and pyramids pretty amazing. And she likes the Arabian Nights stories.

 

But I am thinking I might change up our history approach. I'm thinking I might rather just do unit studies, maybe repeating some, maybe not, depending on interest. I love CM's idea of a book of centuries to keep everything straight. Or perhaps we'll just keep notebooking whatever we study for history and file it away chronologically in a huge history notebook. But as long as we have something to organize what we've learned and contextualize it, I'd rather spend our time on things that dd finds inspiring. And while I personally love the whole idea of SOTW, it just isn't doing it for her.

 

So I guess my current philosophy of early elementary history education is about piquing interest in the stories of past people and how things came to be the way they are. If that can be accomplished by studying it chronologically, then that makes good sense to me. But if not, then I think other routes are equally valid.

 

 

I'm wondering if what happened to us for history accidentally was actually a great benefit. My son was in b&m school through 1st grade with no history, and then second grade was spent trying to work mainly on the basics of reading and math, plus we got in some science and art, but still not much of any history.

 

I discovered SOTW when ds was around 9 years old, and read the first book (or part of it) aloud to ds, and then got the audios, and he went through those multiple times, first in order and then later (still going back to them sometimes this year) sometimes not in order. Another child I know was reading SOTW in its book form over and over like a novel (she said) in 5th grade. And neither did any of the activities or other additional materials--no notebooking, lapbooking, timelines, memorizing, narrations, or any of that. A globe might be consulted if desired, but usually not. And some things might result in wanting more (in our case we found more Anansi the spider stories), but otherwise it all got listened to, and some parts were remembered and some not, but the framework got laid down. And both children seemed to enjoy those similar approaches very much.  I am thinking this may be an area where there is an advantage to doing it in a chronological story way later rather than earlier.  And going from start to finish (possibly many times) as quickly as is comfortable may avoid choppiness--and in case of SOTW, it makes it just  4 books which in themselves give fairly exciting engaging stories to go through like any other series (Harry Potter, Percy Jackson etc.) rather than a "curriculum".  If one were to take an engaging book series (say Harry Potter for a child who likes that) and then stop at the end of each chapter to do projects and notebook on it and make a timeline, that might be rather horrid and turn it into something unpleasant for some children who just want to get on with the story.

 

I thought it did make sense to start at the beginning of time for history, but we did so when ds was 9 and very ready to do that. And he was also helped by using documentaries and recreations that gave him some sense of what things might have looked like, which I think helped him to be able to imagine scenes based on what was read.  

 

At 6 and 7 he was studying the world around him, not via a curriculum, but via the actual world around him, and that also was very suitable.

 

Does your daughter love the notebooking and organizing and filing things away in a history notebook? I started a notebook for each subject as per instructions in WTM, but found that my son learned better not doing it that way. But again, if your daughter finds herself loving history when done that way, then that is wonderful!

[Pen]

Skimming was the idea. :) we will only be 5 years old at this point and I think that if I go with a more indepth 4 year cycle he would have forgotten the ancients by the time we get to modern history. I want to just touch on the eras and read books set or about those eras. Just so he knows the difference between an Egyptian and a Roman. Or that he knows that the colonial age is before the Victotian age.

1st go around I just want to put a timeline in place in his mind. Second go around he will be 6 years old. And we may get into more details. But maybe still not indepth.

I know at some point we will revisit Americana. And I have to incorporate Australiana.

 

By the time he is 8 or even 10 we will be starting more indepth stuff. We will be doing the crafts, notebooking, unit studies etc.

 

I think for a lot of children at that age time is still a concept that is getting figured out, and is more abstract than many of them really understand.

 

Similarly ideas like "the colonial age" versus "the Victorian age" are pretty abstract and take a lot of understanding about what an "age" is, what "Colonialism" is and so on.  

 

I do realize that some children are very ready for things that are quite abstract quite early, or that this sort of thing can be one in a poll parrot fact memorization sort of way by other children with the comprehension of what it might mean to be left for later. We did well to leave that sort of thing to when my son was somewhat older and able to start understanding the ideas and had started to have a decent sense of time.

[Pen]

I've wrestled with this. Some curricula are a lot more developmentally appropriate. I've done top down teaching and I've done developmentally appropriate. I've learned I'm a better TEACHER when I use less developmentally appropriate materials that match my OCD tendencies. I now give myself permission to use things that I teach well. Yes, this can be taken WAY too far, but anyone that is talking about it. isn't going to be the type to do that.

 

I don't do well with really student centered methods. I spent a lifetime of being subhuman, and catering entirely to others. If I'm not careful, I can get into really co-dependent relationships with students. I need to exert MYSELF a bit as a TEACHER. I can get so lost in being a facilitator. that even the student gets harmed.

 

When I noticed that I was getting into a very similar pattern with a couple tutoring students that I got into with one of my boys, I stopped being so student centered. And learning increased. And better relationships as a whole developed.

 

Could you give more detail/specifics on this?

 

I think there are healthy individuals that can be totally student centered with GREAT results. I'm just not healthy enough to do that. I've got too much PTSD and OCD.

 

I send the students that are better taught elsewhere, where their needs will be met. And those that have no where else to go, I offer what I have to offer. I'm learning I need to strengthen myself and teach with my strengths, to do the most for them in the long run.

 

It's a marathon right? Getting too student centered is sprinting for me.

 

I think that tutoring actively, especially if there are many students, can be very different in this regard than homeschooling in some cases. I used to tutor, and it was necessarily the case when doing so that I was actively teaching something the child was having trouble with in regular school or on his/her own. When I am actively teaching, I choose what interests me and I think important. But with homeschooling, especially in history, I am more often in the position of facilitating my son's abilities to teach himself in an area that is a strength for him.  

 

When my son is running with material in an unschool student initiated learning type way, I facilitate.

 

And as facilitator, I have accepted that he is fascinated by things like military strategy and new inventions in weaponry that I probably would not choose as subjects in active teaching. Yet I have to also say that those things that fascinate him, like the change from a top loading to a side loading musket can make the difference between winning or losing a war and can thus be what causes the interpersonal and social history changes that more interest me. Certainly for the common man who can lie down to load the side loader and avoid getting shot, as compared to the one who must stand up to load the top loader it can make the difference between life and death (my son explained this to me). So while I would not myself want to spend hours delving into such differences in gun design, or how a flint lock works, or the roll of gas balloons in the Civil War, say,  I am very happy to help him find the materials he needs and then to listen as he explains to me the importance of what he has learned. I have also learned not to prejudge the importance or lack of importance of what he wants to pursue independently. Until pursued, it is hard to know whether it will turn out to seem like it is important or not.

 

When I am leading the session, however, I am more likely to focus on matters rather than weaponry, (in USA's Civil War that might be slavery issues, for example) and feel that it is reasonable of me to do so since that interests me, and if I think it is important not to be left out, I will bring in something that I think needs more attention even if it may not be a key interest of his.

 

I could give similar examples from the WWI era, which we are currently studying. For example, my understanding, now, that the Battle of Verdun was a deliberate military strategy by the Germans to use attrition, was something I just recently learned because my ds is interested in military strategy. All of a sudden, due to his interest in military strategy, I got a much better understanding of what had seemed like incomprehensibly huge slaughter to no purpose, back an forth, up and down a hill, losing thousands of young men sometimes daily. It was not to no purpose, but was rather very much on purpose.

 

Then, his interests, say in warfare, military strategy and weaponry, might lead me with my more social connections interest to ask myself why this interest in war anyway? Why are boys especially drawn to that, why do people do it? And to start looking into that from my angle of interests.

 

I hope that I am not, without realizing it, having something happen like whatever Hunter is describing here: "When I noticed that I was getting into a very similar pattern with a couple tutoring students that I got into with one of my boys, I stopped being so student centered. And learning increased. And better relationships as a whole developed." But at least at this point it appears that both my son's and also my own learning is enhanced by letting him run with his interests in history and my facilitating that. Certainly his becoming a self motivated learner is enhanced by that.

[Hunter]

Pen when the student is doing the bulk of the work, then I facilitate. If I am spoon feeding, and doing all the work, I need to take a more authoritative approach.

 

I no longer take the back seat when I'm doing all the work. I no longer act like a servant, grooming the little prince for his future royal duties.

 

I demand more respect now. I won't have my time wasted, or put up with disrespect while teaching.

 

But unschooling, that I encourage. I take the time to find resources and HAND them to an interested student. But on the other hand, I will no longer be given a list of topics from the student, spend hours preparing the most efficient lesson plans possible while the student plays video games, and then have the student refuse to even give me their attention when I try to teach what was asked for.

 

I also don't want to hear all about the big plans of students that are not willing to do the work it will take. I've gotten caught up in big plans one too many times. I was the only one working. I'll only work as hard as the student, now.

[Chelli]

I'm exploring an alternative history cycle this year. It's kind of a hodgepodge, but so far I like it.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I'm exploring an alternative history cycle this year. It's kind of a hodgepodge, but so far I like it.

 

:bigear: Aw, c'mon, don't leave us hanging like that!!!! Spill!

[Chelli]

:bigear: Aw, c'mon, don't leave us hanging like that!!!! Spill!

 

LOL! I was hoping I could slid that in and no one would notice!

 

Well, after much thinking about it and struggling with it, I decided I wasn't a huge fan of the four year history cycle. It just seems so fast and American history is kind of shoved into a small window, so I used a couple of different ideas and went my own way.

 

1st Grade: American history using BF Early American history only half of it; World history using CHOW as a spine

2nd Grade: American history using 2nd half of BF Early American history; World history finishing up CHOW

 

The above two years are intended to be fun and gentle with history only taking about 20 minutes at the most with lots of great books thrown in.

 

From 3rd to 8th I'm doing a family history cycle type idea like MFW does so I will be folding my kids into the mix once they hit 3rd grade. I chose to do this because my expectations from 3rd and up will require more than in 1st and 2nd. I will continue to do both world and American history at the same time for most of the cycle.

 

Year 1: American history (Native Americans, Explorers, Colonies); World history (Ancient Civilizations through Greece)

 

Year 2: American history (Am. Revolution, New Government, Early Presidents); World History (Ancient Rome) I thought this would be a neat year with learning about our Constitution alongside the Roman republic.

 

Year 3: American history (Westward Expansion, Civil War, Native American conflicts); World History (Ancient Eastern world and early Middle Ages)

 

Year 4: American history (Reconstruction, Immigration, Industrialization and Reform); World History (late Middle Ages/Renaissance/Reformation)

 

Year 5: American history (WWI, Roaring 20's, Depression, New Deal) World History (1550-1850 focusing only on countries other than the United States except when the U.S. is involved)

 

Year 6: American history (WWII to present) World History (1850-present)

 

These last two years will have quite a bit of overlap, but when it's listed as American history it means I will be focusing more on the American side of things. When listed as world history I will be focusing on other countries.

 

Haven't made it to high school yet!  :tongue_smilie:

[laundrycrisis]

I'm a fan of chronological history, but I think it's also fine to do an overview of the whole timeline, and then zero in on specific periods of interest, as long as they are related back to the whole timeline. 

 

I do my best to keep history free of patriotism and "providential" religious ideas.

 

I really do not want details - I want nice clear overviews only.   I do not want to get lost on side trails. 

[Crimson Wife]

I started off with a unit on hominid evolution then 2 years of ancient history (with a bunch of topics added to the ones in SOTW 1) and Bible history. Then we did medieval history and I got to the point around the Reformation era like world history just was getting too dark for the ages my kids were. So I jumped ship at that point and we did 2 years of American history. Then we did a year of world geography because oldest DD claimed that Argentina was one of the 50 states (facepalm).

 

This year oldest DD is using K12 Human Odyssey Vol. 1 and DS is using SOTW 1 and part of 2. Not sure yet whether we'll complete modern world history using Vol. 3 of HO in 8th or do another year of U.S. history using K12 American Odyssey instead. That will probably depend on how much the kids remember of U.S. history by that point.

[Korrale]

I think for a lot of children at that age time is still a concept that is getting figured out, and is more abstract than many of them really understand.

 

Similarly ideas like "the colonial age" versus "the Victorian age" are pretty abstract and take a lot of understanding about what an "age" is, what "Colonialism" is and so on.

 

I do realize that some children are very ready for things that are quite abstract quite early, or that this sort of thing can be one in a poll parrot fact memorization sort of way by other children with the comprehension of what it might mean to be left for later. We did well to leave that sort of thing to when my son was somewhat older and able to start understanding the ideas and had started to have a decent sense of time.

Actually my son has pretty good idea about different eras. First he split time up to before automobiles and after automobiles. But he does know the difference between Colonial and Victorian due to the clothing differences, hair styles, toys etc. We plow through a lot of vintage books and I am shocked at home easily he can pin point of things happened before or after a certain time.

We are reading through a book about the history of the US. Right now we are focused on the First Americans. He knows that the ice age, crossing the land bridge was all before Columbus sailed to the New World. We watched Pocohontas last night for the first time and he was able to figure out for himself that Pocohontas' tribe was much newer than the First Americas. Because Jamestown colony was after Christopher Columbus. His name is James so the Jamestown colony registers with him. And then he asked me about how many years later the Pilgrima settled at Plymouth and the Boston Tea Party happened. So he is getting a basic understanding of things.

I think for him knowing what order things happened in helps a lot.

 

There is also a picture book we have read many times that illustrates the passage of time. And we visit many local historical sites when we can. He has seen pictures of our town and want it used to look like. I started telling him what things were like a long long time ago. But it was him that asked me point blank how many sunrises ago it was. So now we break it down like that.