Classical Historian (John DeGree) - any feedback?

[Porridge]

Has anyone used resources from the Classical Historian? It looks like a structured way to incorporate critical thinking into the study of history. Our modus operandi up til now has mostly been history through SOTW, living-books, and now Oxford University Press's Ancient World series. Classical Historian looks like a totally different approach and I'm wondering if anyone has tried it and can share their experience.

Thanks in advance!

[Clear Creek]

I ordered their middle school ancient civilizations curriculum several years ago, and it was probably my biggest homeschool purchase mistake. Getting them to even ship it to me took repeated emails from both me and the Homeschool Buyers Co-op, and they lied about having shipped it after getting tired of our nagging (the shipping date was on the box, and it was dated weeks after they claimed to have shipped it). The curriculum is virtually unusable outside of a classroom - half of the assignments involve questioning classmates on what they think about a topic, and then the student writes what they think of their classmates' answers. It is very, very repetitive...the assignments are almost identical in every lesson, with only small changes based on the topic.

[Porridge]

3 hours ago, Clear Creek said:

I ordered their middle school ancient civilizations curriculum several years ago, and it was probably my biggest homeschool purchase mistake. Getting them to even ship it to me took repeated emails from both me and the Homeschool Buyers Co-op, and they lied about having shipped it after getting tired of our nagging (the shipping date was on the box, and it was dated weeks after they claimed to have shipped it). The curriculum is virtually unusable outside of a classroom - half of the assignments involve questioning classmates on what they think about a topic, and then the student writes what they think of their classmates' answers. It is very, very repetitive...the assignments are almost identical in every lesson, with only small changes based on the topic.

thanks for your feedback, Clear Creek!

[DidoMachiatto]

I absolutely love the idea of Classical Historian. This is the branch I studied in university, so I see he is getting at the heart of "doing history."

His material is home-spun, so the teacher's guide not packaged up beautifully, but the plan very well thought out to DO HISTORY, which is the point. Doing history means taking clues and evidence from history and coming to a debatable conclusion, being able to argue for your point. 

The training videos are NOT for children. They are for teachers to see what is expected of the debate time.

How it works: Each unit is made of research topics and a focus question. The students then have to create a debatable opinion statement answering the focus question. The debate is not a formal debate. It is a discussion of colleagues, weighing the proof each person has gathered to come to a consensus. This is real science of doing history. Coming to founded conclusions, not "winning" debates by fancy talk and manner.

But it is time-consuming. The schedule in the teachers packets is tight. It is appropriate for the Rhetoric Stage, where the student has that foundational grammar/logic of the historical period already strung on their clothesline. This is true analysis and functioning in the higher levels of thought.

My own kids absolutely loved the debates, though the research and readings were challenging. They often had trouble coming to a consensus, because they were competitive. Also, I was not able to do a thorough survey of all the levels he has, but have added some of the debates into existing Ancient, Medieval, and US History curriculum I have pulled together. This year, for example, we are doing US History and I will have my children do some of the topics he has on there.

I have a review and suggestions for use of Classical Historian on my site: https://darlenenbocek.com/10teachinghistory/10elements4 

Edited August 26, 2018 by DidoMachiatto
link

[DidoMachiatto]

 

On 8/19/2018 at 10:46 PM, Clear Creek said:

The curriculum is virtually unusable outside of a classroom - half of the assignments involve questioning classmates on what they think about a topic, and then the student writes what they think of their classmates' answers. It is very, very repetitive...the assignments are almost identical in every lesson, with only small changes based on the topic.

As far as the need for it to be in a classroom, I was able to easily adapt it for a two-some, and since my kids always follow the same history topic even at different grades I was always had two-to-tango. In his video models he also has only a couple students debating a topic. His teacher's guide can go all the way up to a large class situation. But as I said it is not hard to adapt. It's a lot of research and the students may need help and guidance at the beginning. 

[HomeAgain]

For those who have used it, how does it compare to free resources like Reading Like A Historian or low cost ones like Mysteries In History?  Both of those offer a small selection of primary sources and open questions to get the students thinking about the why, but they need a teacher to help direct them to more research - rather the method in Loewen's book Teaching What Really Happened, which guides teachers through that part.

What makes this different and worth the investment?

[AimeeM]

On 8/26/2018 at 4:06 PM, DidoMachiatto said:

 

As far as the need for it to be in a classroom, I was able to easily adapt it for a two-some, and since my kids always follow the same history topic even at different grades I was always had two-to-tango. In his video models he also has only a couple students debating a topic. His teacher's guide can go all the way up to a large class situation. But as I said it is not hard to adapt. It's a lot of research and the students may need help and guidance at the beginning. 

 

For those of us with larger gaps in ages of students, I can see how it would be difficult to implement. My kids are 17, 9, and 6 (with the younger two being special needs). While typically studying similar strands in history, even if the two younger guys were neurotypical, it's too much of an age gap to really get a debate or any type of discussion (of the variety that would benefit elementary and high schoolers) from. 

OP, I've looked at it many times and I'm glad you asked. I always choose something else at the end of the day -- but it looks like a great idea in theory... if I had a small classroom of similar-in-age children.