Is There a Case against Teaching History Chronologically?

[Perry]

 

As to the naked rage portion I suggest that you clothe it with some maybe some Jean Piaget to start. His work is highly respect and taught in every entry class on child psychology.

 

Here's what Diane Ravitch has to say about Piaget:

In the course of my research, I was told by many educators that the present K-3 curriculum was based on years of educational research. No one was able to point to any specific research, but they assumed that it was validated by the developmental studies of Jean Piaget. However, Piagetian theory is about how children learn, not what they are taught. In fact, Piagetian theory permits teachers to teach virtually any content so long as they proceed from the concrete to the abstract.

 

 

And neuroscientist Dan Willingham on Piaget:

 

Teachers who have taken a course in cognitive development

may think that such specific guidance is not so far in the future.

After all, it was some 50 years ago that the acclaimed psychologist

Jean Piaget proposed his four-stage theory of cognitive development.

Unfortunately, researchers are far from being able to provide

teachers this type of guidance—and probably will never be

able to do so. To better understand why, let’s review Jean Piaget’s

theory. Although development psychologists no longer believe

that his theory is right, it is a good starting place because so many

people are familiar with Piaget’s stages of development, and

because the research prompted by his theory showed that development

does not proceed in discrete stages with pervasive

effects. That research is vitally important to our thinking about

child development and classroom practice.

 

..........

 

 

If Piaget’s theory were right, knowledge of cognitive development

would be quite useful to classroom practice. We

would know, for example, that kindergartners, who are in

the preoperational stage, would have a difficult time

understanding other cultures. Their egocentrism would make it hard for them to comprehend that other people have different

thoughts, beliefs, and experiences than they do. We might also

conclude that science and mathematics would need to be quite

concrete until children reached about the sixth grade. Before

then, they would not be able to apply sophisticated reasoning

to abstractions because they are in the concrete operational

stage.

Unfortunately, Piaget’s theory is not right. He is credited with

brilliant insights and many of his observations hold true—for

example, kindergartners do have some egocentrism and

9-year-olds do have some trouble with highly abstract

concepts. Nonetheless, recent research indicates that

development does not proceed in stages after all.

 

 

[RebeccaC]

Here's what Diane Ravitch has to say about Piaget:

And neuroscientist Dan Willingham on Piaget:

 

That all is true but Piaget is the basic place to start when one is ignorant of brain maturity and basic child psychology or when they need to dress up their naked rage portion what ever that is.

 

My point being with my first post is that there are valid theories about brain development that are very recent that would say kids under the ages of 14 do not need history taught in a chronological manner in order to learn history.

 

Just for the record for all of you skimmers I think public school does a horrendous job with social studies/history.

 

In fact I would like to see some recent psychological research from more than one scientific researcher other than home school or education gurus that backs up the division of grammar/ logic/ rhetoric/ stages for that matter.

Nonetheless, recent research indicates that

development does not proceed in stages after all.

Which is one reason I am not a classical hs until high school and even then only when my kids are ready. This bit gets me thinking that if classical ed has the grammar logic rhetoric stage wrong might it not also have learning history chronologically under high school wrong? I happen to think so for some kids.

 

I am sure that some of you well read faithful classical folks can come up with some. Some research that states, proves that children under the age of 14 can only learn history well if it is taught in a chronological manner and if they are not said children will be messed up when it come to history, damaged for life :svengo: history haters...... ;)

 

As to adult brain maturity there is some research that shows that some abstract forms of grammar can not be truly understood until the mid 20s. Or at least that is what our SLPs and Neuro Developmental Psychologists told us and gave us reading material on. There are concepts that can be memorize and given back in a rote manner but true understanding happens only when the brain matures at a later date. It is the same with the flow of history. One needs to live some in order to truly understand the grasp of it, to see the cause and effects of it all and even then some folks wont be able to grasp it.

Edited March 2, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Barb_]

Dr. Ruth Beechick has some very valid ideas on why not to teach in a solid chronological manner in her book You Can Teach Your Child Successfully. She uses brain development research to back up her idea. She write that the brain is not mature enough to really wrap itself around history/time until the late mid 20s (26 if memory serves me right was a number she used.)\

 

:001_huh: So the brain isn't mature enough to understand chronological history until the age of 26? Someone had better tell all those grad students they aren't old enough to understand their degree material.

 

Barb

[Sara R]

Occasionally it is true, as in algebra. That is the exception. I've heard this argument which is supposed to explain why Head Start teachers can't teach the alphabet. Or that elementary school aged kids supposedly aren't developmentally ready to understand place value. No--actually it's most kids aren't taught place value in a concrete way that makes sense. My kids learned early math on a Right Start abacus, and they understood place value when they were 5 and 6 years old.

 

The brain is plastic. What the brain experiences can actually change the structure of the brain. A brain that watches a bunch of TV works differently than a brain that is involved in challenging activities (according to what I remember from Jane Healy's Endangered Minds). Teachers ought to be very careful about pronouncing someone "developmentally unready" to learn something. It could just be that they haven't been taught well yet.

 

It's totally ridiculous to say that most people aren't capable of learning history till age 26. I could see the argument that little children don't understand dates and the passage of time. SWB agrees with that, which is why she doesn't teach grammar stage history with dates (unless it's just for them to memorize then, to be filled with meaning later). That's why she teaches history as a story. If they get that background, they are more likely to be "developmentally ready" to understand dates and time passing by the time they get their second time through history.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

This would be a very interesting thread in the curriculum forum. Will you start it or shall I? :001_smile:

Here you go. Is there a realistic American history curriculum out there?

 

[Lovedtodeath]

I do prefer to teach history in a somewhat chronological manner. As some of my boys combine their studies, though, each child isn't necessarily starting at the beginning. I don't agree with those who staunchly advocate chronological history as The Best; nor do I concur with those who believe teaching a child about his little town and then branching out is The Best. The important thing is to teach history; to make it come alive via good books and discussion.

:iagree:

[RebeccaC]

:001_huh: So the brain isn't mature enough to understand chronological history until the age of 26? Someone had better tell all those grad students they aren't old enough to understand their degree material.

 

Barb

 

 

My dad teaches seminary and he says there is a huge difference between what his under grad kids can grasp and what his grad students do. One point Beechick uses in her books is that the heads of history departments tend to be old men for a reason. My dad did not head up his department until he was past 50. He has a mensa IQ, is proficient(one can not be fluent in a dead language only proficient) in most the fertile crescent languages during the period of Jonah and is fluent in 7 living languages all total 20+ languages, worked for the Oriental Institute in Chicago, and his Ph.D is from U Of C with honors. One would think with all of that he would have headed up an OT department earlier. Living and maturity brings a grasp and understanding that can be gained no other way.

 

I am now just shy of 50 and I understand and know that what I thought I understood at 26 or 36 is not close to how I understand and know it 50. The brain continues to mature as we age. For a 28-36 year old to think, Wow I finally understand _________ and I should teach my kid this way, is a fallacy for many reasons, one being that your brain is much more mature than your child's.

 

I am not the best writer and the research I had to read for my son's sake is at least 10 years old. Anyone who has worked in the field of science knows that research that old has probably changed. I worked in the field of Archeology before the Gulf war and I know that what I read/ wrote then is way out of date now. However my point is and I will write it again it is not necessary for every kid to learn history in a chronological manner. There is research out there that will back that up. Some kids will do fine learning it in a chronological manner but it is not necessary.

[RebeccaC]

Occasionally it is true, as in algebra. That is the exception. I've heard this argument which is supposed to explain why Head Start teachers can't teach the alphabet. Or that elementary school aged kids supposedly aren't developmentally ready to understand place value. No--actually it's most kids aren't taught place value in a concrete way that makes sense. My kids learned early math on a Right Start abacus, and they understood place value when they were 5 and 6 years old.

 

The brain is plastic. What the brain experiences can actually change the structure of the brain. A brain that watches a bunch of TV works differently than a brain that is involved in challenging activities (according to what I remember from Jane Healey Endangered Minds). Teachers ought to be very careful about pronouncing someone "developmentally unready" to learn something. It could just be that they haven't been taught well yet.

 

It's totally ridiculous to say that most people aren't capable of learning history till age 26. I could see the argument that little children don't understand dates and the passage of time. SWB agrees with that, which is why she doesn't teach grammar stage history with dates (unless it's just for them to memorize then, to be filled with meaning later). That's why she teaches history as a story. If they get that background, they are more likely to be "developmentally ready" to understand dates and time passing by the time they get their second time through history.

 

What I have tried to write is that folks do not fully grasp the chronological flow of history until 26. There is a difference between understanding the story of Lincoln and grasping all the nuances that came together during that period in history that produced Lincoln and influenced his thinking. The brain around 26 will be able to fully grasp the nuances the younger brain the story. If that makes sense. If the story is understood it can be understood in or out of chronological order but the nuances can only be gained by looking at it chronologically from several different angles.

 

Susan I am sure is a fine woman but she is not infallible and she is still fairly young. She has yet to grad one student and admits that only her first child is purely educated in the WTM manner. She is also not the only teacher in her hs, there is her mother, her dh, and folks that she has written about that tutored her oldest. So how much can she really speak into the day to day of hsing? She teaches at the college level, has been working on her Ph.D, and she writes how much time does she really put into the day to day teaching of her kids? I am not sure that she is an expert in education or what a child can or can not learn or how they all should learn. Does she have some wisdom sure. Is she creative sure. She has some good ideas for some kids. Do I like some of her products yes but she is not my guru. I hope Susan that you do not take this personal because it is not meant that way. It is just the way I see it.

 

I have read all of Jane Healy's book but it has been at least 10 years since I read some of them. Yes the brain is pliable but only to a point.

Edited March 2, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Ellie]

[/indent]To the first, children can only identify these "heroes" if they have been TAUGHT about these heroes. And I don't know of any child who can really relate to crossing the ocean in a boat for country that is considered "newly discovered," etc. :confused: If these "heroes" seem more fleshed out than ancient ones, then greater effort should be made in humanizing ancient people as well. Isn't that the point of learning about world history, and not just American? Because we are ALL created equal, and have an important story in the history of the world? The whole point is to TEACH the child why these cultures matter.

 

To the second, children cannot begin to understand the complexities of a country built on the virtual destruction of native peoples, and then further established using human beings seen as less than human because of the color of their skin, all in the name of God's will. Yet these are critical issues to consider when attempting to truly grasp American history. Should we then not teach American history either?

 

Ethnocentrism comes in many shades, folks, and it is even worse when people are unaware that it is the basis of their worldview.

I don't believe anyone suggested not teaching our dc about other cultures, but I see no harm in being patriotic, nor do I think that's what Rea proposes, in any shade.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Susan admits that only her first child is purely educated in the WTM manner.

Details? Not snarky, really curious.

[RebeccaC]

Details? Not snarky, really curious.

 

Give me a minute and I will look up one of her first posts on the K-8 board in which she states this. Also if you pay close attendtion to what she has written over the years through the old newsletter, her blog, and on the boards you would have gleaned what I wrote.

Edited March 2, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Lovedtodeath]

I haven't paid attention at all. LOL

[Kate CA]

[/indent]

To the second, children cannot begin to understand the complexities of a country built on the virtual destruction of native peoples, and then further established using human beings seen as less than human because of the color of their skin, all in the name of God's will. Yet these are critical issues to consider when attempting to truly grasp American history. Should we then not teach American history either?

 

So if they cannot understand the complexities of countries built on the virtual destruction of native peoples then, according to your viewpoint, they cannot possibly understand anything in the ancient world. The entire fertile crescent was conquered over and over and over again by one waring group after another without a single thought to the "native peoples" living there. Why America is only ever lambasted for this is beyond my comprehension. Nothing is new under the sun.

 

Ethnocentrism comes in many shades, folks, and it is even worse when people are unaware that it is the basis of their worldview.

 

Because some of us want our children to understand something of our country--that makes us ethnocentric? Because BF Books believes this too, this makes them ethnocentric? This is a false premise. If you don't *know* them then you cannot possibly judge their choices in this manner. Their website has many books on ancient and medieval history. They just choose to study it later. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and so are they. Just because some of us like to be familiar with our founding fathers doesn't make us elitists.

[EthiopianFood]

Here you go. Is there a realistic American history curriculum out there?

 

I should know better by now than to not include "other" as an option online. :D Thanks.

[RebeccaC]

Details? Not snarky, really curious.

 

This is from the thread titled, SWB will hate me.....but... thread started by Lux Et Veritas Academy,

 

Listen, even within my own family, all four kids are pursuing somewhat different academic and vocational paths, and if someone were going to get really picky, I could probably rank them in order from "more classical" (oldest son) to "least classical" (that would be Ben). But that's why I don't plop them all into the nearest classical school, which would probably give them more stringent overall academic training than I can all by myself. I don't WANT them to get a one-model-fits-all classical education. I want each one of them to get a tailored, hand-made neoclassical education.

Susan wrote this on 2-5-08

 

So this inquiring mind thought, when she wrote this is, just what does she mean are some kids getting Latin and others not? Do some get history chronologically and some not? Do some have lots of memory work and others don't? Do some read the great books and others don't or...... But the long and short of it is, it is not my business and it was very good that she was transparent about the subject.

 

As to the other things about her hs in my post you will have to dig through past Newsletters, her blog and other posts on these boards and on the old boards :)

 

I did not find your post snarky at all ;)

Edited March 2, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Matryoshka]

I think something that's being cross-argued here is that the homeschool "experts" who are arguing against chronological history are arguing (as far as I can tell) only that it doesn't make sense to start with Ancients - if their curriculum teaches American first, aren't they still teaching it chronologically?

 

This is very different from the "helicopter history" approach used by the schools - you "land" at different topics and time periods, then take off and land at another arbitrary subject, location and time. There is no way to connect it. Not to mention it seems the same landing pads are used repeatedly through the years - gee, we did have presidents other than Lincoln and Washington, and there were important events in our nation's history other than Thanksgiving. Again.

 

I do think there are stages to development, and I do think kids can't really grasp the depth of time. This, to me, is all the more reason to teach it chronologically. Because then it becomes a story. And there is no more developmentally appropriate way to teach young children than by telling them a story. This they remember. Whether they really get that Ancient Egypt was 5,000 years ago and what that means is completely beside the point. They'll get the characters and the sequence. The deeper understanding will come later. The way the schools "teach" "history", there is no context. It's context that makes you remember.

 

I actually think whether you start with American, World, European, or Asian or whatever time/area of history is totally irrelevant to the chronological point. I just think within the area/time being taught, there should be a flow so events can be seen leading from one thing to another. This kids do get, even little ones. Beginning, middle, end (well, present day). A story.

[Kate CA]

 

I actually think whether you start with American, World, European, or Asian or whatever time/area of history is totally irrelevant to the chronological point. I just think within the area/time being taught, there should be a flow so events can be seen leading from one thing to another. This kids do get, even little ones. Beginning, middle, end (well, present day). A story.

 

I agree completely. :D I also loved your helicopter analogy. It is exactly what we had! Oh look! A Roman! Oh look! Abraham Lincoln! :D

[RebeccaC]

I think something that's being cross-argued here is that the homeschool "experts" who are arguing against chronological history are arguing (as far as I can tell) only that it doesn't make sense to start with Ancients - if their curriculum teaches American first, aren't they still teaching it chronologically?

 

This is very different from the "helicopter history" approach used by the schools - you "land" at different topics and time periods, then take off and land at another arbitrary subject, location and time. There is no way to connect it. Not to mention it seems the same landing pads are used repeatedly through the years - gee, we did have presidents other than Lincoln and Washington, and there were important events in our nation's history other than Thanksgiving. Again.

 

I do think there are stages to development, and I do think kids can't really grasp the depth of time. This, to me, is all the more reason to teach it chronologically. Because then it becomes a story. And there is no more developmentally appropriate way to teach young children than by telling them a story. This they remember. Whether they really get that Ancient Egypt was 5,000 years ago and what that means is completely beside the point. They'll get the characters and the sequence. The deeper understanding will come later. The way the schools "teach" "history", there is no context. It's context that makes you remember.

 

I actually think whether you start with American, World, European, or Asian or whatever time/area of history is totally irrelevant to the chronological point. I just think within the area/time being taught, there should be a flow so events can be seen leading from one thing to another. This kids do get, even little ones. Beginning, middle, end (well, present day). A story.

 

I think You have gotten the point of what I tried very badly to communicate. I however think that history is a whole book but time periods are chapters and that kids can get random chapters k-3 and it not do real harm as long as chapters are not repeated to death which is what ps does sometimes. Social studies is really political indoctrination in my opinion and really should have no place in ps.

 

History probably must be taught in chronological order in high school depending on the child. Even then it does not have to be world history or European history only. It does not have to start with the ancients and move to modern. Kids well get the story and time line books will help them put it together.

 

College level is the putting pulling together of the political, economic, religious, philosophical, cultural, ect.... aspects so that all the nuances subtle and overt, of many regions, can come together and be grasped and fully understood, where they intersect and where they diverge, the why, how, and what the effects were. To me that is history and what we do with young kids is story telling that verges sometimes on fiction because of its simplicity. It is tho simplicity that is necessary and that is gradually made more complex over the years.

 

Before the Gulf war I worked as an archaeologist which is the bridge between history and science. I worked and studied mostly with the Anasazi cliff dwellings in the South West but I did do some study in Israel and two fragrant years working in garbology. I really do not see the need for chronological study of history until High school. Maybe there is some one who was trained as an historian or who worked in that field on the board..... it would be interesting to see how they think history should be taught to kids. Maybe if I had worked and been trained more as a classical and not a new world archaeologist I would think differently but I don't think so. Folks in the field find their niche, time period, and hyper focus on it. Most realize that there are gaps in the narrative of history and are in the field looking to fill those gaps. There is little fun in cementing what is already known. It is the unknown, the gap and filling it in that is exciting or at least so it was for me.

 

See I don't think that the typical 5, 6, or 7 year old will be able to grasp that the Sumerians really were at or around the same time as the Egyptians and that the two cultures impacted and influence each other in both positive and negative ways but I do think they can grasp the story of Ramsey the Great or Hammurabi and sort of get that they lived close to the same time. In fact I don't think it matters if they get these stories out of chronological order because it is just too long ago. Can they memorize long lists of dates yep but that does not mean that they truly get it. I don't think they will really grasp who was king before and after Ramsey because we don't have stories that appeal to 6 year olds about them and we don't have the time to do an in depth study of who all the kings of Egypt were and what they all did. As far as that goes there are huge gaps in what Egyptianologists know about the ancient kings of Egypt.

 

I think it is more likely that they will get that Washington was our first president and that John Adams was the second president. However there are not a whole lot of interesting stories about Adams like there are about Washington that would appeal to a 5, 6, or 7 year old. So by the nature of what interest 6 yo kids and what can be put into story form there will be gaps. Which to me makes the teaching of chronological history to kids younger than 13 or 14 a waste of time.

 

I would rather they come to love time periods and stories of great people during the time period and they will be able to pull all the time periods together using a time line. To think that kids will not understand the shallow history stories we give them about the Middle ages unless they have heard the stories about Ur is thinking that our kids are not real bright. They will understand the story Joan of Arc with out knowing about Hammurabi and vice-versa. They will understand Joan of Arc or Henry VIII with out knowing about the fall of Rome. Knowing that that Joan of Arc was x number of years after the fall of Rome does not add more interest. It will add more interest to the high school student and to some middle school students.

 

It is kids and adults who are sequential learners, usually auditory in mode, who need the chronological order. Kids and adults who are visual spacial, big picture thinkers, will be able to hang time periods where they belong with a look at a time line. They can learn it out of order and place it in order quickly because they are visual in thinking and time lines are visual aids. I have had no problem with my boys grasping this. Last year was the first year that we did a formal brief overview of chronological history study and they already had it in order thanks to time lines and the few bits that were new were easily place in order in their minds.

 

This is why I think it is ludicrous for anyone to assume that because it made sense to them to learn it one way is the only way to present the information. It is true that most of the population are not vs thinkers. However those folks who truly are vs will learn to hate a subject when it is presented in the manner that sequential learners learn best with just as it will confuse sequential learners to get the big picture before they have all the dots connected.

 

I hope that this made sense. How a person thinks is important to how they learn and if one thinks in pictures or video rather than in words it will affect the way they learn. Most artist of all forms think this way and many folks in the field of science also think this way as do many carpenters and machinist, ect.... This gift helps them excel at their jobs. It impacts how they learn. Most folks on this board are not vs thinkers. I am and my kids are tho.

 

If you read this to the end you are brave and or have way too much time on your hands which I did when typing this monstrosity out :D

Edited March 2, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I like the point that Rebecca C and Matroyska made. I would suggest that the real tension isn't between chronological and topical as it is between orderly and random.

It is easy in history to not realize what was going on in different parts of the world at the same time. For example, to me Queen Elizabeth and Shakespeare are historical figures that are just on the edge of the modern age. Ivan the Terrible feels much more middle ages. Yet they were rough contemporaries.

Similarly, it wasn't until I was teaching the colonial era to my own kids that I stumbled on an article that mentioned one of the reasons why the Roanoke colony went so long without resupply was when the ships got back to England, the Spanish Armada was threatening and the ships were impounded for use in defense. But I'd never put these events together.

And that doesn't begin to describe how much we had to learn about the 30 Years War when we lived in Germany. This is a war that transformed the face of Europe, yet most Americans would be hard placed to put it into the right century or describe the cause of conflict.

 

On the other hand, I think that it can be valuable to follow a topic, like slavery, or sufferage, or religious freedom or the role of children in society or technological advances (a la the old series Connections) or . . .

 

I'd argue that the problem in how Americans learn history is that it is too random and that they simply don't learn nearly enough.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I think that children are able to grasp far more than we often realize. Personally, even as an undergraduate history major, I never studied history chronologically. Oh sure, most of my high school and college classes were chronological within the course but there was no overall chronological scheme. I teach chronologically because it makes sense to me. I think human civilization has developed over time and in response to itself. It becomes difficult to see this if you study one nation in isolation. Of course my elementary age students won't see all of this right away nor will they see it without my assistance. But the pattern is set for them to see history as a process.

 

I was once put through a fascinating discussion at the beginning of a history course that I wish I had pursued both more fully and remembered better. The gist of the material was that there are two ways for historians to view history. To judge what happened in the past by the assumption that the future result was either good or bad. Hence, how we view x today determines how we interpret the events leading up to the present. Or we can realize that events in the past occurred without its participants having crystal balls. That history should be judged relative to itself with out allowing the future result to color the judgment of the historian.

 

I did come out on the side of the latter in that debate and as a result the chronological result just feels better to me. I think that chronological study of history allows you better to see the characters and events of the past in their own light and then you are able to understand how they shaped the future or how the people of the future came to view them.

 

That being said, I tend to disagree with the notion that your nationality determines what period of history you will best understand or find interesting. I do believe that what you have acess to may better shape your understanding. Are you traveling to Virginia next year for a family reunion? Ok-that might be the perfect time to study US Colonial history (either before or after the trip) and tie it to all the great places of historical importance you can experience. The ability to have the personal experience may outweigh the advantages of chronological history.

 

There are excellent arguments for non-chronological study-for example I think that in the US we have more books written for young children on US history-that may be a valid reason. There is also a program whereby you study US history and World history side by side chronologically during the year. One semester of each. That may be an excellent idea for those who wish to see more emphasis on US history-or adapted to the history of the specific country you wish to focus on.

 

However, as Sebastian mentioned above, history studied in isolation can be misleading. Ivan the Terrible seems horribly backward and medieval yet is a contemporary of the Renaissance. I think he was not only a contemporary of Elizabeth I but proposed himself as a potential husband. If you studied the history of Russia and England separately and were not good with memorizing dates you would have one view of this situation. Yet with a chronological approach you are able to understand the differences between Europe and Russian and thereby better understand the wild force used by Peter the Great to bring Russia into what he considered the modern age.

 

But finally, I think it comes down to the teacher. Do you have a better understanding of US history rather than world, is this what is in your comfort zone? If you are starting with younger students and you are just beginning to teach history you may be a better teacher with the subject you are more comfortable with. In the long view I doubt there will be any educational harm in this process.

 

Finally, let me add that people here are criticizing books that may contain material that is found offensive or unrealistic today yet was the norm for the period they were originally published in. Yes they present a particular worldview, all history texts present a particular worldview or bias-that is their nature. Also, when dealing with children's books in particular they run up against what was/is considered normal for a child to read. Many older books presented topics in a way that would not damage the delicate and innocent nature of children and in this endeavor whitewashed over many of history's less pleasant events. That is a far cry from subversion on the part of the author but rather a reflection of society at the time. And yes, this is true of books from as little as 50 years ago.

Edited March 2, 2009 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[cathmom]

I

 

 

See I don't think that the typical 5, 6, or 7 year old will be able to grasp that the Sumerians really were at or around the same time as the Egyptians and that the two cultures impacted and influence each other in both positive and negative ways but I do think they can grasp the story of Ramsey the Great or Hammurabi and sort of get that they lived close to the same time. In fact I don't think it matters if they get these stories out of chronological order because it is just too long ago. Can they memorize long lists of dates yep but that does not mean that they truly get it. I don't think they will really grasp who was king before and after Ramsey because we don't have stories that appeal to 6 year olds about them and we don't have the time to do an in depth study of who all the kings of Egypt were and what they all did. As far as that goes there are huge gaps in what Egyptianologists know about the ancient kings of Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

Would that be Dave Ramsey? :D

[Susan Wise Bauer]

RebeccaC,

 

No reason for me to "hate you" for quoting my own words to me, but I think you've misunderstood what I meant in that post.

 

First, the methods described in TWTM are not original with us; TWTM is a guide, based on my own experience as a home schooled student and my mother's fifty years of educational expertise, on how to carry out, at home, the type of education which was once more readily available at schools than it is now.

 

Second, all my kids do Latin, chronological history, memory work, and the Great Books. The amount of time that they spend on these tasks differs. The amount of writing that they do differs. One of my children spends almost every hour of education doing humanities, while another spends a shorter time and does more engineering/technical tasks, and another spends most of his time on mathematics. But that's a sort of adjustment that we talk about in TWTM.

 

Third, I'd really like to respond to the implication that I can't "speak to the day to day of home schooling" because I don't teach my own kids. I've heard this before as a criticism, and it's unfair. (In fact, it infuriates me.)

 

When I started college teaching, my husband and I divided the task of home educating, and since then we've adjusted it back and forth as one of us works more or less hours. I set everyone's daily schedule, and I am solely responsible for the children's education for three of the days of the week, partially responsible other days. I hire tutors for some high school subjects, as I recommend in TWTM; how does that make me unable to speak to the daily pressures of home schooling?

 

I'm happy for people to subject my recommendations to the test of time. But please don't imply I'm not a "real" home educator. I do everything I do in part because I divide my weeks with my husband, like many other working/home educating moms, and because I work early mornings, late evenings, naptimes, and every other time I can grab some working hours. That's what you do when you work and home educate.

 

I have found, BTW, that college teaching is increasingly unwieldy as the kids grow older; the truth is that I took leave all of last year and only taught one course this year. I'm thinking that my college teaching days may need to come to an end soon, but that's another story and a personal decision I need to make.

 

"How much time does she really put into the day to day teaching of her kids"? I am parent-in-charge for forty hours per week, much of that spent schooling. I also work about thirty hours a week. You add it up.

 

That's why I don't post on these boards all that often.

 

SWB

Edited March 2, 2009 by Susan Wise Bauer

[Sherri in MI]

Even in high school history seemed so disjointed. It's not until I read TWTM and started looking into classical ed that I understood why. I needed to see the connections and the disjointed way that history was taught made it seem very unconnected. I think teaching history chronologically in elementary school, in story form, does help children have a general impression of the flow of history and how events in history are related to one another. Thinking of history as a story just turned on a light bulb for me. If I had learned it that way I would've gotten it! My son is the same way - the way to capture his interest in anything is to put it in a story. That's why I love the SOTW books! It doesn't mean he gets or remembers every important figure or event, but he has a much greater understanding of history and how it relates to the Bible than I did at his age or than most kids do. I believe this will help him when he gets to high school and studies it more in-depth.

 

Also, I think ancient history ties in very well with the OT and the Bible stories my son heard from the time he was an infant. I like that teaching history chronologically helps him to see that events and people in Scripture are a part of history, not just some disjointed characters we heard about in church.

 

I don't think it has to be either/or. We read SOTW 1 & 2 (took 2 years on the last one) and are now spending a whole year on American History. We will just casually read SOTW 3 & 4 over the summer and I'll start the cycle again during next school year. But we have teaching our son some American history over the years, through stories and holidays and such and supplemental reading.

 

Sherri

[Ellie]

Susan I am sure is a fine woman but she is not infallible and she is still fairly young. She has yet to grad one student and admits that only her first child is purely educated in the WTM manner. She is also not the only teacher in her hs, there is her mother, her dh, and folks that she has written about that tutored her oldest. So how much can she really speak into the day to day of hsing? She teaches at the college level, has been working on her Ph.D, and she writes how much time does she really put into the day to day teaching of her kids? I am not sure that she is an expert in education or what a child can or can not learn or how they all should learn. Does she have some wisdom sure. Is she creative sure. She has some good ideas for some kids. Do I like some of her products yes but she is not my guru. I hope Susan that you do not take this personal because it is not meant that way. It is just the way I see it.

:001_huh:

Wow. Just wow. That's pretty brassy to post on SWB's own Web site. I'm gobsmacked.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Hey, she's more than welcome to make the observation (it wasn't done snarkily).

 

I disagree, naturally. :)

 

SWB

[Ellie]

Hey, she's more than welcome to make the observation (it wasn't done snarkily).

 

I disagree, naturally. :)

 

SWB

::bowing low to the Overmind::

[cathmom]

As someone who wants to start college teaching, how is it becoming unwieldy (if you don't mind me asking!)?

[Alice]

 

I'm happy for people to subject my recommendations to the test of time. But please don't imply I'm not a "real" home educator. I do everything I do in part because I divide my weeks with my husband, like many other working/home educating moms, and because I work early mornings, late evenings, naptimes, and every other time I can grab some working hours. That's what you do when you work and home educate.

 

 

 

This is off the topic of this thread...but I just wanted to say that this example is one of the things I've appreciated the most. As someone who works and plans to share the schooling responsiblities with my husband, it's been an huge help to me to know that it can be done. Sometimes, I have felt in the homeschooling community that I'm not really part of the club because I also work. That's one of the things I appreciate about the boards..knowing that there are lots of families doing this homeschooling thing in different ways that work for them.

[Lovedtodeath]

[/url]

I'm happy for people to subject my recommendations to the test of time. But please don't imply I'm not a "real" home educator. I do everything I do in part because I divide my weeks with my husband, like many other working/home educating moms, and because I work early mornings, late evenings, naptimes, and every other time I can grab some working hours. That's what you do when you work and home educate....

 

"How much time does she really put into the day to day teaching of her kids"? ...

That's why I don't post on these boards all that often.

 

SWB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lovedtodeath]

I like TWTM because it is half way between unschooling and school. It lays out which skills need to be specifically taught and which can be covered in a looser, child-let, interest-led way. This makes it efficient. I find the stages, not necessarily the ages but the stages, accurate for my children. Yes, I've modified TWTM recommendations to fit our family, but (ok, I really am shouting now so I'm going to use capitals)

 

I MODIFIED TWTM USING THE DIRECTIONS FOR DOING SO IN TWTM, SO I'M STILL DOING TWTM!!!

 

Grin. I think that is what you guys are all forgetting. TWTM TELLS you to modify it, and tells you HOW to modify it for your specific family. They didn't mean us to follow their recommendations exactly and do everything on their list and not change anything. They spend a lot of time in the book explaining that we are supposed to use our brains and our hearts and do what is best for our own particular families. TWTM even has suggestions for school-in-a-box and correspondence schools. If you guys have used TWTM as a springboard for homeschooling, then you are WTMers! I'm sure the last thing SWB and JW would want is for you to follow their suggestions no-brained-ly.

 

-Nan

Quote from the thread:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

:D

 

Seriously, folks. Of COURSE you're supposed to adapt it. Of course you're supposed to take what you find valuable and then adjust for your family. Why else are you home schooling?

 

Listen, even within my own family, all four kids are pursuing somewhat different academic and vocational paths, and if someone were going to get really picky, I could probably rank them in order from "more classical" (oldest son) to "least classical" (that would be Ben). But that's why I don't plop them all into the nearest classical school, which would probably give them more stringent overall academic training than I can all by myself. I don't WANT them to get a one-model-fits-all classical education. I want each one of them to get a tailored, hand-made neoclassical education.

 

I've been saying for year now that arguing about which model is "more" or "less" classical is totally pointless. You should be thinking: Which model will meet my goals for my family, and within my family, for each individual child?

 

Which brings me to the REAL value, for me, of (neo)classical education. IT TELLS YOU WHERE YOU'RE GOING. The goal of a classical education is this: at the end of the twelve (or however many) years you educate, the child can gather information, evaluate it, and express an opinion about it. There are many paths to that goal.

 

I think that the paths we outline in TWTM have helped many parents design a journey towards that goal. And I have to say that most of the nasty attacks I've seen on us and on the book, over the past ten years, come from people who have totally misunderstood our intention: To equip you to get YOURSELF there. We're trying to strengthen and equip, not oppress.

 

So kudos to all of you who are trying to reach that goal. You'll make wrong moves, back up, try again, hit dead ends, turn around, re-evaluate...constantly, every single year. You'll never "get it." You'll be in process until that child walks out the door...to continue the process on their own.

 

Unless you lose sight of that goal, you're not going to ruin that child's education.

 

Those of you who aren't doing grammar are the exception. You're beyond help. :)

 

SWB

 

(P.S. That was a JOKE.)

 

(P.P.S. Kind of.)

Susan's full post, so that we have the context.

SWB will hate me.....but... the full thread.

[LaxMom]

So do the majority of young children wrap their minds around algebra and understand it? No and there is a reason why they do not and it has to do with the ability of the brain to fully process and understand abstract concepts. Anyone who has had an entry course in child psychology knows that. Some children can be taught to memorize equations but they really do not understand or fully grasp the concept.

 

Here is a good example of children grasping a shallow depth of something that has much more abstract depth to it. I am sure you are familiar with Frost's Poem Stopping by Woods. There are a couple of lovely children's picture books out on the poem. Most kids will enjoy the poem and a few will get what Frost's critic's accused him of, writing a poem about suicide. The difference is brain maturity and how much abstract the child can deal with. Most folks will not pick up on the underlining theme in Frost's poem even as adults. My oldest son who has a highly gifted IQ did at age 6 before I had even finished reading the poem. He grasped that the poem was about death. I had to do some research to find that Frost was accused of writing the poem on the subject. The same child played the piano at a year.

 

The brain is hard wired to acquire language between birth and age 6 after that time the acquiring of language will be not be as easy. From age 6 to 10 kids can still gain in vocab but the window on spoken grammar has closed 80%. This is what doctor after doctor told us and what I found doing my own research. Our son's had an auto immune disorder that stole their ability to process language. It really is a poor example to use in this discusion.

 

There is a big difference between really grasping the vast expanse of history and the meaning that comes with that knowledge and gaining one or more languages.

 

As to the naked rage portion I suggest that you clothe it with some maybe some Jean Piaget to start. His work is highly respect and taught in every entry class on child psychology.

I am as well-versed in Intro to Developmental Psych, and Piaget, as the next guy. I also recall from that class, oh so long ago, that Piaget has been discounted repeatedly, as others have mentioned. Piaget also claimed that children under 3 are developmentally incapable of cooperative play, but I'm sure any mother of multiples will tell you that is categorically untrue. My twins played cooperatively from the time they could sit across from each other and roll a ball back and forth, well before their first birthday. Even the time honored parental "fetch" game, where an infant or young toddler will repeatedly throw a toy from a crib involves anticipation of response, planning, etc.

 

I was just thinking of Frost's snowy foray this morning as I was shoveling my way down the block. Can you leave room in your example for the possibility that suicide and the contemplation thereof is simply not in the general experience of elementary aged children, and possibly most other people? I enjoyed rather dark poetry (Dylan Thomas) and critically discussed literature my dad was reading in college when I was still in elementary school. These are not remarkable skills, I was simply exposed to critical reading and discussion.

 

Our limitations in grasping the nuances of complex relationships has more to do with personal experience than ability, all physical things being equal. One cannot reason in a vacuum.

 

Also, my curiosity piqued by this thread, I have just gone over the FOIL method for multiplying binomials with my daughter, who just turned 8 last month. We did one together, and she is quite happily doing equations and asking for more. She may be a nerd (in which case, she comes by it honestly) but we have just started division in math and she is a pretty regular kid. So, yes, she is able to do these because she has already covered the skill (multiplication) necessary to the computation and had some minor instruction in the method. I am moving the variables around and she is consistently recording them properly in her resulting equations, so... It has nothing to do with her developmental stage.

 

My point is that children are able - in the absence of issues that impede their ability - to pick up on a whole lot. Their neuro pathways are forming with great speed and response to experience. Without interaction, we know - from Skinner, wasn't it? - that there will be no brain development. We know, as has already been mentioned, that children exposed to classical music or multiple spoken languages, lay down more numerous and more complex pathways than children in monolingual households who watch tv all day. So, then, perhaps it is not physical limitation but, rather, the limitation of experience that is responsible for the sad state of affairs we have found among adults, even in grad school, more to do with an educational system that employs the "helicopter" approach (not only to history, but also math, it seems) and apparently prefers the students stay as docile and lethargic as possible so that the material can be checked off as covered without interruption. That, and people who like to excuse or defend lethargy with dodgy science, is the reason we will soon no longer have newspapers; as it has been noted, people no longer have the ability to read and extrapolate so our news has to be spoon fed to us between "attention grabbing" segments featuring Brittany Spears, in order to keep our attention.

 

Alas.

Edited March 2, 2009 by MyCrazyHouse

[Susan Wise Bauer]

As someone who wants to start college teaching, how is it becoming unwieldy (if you don't mind me asking!)?

 

Two ways stand out. I'm doing more writing now and enjoying it more than I ever have, and I've begun to resent the time that teaching demands. I've been doing college teaching for fifteen years and have always enjoyed it, but recently I find myself longing to be done so that I can go back to my writing projects. I think there's just been a natural shift in my focus, and since I can actually do better financially writing, there's no reason to hang onto the college teaching.

 

Except for my faculty library card, which so far has kept me from quitting. :001_smile:

 

The second issue is an interesting one...When the kids were small, I was physically exhausted all the time, but I had plenty of emotional energy for college teaching. Now that they're older (I'll have three teenagers this year), I'm finding that I only have so much emotional energy for dealing with adolescent males. If I do a good job at school, I don't have any left when I get home. If I parent with my whole brain when I'm home, by the time I get to school, I don't want to hear about all the little whiny freshman problems. (That's exactly how I feel.)

 

I always thought the job would be easier when the children were older. With this particular job, I'm finding the reverse is true.

 

WB

[cathmom]

Except for my faculty library card, which so far has kept me from quitting. :001_smile:

 

The second issue is an interesting one...When the kids were small, I was physically exhausted all the time, but I had plenty of emotional energy for college teaching. Now that they're older (I'll have three teenagers this year), I'm finding that I only have so much emotional energy for dealing with adolescent males. If I do a good job at school, I don't have any left when I get home. If I parent with my whole brain when I'm home, by the time I get to school, I don't want to hear about all the little whiny freshman problems. (That's exactly how I feel.)

 

I always thought the job would be easier when the children were older. With this particular job, I'm finding the reverse is true.

 

WB

 

A faculty library card might be worth it!

 

I understand exactly what you mean, since I have dc from 19 down to baby. The older ones actually require more energy, and they do more that needs worrying about. And they are always asking questions like "Mommy, what is the conflict in Northern Ireland about?" etc.

 

Thanks so much for answering my question!

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Beautiful Feet sells Genevieve Foster books. I have only read "The World of Columbus and Sons," which says that the slaves were never mistreated when they were transported from Africa. Um, no.

 

I will not read any more of these books and I am asking my library to pull them from the shelves. I find it silly that books stating that slaves were never mistreated are sitting alongside those that show the slave ship owner's "maps" of how to fit as many people as possible in the cargo hold of the ship (with no room to stand up or sometimes even sit up). They were not allowed on deck to urinate or defacate, so they were lying in their own filth. So I would say that some mistreatment may have occurred.

 

Julie

 

Because we can always solve our differences and correct history by a bit of book banning or burning.

[Colleen in NS]

I have never been able to figure out why history is not taught chronologically in schools anymore.

 

Is this deficiency the result of an anti-chronology movement in education, or is it simply from a lack of organization on the part of teachers?

 

I'm guessing it's the idea of starting local and branching out that other people mentioned already. My own history education was very boring - lots of American history put forth by boring jr. high and high school lectures, and then having to read textbook snippets, answer the questions, stumble through essays that I had no idea how to write, and memorize facts to pass the test and the course and then forget about it. Furthermore, in elementary school, I remember doing a Thanksgiving play, and reading one book about Ancient Egypt. That's all I remember about elementary school history. And, the Ancient Egypt book was more interesting to me!! Only we weren't given time in class to get into this interesting reading!! That SSR (Sustained Silent Reading - anyone remember that catch phrase??) time of 15 minutes just wasn't enough.

 

My kids do chronological history, they absorb what they can of the events/people stories (MUCH more than I ever did at their ages), and they're getting a solid foundation for future analytical history studies. Ds has been keeping a timeline this past fall/winter, and is learning to make the connections between events and seeing how events influence each other in the same time periods. I think if he hadn't had the first four years of just reading and writing about people/events, this timeline connecting business would be harder for him.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[Mommy22alyns]

Here you go. Is there a realistic American history curriculum out there?

 

Thank you! I shouldn't be surprised that someone has already asked the question. :)

 

This is very different from the "helicopter history" approach used by the schools - you "land" at different topics and time periods, then take off and land at another arbitrary subject, location and time. There is no way to connect it. Not to mention it seems the same landing pads are used repeatedly through the years - gee, we did have presidents other than Lincoln and Washington, and there were important events in our nation's history other than Thanksgiving. Again.

 

I do think there are stages to development, and I do think kids can't really grasp the depth of time. This, to me, is all the more reason to teach it chronologically. Because then it becomes a story. And there is no more developmentally appropriate way to teach young children than by telling them a story. This they remember. Whether they really get that Ancient Egypt was 5,000 years ago and what that means is completely beside the point. They'll get the characters and the sequence. The deeper understanding will come later. The way the schools "teach" "history", there is no context. It's context that makes you remember.

 

 

 

 

I like the helicopter analogy - very apropos! And you also bring up another important point - yes, we're learning about the ancients and Becca loves it. But I don't really push the dates of everything because to Becca, her daddy could have been born 5,000 years ago. :001_huh: She just doesn't get that fine concept of time yet. But it doesn't mean that she's not getting a lot of value from learning about ancient history.

[Kate CA]

But I don't really push the dates of everything because to Becca, her daddy could have been born 5,000 years ago. :001_huh: She just doesn't get that fine concept of time yet. But it doesn't mean that she's not getting a lot of value from learning about ancient history.

 

Yes, this is so true! When I was a child I asked my mother what it was like to cross the prairie in a covered wagon. :lol: She wasn't very happy! :glare: I really wanted to know though! :D

[Nan in Mass]

I've found that, too. Maybe it is having to try to guide them invisibly? Maybe it is not saying things? Maybe it is all the private worry? I try not to worry, but it is worrying that leads to creative solutions to their problems. At least for me. And it takes tons of worrying at something in order for me to be able to justify my actions and decisions verbally to them. I know I have a good reason for wanting or not wanting them to do something, but I have to be able to put it into words to be able to convince them. It takes time for the reason to bubble up to the surface where I can see it, and meanwhile they aren't exactly happy with my apparently random decision. Maybe it is the constant questioning and justifying? Maybe it is constantly having to make decisions based on guesses and then waiting to see how much you misjudged? Maybe it is constantly attempting to find the balance point between too much and too little? Maybe it is just that you are praying so hard all the time for them and their friends...

-Nan

[cathmom]

Yes, this is so true! When I was a child I asked my mother what it was like to cross the prairie in a covered wagon. :lol: She wasn't very happy! :glare: I really wanted to know though! :D

 

When my mom was a little girl, she found out that her grandfather had been born in 1865, so she asked him if he had ever met President Lincoln!

[Barb_]

I've found that, too. Maybe it is having to try to guide them invisibly? Maybe it is not saying things? Maybe it is all the private worry? I try not to worry, but it is worrying that leads to creative solutions to their problems. At least for me. And it takes tons of worrying at something in order for me to be able to justify my actions and decisions verbally to them. I know I have a good reason for wanting or not wanting them to do something, but I have to be able to put it into words to be able to convince them. It takes time for the reason to bubble up to the surface where I can see it, and meanwhile they aren't exactly happy with my apparently random decision. Maybe it is the constant questioning and justifying? Maybe it is constantly having to make decisions based on guesses and then waiting to see how much you misjudged? Maybe it is constantly attempting to find the balance point between too much and too little? Maybe it is just that you are praying so hard all the time for them and their friends...

-Nan

 

Maybe it's just that you realize how little time is left to influence them. Maybe it's because some of them feel their oats and think they know everything. Maybe it's because they are old enough to seriously derail themselves with a misstep but young enough to do immature, stupid things. Maybe it's their questions that are more complicated. Somehow the relationship, even (especially?) when it is strong and healthy, just requires so much more intellectual and emotional energy than when they were younger.

 

Barb

[Reya]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that slavery long ago was based on debt or the conquering of a nation (therefore an issue of power), while slavery in recent American and European history was based on the idea that people of color were without souls, not created in the image of God, and were, at best, large children. These are two very different things.

 

You're wrong.

 

:-)

 

Slaves came into the state of slavery through multiple mechanism:

 

1) Slave commodity trade. Baltic to Greece. Africa and Balkans to Islamic world. Africans to the New World. Germans and Gauls to Rome. Etc.

 

2) War and conquest.

 

3) Debt and poverty.

 

4) Criminals.

 

5) Kidnapping people in the countryside (travelers, peasants, etc.).

 

Slaves could remain as slaves as long as they did not have citizenship within the society or had lost citizenship for the duration of their enslavement. Once full citizen status was restored, a slave must be freed, but if the slave was made a slave not through the revocation of the rights of a free citizen but because he had never BEEN a free citizen of that society, he was generally a slave for life and his condition was heritable.

 

This was true of EVERY SINGLE society that I've studied, be it Greece, ancient Israel, Rome, Babylon, medieval Europe, 18th and 19th century Europe, the US, etc. Some societies forbade different forms of slavery at various times, but the reliance on just one kind was the exception rather than the rule, and every nation that had war slaves had commodity slaves, too. In fact, I cannot come up with a single society that did not have commodity slaves if it permitted any slavery at all!

 

The enslavement of blacks was NOTNOTNOT originally based upon any idea of race, as modern people understand it. It was a later justification for a condition that had originally included whites, as well. There was not a legal difference between white indentured servants and black slaves until slavery was nearly a century old in America, and that legal distinction was clearly based upon the lack of citizenship of people of African origins. In fact, the terms "servant" and "slave" were used interchangeably for both these groups, and "servant" was applied to people in involuntary service well into the 1700s.

 

It wasn't until the 1750s that the first real hints of racial theory came in, and it was actually a line of philosophical thought that provided the foundations for Darwinianism (the purpose of which was really to explain why some races of people--and this would divide the British upper and middle classes from the lower classes, the Germans and Italians, long before you get to "whites" and "blacks") that was in turn later bolstered and made almost unassailable by the scientific "confirmation" that Darwinianism provided. It was, ironically, just as all blacks became free in the US that the belief system that would seek to put them in permanent chains because of their "race", not their legal condition, came began its rapid ascendency.

 

Racism and the greatest legal suppression of women since before Christianity had improved their lot were two of the fruits of the Enlightenment that few people care to talk about. They're incredibly important, nevertheless. The 14th century noblewoman was better educated than her brother; in the 17th and 18th centuries, some would seriously argue against the need for a woman of any status to even learn to read. In 1200 in Britian, a man had to have the permission of his wife to sell something both owned, and he could not touch her inheritence at all. In 1850, a wife's inheritence went directly to her husband, and she had no power over any of it.

[Reya]

Dr. Ruth Beechick has some very valid ideas on why not to teach in a solid chronological manner in her book You Can Teach Your Child Successfully. She uses brain development research to back up her idea. She write that the brain is not mature enough to really wrap itself around history/time until the late mid 20s (26 if memory serves me right was a number she used.) We as parents look at chronological history and wonder why we were not taught so because suddenly it makes sense for us but most of us when it suddenly makes sense because we are at or past our mid 20s or at least this is what she writes and I think she has a valid point.

 

Yes, heard all this. But you can learn to understand history better than most adults as a child through the use of timelines and discussion. Children don't naturally have a good grasp of distances, either. So we teach them. We don't just wait for them to figure it out just because EVERYONE gets it, at least to some degree, at SOME point because they eventually pick up enough knowledge for it to make some kind of sense.

 

Because not everyone does fully get it. My MIL, for example, has no grasp of time or distance really at all--she grew up in China during the cultural revolution, so she wasn't allowed to move around much and had a poor education. So she thinks that highway turns equals distances. Instead of asking how many hours something is from our house, she'll ask how many highways we have to go on. And if we went to California (from MD) with fewer turns than to NYC, she'd honestly think it was closer. She also has only the vaguest grasp of time. Anything before her parents' lifetime might as well be a thousand years ago. She can't differentiate.

 

Most people manage to pick up a better grasp than this. But that doesn't mean that it can't--or shouldn't--be taught explicitly, or that the results from explicit instruction won't be a lot better than leaving it to chance!

[Reya]

So do the majority of young children wrap their minds around algebra and understand it? No and there is a reason why they do not and it has to do with the ability of the brain to fully process and understand abstract concepts. Anyone who has had an entry course in child psychology knows that. Some children can be taught to memorize equations but they really do not understand or fully grasp the concept.

 

Trying not to get too snippy here:

 

All children develop at their own pace. Part of it is physiological, and part of it is environmental. Piaget is complete nonsense, of course, and so is ANY person who says, point blank, "children of age X cannot comprehend Y". That is the path to underachievement and mal-accommodation.

 

Yes, some children CAN fully process and understand abstract concepts to a much better degree than the average adult EVER will.

[Reya]

As to adult brain maturity there is some research that shows that some abstract forms of grammar can not be truly understood until the mid 20s. Or at least that is what our SLPs and Neuro Developmental Psychologists told us and gave us reading material on. There are concepts that can be memorize and given back in a rote manner but true understanding happens only when the brain matures at a later date. It is the same with the flow of history. One needs to live some in order to truly understand the grasp of it, to see the cause and effects of it all and even then some folks wont be able to grasp it.

 

 

I suppose, then, that the graduate paper I did on the underlying syntax indicated by the clitic decision tree branching in various Spanish dialects when I was merely 20 must have been rote memorization...of novel research never done by anyone else, yes?

 

This is complete nonsense. Correlation does not mean causation. Most American adults do not understand arithmetic. That doesn't mean that they aren't mature enough; it means they weren't taught well enough and weren't smart enough to figure it out on their own. That's why Singaporean sixth graders, on average, understand arithmetic better.

[Reya]

What I have tried to write is that folks do not fully grasp the chronological flow of history until 26. There is a difference between understanding the story of Lincoln and grasping all the nuances that came together during that period in history that produced Lincoln and influenced his thinking.

 

Please tell me one person who does understand this. One. Of any age.

 

I've been studying 19th-c history for ten years now, and I'll tell you freely that I do not, and I doubt that even the greatest Lincoln scholars can or do--much less the average 26-year-old college graduate.

 

It would take me 60 hours of lectures to try to get that person to begin to see the cultural milieu of 19th-century America. And that's just what *I* know, and I am not all that interested in America.

[Reya]

Piaget also claimed that children under 3 are developmentally incapable of cooperative play, but I'm sure any mother of multiples will tell you that is categorically untrue. ....

 

Our limitations in grasping the nuances of complex relationships has more to do with personal experience than ability, all physical things being equal. One cannot reason in a vacuum.

 

Both my son and daughter played "pass the baby" before they could even sit up. The first time my son had a chance to play with another child was when he was 10 months old. (All our friends were childless...) I left him at the gym daycare and returned to discover that he had made up a game with a 4-y-o and was playing it with delight. My daughter at 3 months began trying to play with the neighbor's developmentally delayed 3-y-o, and last night, at 4 months, they spent half an hour rattling piece of paper at each other and laughing. Piaget's been disproven 10 ways to Sunday, and the experiments disproving him are even more interesting than the original experiments.

 

I think what you said in the second paragraph I selected is the most interesting. Experience can be of two types: explicitly taught, and acquired by just knockin' around for long enough. YES, there are maturity issues, as there always are. (For example, if it takes a week to teach a letter, the kid's just not ready!) But I think that a lot of poor teaching is mistaken for a lack of maturity.

[Reya]

My dad teaches seminary and he says there is a huge difference between what his under grad kids can grasp and what his grad students do.

 

Of COURSE there is. His grad students are the elite of his undergrads further on in their instruction! Are his 30-y-o grad students categorically better than his 23-y-o ones? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

His grad students have more training than his undergrad students. And he had more seniority than he did. And I seriously doubt that many of his colleagues lack a Mensa-qualifying IQ, since the average professor has an IQ around 130, 135.

 

Virtually all great mathematical and scientific discoveries are made by relatively young people. There's a saying that if you haven't made your mark in math by 30, you never will. There's a quality of mind and a kind of approach that is ingrained by a certain age that can't be waved away as immature. The late years of most scientists are relatively unproductive for a reason. That's a discipline in which additional content is of relatively little use. On the other hand, the great historians were giants in their old age. Their content-rich discipline meant that having more time to learn more made them better thinkers about their subjects. Rather than concluding that history can only be understood at age, it's much better to say that history must be taught with a very rich content at any age for it to make sense.

[Reya]

 

You just said it--"within every actual history course". The thing that is emphasized by The Well Trained Mind and Story of the World is the overall timeline of world history. This timeline is not something I had in school. I think knowing the place of events in history is essential to understanding why things are the way they are today and why in current events some countries respond the way they do.

 

In order to follow the timeline you have to break up the narrative a bit. You have to recognize that something is happening at the same time somewhere else. You have to recognize that the events happening somewhere else may be affecting events happening in the civilizations you started reading about first.

 

The history I was taught was bits and pieces and mostly American. I don't think I had any world history until high school and my American History was not taught in order until 5 th or 6th grade. I think this is why I hated history. It was bits of dates and names here and there and nothing connected.

 

 

Hmmm. I had a slightly different experience.

 

I had my first real history course--World History--in 5th grade. 6th was Texas History, 7th World Geography (mostly history in other clothes), 8th American History, 9th World Geography, 10th World History, 11th American History again.

 

I think that it's important to start with a decent world history overview in the elementary grades when kids are normally doing the mess of activities called "social studies." Social studies is mostly nonsense and busywork. After that, though, I have NO problem with specialization with one region or another. :-)

 

The biggest mistake I thought was in the break between World Hist in 5th and in 10th. I was just about the only one to remember enough from 5th for the rush job in 10th to make any sense. Geog should be taught integratedly, and world hist should be on its 3rd cycle by high school an should be a 2 yr course. Then I'd be happy!

[Reya]

Now, I can see this in the lower grades. It can even be beneficial, I think. Using the chronological plan, you get children who know a great deal about ancient history, but are not able to converse about local and national things because they haven't studied it yet....

 

 

No one says you can't take breaks to teach units in other areas! Any time we go to somewhere historically significant on vacation, we pause and do a little unit on it. :-) Works for us. It means we're still on STOW I after nearly 12 months, but hey, we've picked up a lot of American history on the way!