Have you read this way of teaching history "chronologically" by Cheryl Lowe?

[hlee]

Hi everyone,

 

Newbie here to homeschooling, trying to figure it out to start in the fall with DS (6 yrs old, super reader, in 1st grade right now but I'm sad to say I don't think he's learned much this year!!! Thus the thought to homeschool.)

 

I know the WTM suggests the chronological approach to teaching history, starting with the Ancients. But Cheryl Lowe, the author of Prima Latina/Latina Christiana suggests the following method, which they use at the Highlands Latin School where she teaches:

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Spring09/teach-history-chronologically.html

 

What do you think of this approach? Has anyone tried it, or does anyone have feedback on teaching history differently than the traditional Classical approach?

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. I love these boards!

 

Best,

Helen

ds, 6, will start homeschooling this summer/fall

ds, 4, will start homeschooling next year if I survive this year

ds, 18 mos, will start homeschooling if I survive the next couple of years!

[ChicoryChick]

Hi everyone,

 

Newbie here to homeschooling, trying to figure it out to start in the fall with DS (6 yrs old, super reader, in 1st grade right now but I'm sad to say I don't think he's learned much this year!!! Thus the thought to homeschool.)

 

I know the WTM suggests the chronological approach to teaching history, starting with the Ancients. But Cheryl Lowe, the author of Prima Latina/Latina Christiana suggests the following method, which they use at the Highlands Latin School where she teaches:

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Spring09/teach-history-chronologically.html

 

What do you think of this approach? Has anyone tried it, or does anyone have feedback on teaching history differently than the traditional Classical approach?

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. I love these boards!

 

 

Hi Helen,

 

I haven't read the article, but just skimmed over it now.

 

I read the WTM when my daughter was in 1st grade and started her on History Chronologically when she was in second. I am now using a curriculum which recommends giving an overview of history (with lots of Bible) and American History the first few years and then start history chronologically. It's funny looking back on it because I believe that God showed me what He did when He did for a reason. My daughter did well and thrived on History Chronologically. I did use an Ancient Spine that had a lot of Bible and little Roman and Greek Myths (which I personally prefer to hold off on until the logic stage) and she loved it. My boys love army stuff and soldiers and American History and I think that Bible & American in the early years is perfect for them for the early grades. It is only this past year that I discovered the curriculum that I am now using and thriving on and the author's recommendation for doing overview with lots of Bible and American first.

 

Over the past four years I have slowly adapted a more Charlotte Mason approach for the elementary years. I then plan to incorporate more of a Classical Approach for my children once they reach the Logic stage. But I believe it all depends on your families worldview, philosphies and learning/teaching styles. Praying that the Lord will guide you in your curriclum choices.

 

I hope I did not confuse you further, just wanted to share personal experience. Welcome to the world of homeschooling!

[amtmcm]

You might find these two articles interesting:

 

http://www.bfbooks.com/s.nl/it.I/id.2/.f

 

http://www.bfbooks.com/s.nl/it.I/id.35/.f

 

Hope this helps,

[SonshineLearner]

If Memoria Press (MP) makes sense to you, then Latin Centered Curriculum(LCC) might, too! We're doing Famous Men of Rome first, as in MP, but otherwise...I'm trying to follow the LCC. I also do some other things like SOTW cds....etc...and memory work that's not really "the LCC way" but....I love the book....and I really liked the article in MP...so thought you'd want a whole book that addresses the history and more.. question...

Carrie:-)

[Rhondabee]

I haven't tried it. I haven't read LCC.

 

I don't suppose either way is "better". But, I like doing history via WTM. We started when my boys were in 2nd and 5th, and are almost finished with SOTW-4 now. So, now I'm looking at Ancients for next year - they'll be in 6th and 9th (yikes!).

 

One thing I like is that in just a few short years my kids have been exposed to the entire span of history. As a result, they have some perspective I didn't have even as a young adult. They can read the newspaper and they have an idea of what all has happened in that area of the world that might be relevant to what is going on today. I like that.

 

Next year, as we start repeating Ancients, it really is going to be like re-visiting old friends. My kids have started thumbing through things and saying, "Oh, yeah! I remember this." And, my 5th grader was blowing people away with his knowledge of mummification at the Tut exhibit. (And we didn't even make the mummified chicken - LOL!) He studied that in the 2nd grade, and he remembers it better than I do! I thought it might be boring to them to start over, but I think that they are feeling confident. They know something about it already, but there is still much to learn, and they know that they have the education tools to go deeper this time around.

 

(That probably doesn't make much sense - sorry!)

[katilac]

Why would anyone make the assumption that children find ancient history "dry, boring and lifeless?"

 

A vengeful Achilles dragging the dead, naked body of Hector around the city gates, Horatio staring down enemy legions at the bridge, the intrigue and betrayal surrounding the murder of Caesar - - who is bored by this? Not my kids!

 

There are fascinating stories behind every era in history, and it is a poor teacher indeed who isn't aware of this (or curriculum publisher).

 

I also don't take stock in the theory that American history is somehow easier for children to relate to and understand. It's true that very young children do not have a handle on the scope of history, but that is exactly why it does not matter to them whether something happened one hundred years ago or one thousand years ago. Early American history is no more accessible than ancient Egyptian history to a six-year-old.

 

As for young children not fully comprehending the original writings of such great thinkers as Aristotle and Plato - - again, of course not, but they are no more likely to understand the original writings of the men who wrote the constitution. In both cases, we filter and explain so that children are exposed to the salient points, or we focus on biography and stories that they can understand, leaving difficult original works for older students.

 

I don't think it's best to approach history in a non-chronologicial manner in the early years, but I also don't think it's "wrong" or that terrible things will happen if you do. But publishers and teachers alike should be intellectually honest about their reasons for doing so.

 

If you (the generic 'you') think that American history should be studied first for religious reasons, then proceed based on that fact. If you think it should be studied first because you love it, or already own all the materials, then proceed based on those facts. But don't try to sell me on the idea that George Washington and Abe Lincoln are inherently more exciting than Odysseuss or Cleopatra!

[hlee]

Why would anyone make the assumption that children find ancient history "dry, boring and lifeless?"

 

A vengeful Achilles dragging the dead, naked body of Hector around the city gates, Horatio staring down enemy legions at the bridge, the intrigue and betrayal surrounding the murder of Caesar - - who is bored by this? Not my kids!

 

There are fascinating stories behind every era in history, and it is a poor teacher indeed who isn't aware of this (or curriculum publisher).

 

I also don't take stock in the theory that American history is somehow easier for children to relate to and understand. It's true that very young children do not have a handle on the scope of history, but that is exactly why it does not matter to them whether something happened one hundred years ago or one thousand years ago. Early American history is no more accessible than ancient Egyptian history to a six-year-old.

 

As for young children not fully comprehending the original writings of such great thinkers as Aristotle and Plato - - again, of course not, but they are no more likely to understand the original writings of the men who wrote the constitution. In both cases, we filter and explain so that children are exposed to the salient points, or we focus on biography and stories that they can understand, leaving difficult original works for older students.

 

I don't think it's best to approach history in a non-chronologicial manner in the early years, but I also don't think it's "wrong" or that terrible things will happen if you do. But publishers and teachers alike should be intellectually honest about their reasons for doing so.

 

If you (the generic 'you') think that American history should be studied first for religious reasons, then proceed based on that fact. If you think it should be studied first because you love it, or already own all the materials, then proceed based on those facts. But don't try to sell me on the idea that George Washington and Abe Lincoln are inherently more exciting than Odysseuss or Cleopatra!

Hmm, interesting perspective...Katilac--do you think that Cheryl Lowe and company are proposing the American history first as the means to avoid addressing mythology first? I never thought of that! They do hit the Greek myths pretty early, though, in 2nd grade...so I'm curious to hear more about what you is underlying Lowe's perspective. Thanks!

[Rhondabee]

Oh, I'm so glad you responded!

 

I admit I just glanced at the article when it came in the mail the other week, and thought, "Eh, whatever." But, I really appreciate your thoughts here. Well said!

[Malenki]

We've definitely tried something like this and have enjoyed it immensely. We did a geography year (world cultures really) when DS8 was 5. Then we did the three TruthQuest American History guides which he *loved* (ages 6-7.5). DH was pretty urgent that we cover American history first. It was tons of fun at this age. There were so many good books! (We could care less for the TQ commentaries, however, and mostly used it as a great book list.)

 

Then, we've done most of the SOTW 1 guide with him being 7.5-8 years old. He's liked it okay. We sorted it by cultures as reading straight through confused him and we flew through it.

 

We will do a four year sweep through all of history yet (4th-7th). We'll also do a one year history overview using CHOW in 3rd grade.

 

I showed DH the article and he didn't agree with all of it but we're probably closer there than to WTM. SOTW just hasn't appealed and while DS has been okay with learning about the ancients he's been thrilled with American history. For his interests and personalities, it's worked out great. :)

 

We'll do a similar thing for our younger son. It seems to fit our family really well!

[Staci in MO]

I started to do this the beginning of my oldest's 3rd grade year. By Thanksgiving we were back to doing it TWTM way.

 

There are certainly worse ways to teach your children, and I don't think the four-year chronological cycle is necessarily the be-all end-all, but it has its merits.

 

I came to the conclusion that my dc are never going to remember everything they learn in history. This is our second time through SOTW, and even *I* am coming across things that I had completely forgotten about the first cycle through.

 

The four year cycle is enough to give my dc the general framework of the flow of history. Each time through we fill in more details, but even if they study history for the rest of their lives, they're never going to remember it all. There's always something new to learn.

[Suzannah]

I believe TWTM addresses the idea that children aren't suited for a chronological approach to history. It says (paraphrasing here) that since history is a story it should begin at the beginning and go along to the end. What if we sat down to tell the story of Hansel and Gretel and decided that the part of the story most likely to appeal to children was the witch's gingerbread house so we would begin there? Then we might say something about the witch, then go on to the trail of breadcrumbs, but save the whole thing about the stepmother for the end because it's rather complicated emotionally and not very interesting to children anyway. That story wouldn't make any sense.

 

Furthermore, TWTM also says that beginning with the child's community, then U. S. history, then world history gives students a very self-centered view of the world. We didn't, as a nation, spring from the earth fully-formed. We have come to this point in history by "standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

We are now half-way through our second history rotation and DS and I have thoroughly enjoyed revisiting familiar stories and digging deeper into things.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Suzannah
Editted to correct embarassing punctuation errors.

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe TWTM addresses the idea that children aren't suited for a chronological approach to history. It says (paraphrasing here) that since history is a story it should begin at the beginning and go along to the end. What if we sat down to tell the story of Hansel and Gretel and decided that the part of the story most likely to appeal to children was the witch's gingerbread house so we would begin there? Then we might say something about the witch, then go on to the trail of breadcrumbs, but save the whole thing about the stepmother for the end because it's rather complicated emotionally and not very interesting to children anyway. That story wouldn't make any sense.

 

Furthermore, TWTM also says that beginning with the child's community, then U. S. history, then world history gives students a very self-centered view of the world. We didn't, as a nation, spring from the earth fully-formed. We have come to this point in history by "standing on the shoulder's of giants.

 

We are now half-way through our second history rotation and DS and I have thoroughly enjoyed revisiting familiar stories and digging deeper into things.

Very good explanation!

[sagira]

There are fascinating stories behind every era in history, and it is a poor teacher indeed who isn't aware of this (or curriculum publisher).

 

I also don't take stock in the theory that American history is somehow easier for children to relate to and understand. It's true that very young children do not have a handle on the scope of history, but that is exactly why it does not matter to them whether something happened one hundred years ago or one thousand years ago. Early American history is no more accessible than ancient Egyptian history to a six-year-old.

:iagree:

[Jayne J]

I'm going to add my 2 cents and say that at these young ages, the point of studying history is to get a "feel" for a culture. My 5 yr old son loves learning about the middle ages (informally mind you--we haven't started 1st grade yet) He reads about knights and jousts and castles etc. He has a mental association of the time period--I don't talk about specific kings or wars, but about food and clothes and houses. So for us, as we go through the first cycle, my job is to ignite his imagination--this is fascinating stuff. I don't see how his ability to comprehend the sweep of history changes the goal of "hooking" him on history. Bible people are just as far back as most of the ancients, so why should they be any easier to understand?

Mythology may present a problem for some, and I undertand that. (We have simply used it as a way to talk to our children about how some people believed/believe differently than we do.) So if that is the issue, OK, but I don't believe, based on my kids, that they are incapable or uninterested.

[laylamcb]

I love Memoria Press, but...

 

Why would anyone make the assumption that children find ancient history "dry, boring and lifeless?"

 

A vengeful Achilles dragging the dead, naked body of Hector around the city gates, Horatio staring down enemy legions at the bridge, the intrigue and betrayal surrounding the murder of Caesar - - who is bored by this? Not my kids!

 

There are fascinating stories behind every era in history, and it is a poor teacher indeed who isn't aware of this (or curriculum publisher).

 

I also don't take stock in the theory that American history is somehow easier for children to relate to and understand. It's true that very young children do not have a handle on the scope of history, but that is exactly why it does not matter to them whether something happened one hundred years ago or one thousand years ago. Early American history is no more accessible than ancient Egyptian history to a six-year-old.

 

 

 

...I agree completely. My kids are 6 and 4; we just finished up Ancients. They LOVED it. LOVED it. They play Punic Wars in the backyard. ;)

 

Drew Campbell (Plaid Dad/LCC author) does make a great point about history with littles, and katilac actually touches on it above: At this age, kids really connect well with history that focuses on individuals. As mentioned above, think Achilles and Hector and Odysseus and Aeneas and Hannibal and etc. (This is also, I think, why my kids have loved Marshall's Our Island Story and Scotland's Story: The spines of her storyline are actual people, usually kings, queens, and other leaders.)

[katilac]

Hmm, interesting perspective...Katilac--do you think that Cheryl Lowe and company are proposing the American history first as the means to avoid addressing mythology first? I never thought of that! They do hit the Greek myths pretty early, though, in 2nd grade...so I'm curious to hear more about what you is underlying Lowe's perspective. Thanks!

 

I actually meant the religious comment more in response to BF and their belief that America has a 'providential' history and heritage. They want a strong emphasis on American history because they believe that the founding and history of the United States is sanctioned by God, and that we live in a pivotal point in history.

 

I'm not that familiar with BF in particular, but, in general, those that take a providential view of history believe that America was established under the grace of God for very specific purposes. History is studied with this in mind at all times; if one uses a providential history, it would be a very good idea to first make sure that your religious beliefs match (beyond 'I am a Christian and this is a Christian curriculum').

 

MP's reasoning is a bit harder to figure out. I've never seen their guide to Greek myths, so I don't know if they focus on myths that are less likely to jostle Christian viewpoints or not, or how they handle questions that might arise. I think that there's definitely the viewpoint of Rome being superior to Greece, but I don't know how much religion and Christianity plays into that.

 

Can anyone who has used their ancient materials weigh in with any thoughts?

[hferguson10]

Interesting things to think on. Thanks.

[Lovedtodeath]

Fascinating conversation.

 

All I can say is that so far DD is so intrigued by Cavemen, Ancient Sumer, Ancient Egypt and China that she is doing more independant reading than ever before, and almost all of it is history. I have introduced both Bible and American History to her before without this effect.