Really, why do HS teachers lecture so much? Almost every HS I go to I see teachers talking and kids listening (or not) more in History than any other course.
And you needn’t take my anecdotal word for it. For the past year, students taking our survey have been asked to respond to questions about use of time in class. Here are the results for HS students (the “skipped” vs “answered” number refers to prior years when the question was not asked; this reflects all HS students from this school year, with no filtering out of answers):
So, half of HS teachers lecture at least 3/4 of the period regularly – some all period.
We also asked students what they think the ideal amount of lecturing is. Interestingly, below is not only the aggregate data, this is almost a universal answer across each school – there is practically no range on the answer to this question:
My question is basic, history teachers. Given that most history textbooks are comprehensive and reasonably well-written, why do you feel the need to talk so much? Your colleagues in science and English, for example, do not feel the same urge.
And PLEASE don’t tell me there is ‘so much to cover’ – that is silly. You are paid to cause understanding, not on how many words you speak. And don’t tell me you can’t do projects and simulations. My old friend and former colleague Mark Williams has prepared kids for AP for decades by doing cool simulations and performance challenges (e.g. Silk Road trading game plus debrief, editorial team decision on how to eulogize Sam Colt, etc.). The best teacher I have ever seen at the HS level, Leon Berkowitz at Portland HS years ago, organized his entire history course using the Steve Allen Meeting of Minds format.
Furthermore, most history programs have mission/goal statements that identify skills, performance abilities, and critical thinking that should be highlighted. (And the new AP framework which also does so is based on UbD.) That requires coaching kids to do things.
I can only see two good reasons for lecturing at length, sometimes, in history:
1. You have done original research that isn’t written down in a book
2. You have rich and interesting knowledge based on research that can overcome confusions and missing elements in the current course.
I am NOT saying “Don’t Lecture.” I am wondering why you do it so much, more than I think reasonably is necessary to achieve your goals. (You might want to read the research on lectures while you’re at it, especially the forgetting and disengagement that comes after 20 minutes for college learners, never mind HS kids).
What am I missing? Or: what might you do differently for 3/4 of the period, to engage and equip students? I think any reasonable job description of “teacher” demands that you rethink this habit.
PS: A number of tweets and a few comments below cite the reason as: “Kids can’t/won’t read the text.” But then that is a more serious problem than you lecturing all the time: they will be utterly unprepared for college at any level. Why isn’t this treated as a departmental priority? Why aren’t you looking for better books? Why aren’y you proving them with better incentives to read (e.g. necessary for simulations, debates, and Seminars)?
PPS: David McCullough on the 5 important things to learn in US history.
Here is a typical lecture, found on YouTube in a search on HS History Class Lecture. Is this the best use of class time?
PPPS: In response to a query: the data for just MS students:
Click here for Part 2, a guest post by my former colleague, Mark Williams, mentioned in the post.
Categories:
Tags:
121 Responses
Usually it’s because the kids didn’t read for homework. I have to explain the content. Don’t do it that long though.
I suspect that this is a common reason; it was already given before you! But, then, we have a different problem to face up to: kids not reading. Why is that? And why are they far more likely to read in English, say, than your class? And what has the History Dept. done to pressure kids and parents on the reading homework issue? A propose my earlier post on how HS does not prepare kids for college, this is a KEY problem: lack of serious reading and writing on one’s own in HS. Why isn’t that a high priority for the department and school?
In other words, I am not putting the onus on individuals. This is a school issue that should have priority.
One of the reasons I believe that student read less when it comes to Science or History compared to English is due how schools treat them as academic subjects. I’m not a HS teacher, I’m middle school, but the reality is much more emphasis and concern is put into English and Math classes than History or Science. As much as we are all academic subjects there is a huge difference in how English and Math is looked at by the state, DOE, school and parents. That perceptions I feel filters down to the students who see that History and Science are not as important than English or Math. Therefore when it comes to preparation and homework, students focus on the English or Math, and not History or English. Materials are also a concern, many times schools are willing to replace and update English and Math books to support new methods, getting schools to pay for History or Science is much more difficult. In addition, too many History teacher’s textbooks cover topics very broadly, and are not able to tell the story as interesting or as well as they feel they can by lecturing. Teachers feel they can give more information and better information in a period time through lecture, than battling students to read and focus on comprehending the meaning of what they have read.
In my experience students need to be taught HOW to read the textbook, as well as primary documents, and scholarly articles if they are used. They also need to be taught how to take notes from different types of texts and yes, the odd lecture.
Learning how to read is critical – a key part of my blogs on secondary literacy issues.
David Coleman, ” so many ways to avoid the difficulty of reading .” His words were clear!! Mose Allison, ” talk is cheap. “
As a science teacher whose style relies heavily on discussion, I’ll venture a guess at why history teachers lecture so much: The students won’t read, so they have nothing to say in discussion, so they don’t discuss. The teacher is the only one with anything to say, so she does.
I guessed that this would be a key reason given, but then why do English students read the book more often? And why aren’t history teachers then tackling the real problem – kids not reading.
Than read it together! What is important and how will it be learned? A lecture to students who did not read the material is probably not going to contribute much to actual learning. Sorry – only the best students will push to learn it. Others just memorize their notes for the test and it’s forgotten. Doing is learning.
If kids notice that they will get a benefit from having read the material that they miss out on if they don’t- it will be read.
Read it together is tough. First, it’s not really sound teaching practice (though, straight lecture isn’t either). Second, a “survey text” is probably only good at background information and less useful to really getting to the heart of the matter. But if teachers (in any subject) stopped teaching and “read it together” every time students were unprepared, there would be little progress towards course goals.
I agree with Grant – better option is to incentive readings at home.
I agree. But it’s better than lecturing. That was my point.
I would disagree that reading is better than lecturing – though it depends on the text. Reading relies on only one narrative voice. An appropriate lecture can bring in various sources and views. But it has to be done well, with purpose, to serve an end, etc.
Funny: don’t you think it depends as much, if not more so, on the ability of the lecturer? In my experience, most people are self-deceived about their own abilities as lecturers. Just look at a few videos online, including the one I posted in a postscript…
Rank ordering ineffective teaching methods was not my intent. I was simply responding to the initial post giving the “excuse” that lecturing is necessary because the students have nothing to say since they didn’t read the material.
Reading to the students is not a good way to go for the reasons given. But lecturing with power point is not only not a good way to go, it is mind-numbing for the kids.
Instead, lets focus on what works.
Grant – certainly has to do with lecture ability as well.
Jupiter – I didn’t mean to say it is an argument of one or the other, either. And reading in class is incredibly valuable in many ways; I just don’t like to have them read textbooks. We read a ton in my classes; but with the exception of trying to teach a skill like note-taking, I never read textbooks in my classes.
As for what I more meant was that reading is slow. So if you are reading only for content knowledge, students do not make it very far in a class period. A lecture that summarizes the text and then moves on is a more valuable option in my mind – with many exceptions.
I think it may be because that is the most prevalent model of instruction for History at the college level. At least that was true for me. This was one of the best changes I made in my classroom, committing to no more than 1/3 of class being lecture. I would never go back to talking all day.
I’m sure you are right. But that hasn’t stopped English and Science teachers from changing their habits…
My knowledge of history education research is a bit out of date (but I loved the Doing History book by Levstik & Barton), but I wonder a couple of things. One is, how are history teachers prepared? I’m not one of those folks who blames schools of education for “poor” teaching (I think it would be much worse without education schools), but do they promote active learning strategies and the like as heavily with history teachers as they do with science teachers, for example?
A second question is about how high school history is assessed. I took the AP History exam 20 years ago and got a good score, but as I recall, it was mostly about memorizing facts and dates. Perhaps if the assessments could be improved to assess thinks like interpretation and analysis skills, etc., it might prompt more appropriate teaching techniques.
Very interesting. Apparently most teachers gave not read How People Learn which focusses on math, science, and HISTORY
It is available for free from the National Academy of Science press site
Thanks for reminding people of the HPL follow-up volume on math, science and history. There are some very helpful examples in there.
There’s a lesson from music teachers here. I’ve been studying “professional practice” (as opposed to amateur practice). A consistent quantitative finding: the highest level professional practices (like the Boston Symphony) have about 18% of time in talk; more than 80% of the time actually practicing. That’s a ratio we should keep in mind not only for the classroom, but also for professional development.
I have made the same point often in athletics. As a long-time coach and watcher of soccer and baseball coaches (and a reader of the books on the great John Wooden in BB) it’s pretty clear that the % of talk is about 15% – 20% over a season. And the same is true in art – look at our survey results. Notably, in all these areas, there are utterly clear performance goals, “doings” that kids have to be coached in. That’s why we must press hard for syllabi and program goal statements that make such behavior become viewed as misaligned with stated goals.
Thank you! My son’s history courses have all been lecture heavy. The students hate it. It’s never good. Please do a survey about power point too if you could. There is nothing worse- and I really mean it- NOTHING worse than a teacher who everyday does a power point lecture for their course. There are sooooo many who do this too. It’s horrible.
Power point should be reserved for citations that need to be posted, visuals that are not possible to see in the book or otherwise and that’s it.
No need to do another post: I already showed this was the thing most students hated in a previous post about the student surveys a few years ago!!! Something like 15% of all HS students say it is the worst thing about class. I have sat in on such classes: the teacher reads (text-heavy) Powerpoints verbatim. I wanted to scream…
WHERE ARE THE SUPERVISORS!!!?????
Do you have a suggestion for what a student or parent can do if they end up in a course like this? Right now, my son is in the required US History course. There is a state mandated end of course exam based on the state standards that is part of the course. The teacher teaches exclusively from power point. There is no homework ever for the course except for studying for tests. My son feels powerless and has to sit for an hour everyday and suffer this. People wonder what happens to kids motivation. Well, there is no need to wonder any further. If any teachers on here currently do this- forgive yourselves and don’t do it again!
My only;y suggestion: as for the syllabus & course goals; talk with Dept Head about disconnect of course and goals. No syllabus? Demand one.
Sad thing is they do give out a syllabus. I think I mentioned this on your blog about college vs high school. The syllabus also contains course goals. But, here’s what that means- the syllabus is a 2 or 3 page document with the goals (2 or 3 statements of what should be learned), contact info for teacher, percentage of value given to tests, homework, etc, behavior expectations (usually the largest part of the document), and a section to have the parent and student sign that they have read it to be turned back in. It’s worthless. I don’t think they’d go for my request for what I consider worthwhile. They’d look at me like I was from Mars.
Bummer. The other route is a Departmental Mission Statement – that’s what some of our most important work is. And the history people are often the hardness to deal with. But a HS leadership with guts will press in that direction. The only other hope is student surveys! Please encourage friendly teachers in his school to call for their use!
I’m all about “history alive” and collaborative learning and blended learning and research in history class. Yet, I think there is one aspect that sets history apart from other classes. That is that history is story. If teachers are well-versed in history and passionate about it, they may be infusing their students with rich stories, angles, perspectives that are also a valid use of time. At least this could account in part for history being longer in lecture than science.
But do you want English teachers to read aloud all period? This is too egocentric: the teacher is not a performer but a causer of learning. And, frankly, how good a story-teller, really, is the average HS teacher? The TED talks make crystal-clear something more basic: 17 minutes + or – is about all the mind can take while sitting – and this is backed up by research findings in my posts last year on lecturing.
Sure. I was only pointing out one possible factor to consider. There can be fascinating lectures and story is powerful. I just don’t think generalizing that all teachers who lecture are also ego-centric and all teachers who lecture actually lecture the whole period. There are inspiring teachers out there who are mindful of good pedagogy, ways to motivate learning, and who use a variety of methods.
For sure! I am NOT saying all history teachers are egocentric. I am saying that a teacher that lectures most of the class, day after day, IS egocentric in the technical sense. You couldn’t do it day after day without conflating their own interests with what is good for kids. They are basically saying: I am interested in this, so let me tell you what I am interested in – and you will be too. That’s not merely naive; it is egocentric, by definition. Not a moment’s thought is being given about how these stories will empower students to gain expertise.
Nor is this about a variety of methods. Its about methods that are likely to achieve goals. Many great coaches, for example, do not have a large variety of methods. In my experience, egocentric teachers do not have genuine goals; they haven’t thought backward from what kids will be able to do as a result of their teaching. (That’s my operational indicator of egocentrism: when they can’t state the powers that a student will obtain from their class.)
Agreed. In that teacher scenario that is true.
I’m sorry in that last post I did not post with the right name/account. It was posted by by me.
Many of the social science teachers that I know who persist in lecturing believe that students are engaged by their “storytelling.” To some degree I agree that this can be an effective element in a history class (I remember being engaged by gifted and passionate storytellers in my history classes), I also know these are the same teachers who often argue content trumps skills in the curriculum…
Brian, I have had the same conversation with teachers at my school. Engaging in a story is different to engaging in learning. Engaging in learning is what the teacher should be helping the students do.
I don’t understand the math behind the sentence that immediately follows the second graph:
“So, half of HS teacher lectures lecture at least 3/4 of the period regularly – some all period.”
If only about 35% of students identified History as the class in which they experienced the most lecture, and 30% of that 35% said that 3/4 of the period consisted of lecture, how does that add up to half of HS [history] teachers? Unless I’m doing the math wrong, you could only speak with certitude about roughly 10% of high school teachers.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the half of all HS history teachers lecture 3/4 of the time. (It’s what I did at the start of my career.) But I think it’s worth the effort of using evidence accurately.
I think you mis-read the quote: half of ALL teachers, not just history.
History teacher here and certainly guilty – at times – talking too much. Though, I’d argue not more than my colleagues in other classes.
I do believe the lecture emphasis is a bit about the content. I also teach economics, which is a “problems” class that makes it a bit easier to do some student led work quickly and without a ton of prep. I think math, science, literature all have a bit of this benefit. In English, “read this poem then talk about it” can be one lesson. In econ or math, “practice these problems.” This isn’t meant as an attack, but I do think that can be harder to do in history. Not impossible, but harder, as many teachers believe – perhaps incorrectly – that more background knowledge is needed before students can really engage.
A second thought or hypothesis – in my area history is the least taught subject in terms of actual years of instruction. Middle school students take geography, not history. In high school, fewer years are required. So, while students may come in to math and english classes with almost a decade of steady instruction that provides a level of stability, it can be harder in history.
Finally – I always distrust these polls a bit with students. There’s a fine line between lecture and discussion. Sometimes students don’t feel it out all that well. In English, maybe it’s easier to make it feel like a dsicussion because it’s about a book and characters – a story. Maybe that doesn’t feel the same in history even if the teacher is trying to focus on “discussion” or seminar.
All that said – I agree with you question; though I think it is a good question for all teachers. Why do you talk? Why don’t your students do the work? How can you give your students more of the burden of the work? Even if it’s not projects and simulations or “big” items – there are ways to make history about “practice and discuss” like in other classes. And that can be a lot more valuable than lecture.
In this case, I would not distrust the polls much. We asked other questions about the kinds of discussions they engaged in, and we defined terms. These results seem consistent and align with my (and others’) observations, as noted in a number of tweets.
Given the poll is comparative, it’s probably a fair assessment of where the lecturing is happening most. But I guess even such answers I sometimes question. I ask my students about how much we lecture and many tell me I “never” lecture at all. Then I remind them of the day prior. Some tell me I lecture every day, then I remind them of the three day project they did the week prior.
But again – I certainly believe history teachers are far more likely to lecture and do. And there’s an easy answer for why: it’s really easy to tell a story instead of teach the importance of a concept.
I agree than many students don’t read or prepare as they should, but having taught history at the university level for several years, I wonder if some of the issue isn’t in how the discipline defines knowledge. It’s somehow easier for the lit. professor to say that knowledge in her field is about interpretation, understanding, comparing and contrasting, even applying – all higher order cognitive skills – while many historians tend to define knowledge in their field in terms of associative memory – knowing (remembering stuff).
Admittedly, it takes a great deal of knowledge about, say, the French Revolution before one can interpret authoritatively about the causes or lessons of the revolution. This is seemingly beyond many students or at best, feels like dilettantism in the absence of lots and lots of information, so the focus reverts to transferring content. I’m not promoting such an approach or understanding, but having fallen prey to it on occasion in my own teaching, I understand the dynamic.
I believe that in many cases, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical method. History is often confused with being names and dates and stories; at its heart is literacy, argumentation, and debate. Sometimes, unfortunately,some teachers see it as easier to just teach “the facts” than encourage student driven analysis. Furthermore, it is subject that is not tested and assessed as heavily (at least in Missouri) these history positions often fall to someone who is focused on coaching. I am a coach myself, but I first and foremost a teacher. This leaves many students at a large disadvantage and prone to sit in a classroom that is taught without a high degree of preparation or understanding of the methodology.
Point taken, however please explain if, “most history textbooks are comprehensive and reasonably well-written” as you say why have the powers that be taken the textbooks out of my classroom?
I, of course, have no idea. What is their reasoning? (Perhaps it is a heavy-handed way of forcing the issues I am raising and often raise about effective instruction? Even if so, it’s an odd and seemingly wrong-headed response to the larger issue.)
I actually have to disagree about most history texts, at least those for “normal” courses (I.e. not AP where you are already using a college level text). The state issued or mandated texts for survey courses I have run into are pathetic in many cases.
I think what makes this especially hard was noted by another poster – there is a level of factual knowledge that just occur first before interpretation can occur. A lot of teachers have trouble getting past that quickly. And adding to this, as a history teacher, I can almost never find a text (from any decent source) that pits the info into the order I would prefer. I aim to give all factual information a context and direction, but survey texts especially are very bad at this. A mish mash of facts dates names, blobs if random vocab probably meant to align with a test or the SAT…
I still don’t condone lecture as much as this poll shows, but it does explain my choice to lecture when needed. Before sending students to read sources and investigate data, I like to set them up with an angle that explains where we’re trying to go and not enough entry level texts provide that kind of context.
I am asking this as a real question without sarcasm. Is there data from the surveys that prove kids read homework for English class than they do for History? I would imagine a student who chooses not to do homework for one class would probably not do it for the other class. As a former ELA teachers, I know that kids not reading at home is definitely a problem in many subjects. Schools and teachers need to come up with creative solutions to this problem, rather than continue to assign students reading that will never be read…
Let’s assume that kids would rather read for English than History – which is probably accurate although it would be interesting to see data on this. My guess for the reasoning for this may be the type of accountability paired with the reading assignment.
In a typical English class after students are assigned readings (novel sections, short stories, poems…) They are held accountable by having to do tasks that would require them to read from the beginning to the end (summaries, essays, literary analysis…).
Whereas in a History Course (yes, I know this is an over generalization and doesn’t not hold true in every history class) When reading non-fiction texts kids have a higher chance of being successful without having done the reading than they would in an ELA class. Possibly because the assignments tend to be more fact base and when students encounter questions they can go on “answer hunts” without having to read the entire text.
So maybe thinking more about the way we hold kids accountable for text may contribute how much reading they do. Of course,their motivation to read depends on whether or not they find any value to the text or the tasks associated with them and whether or not they believe they can be successful.
So in history if we want kids to read the text more often, so we don’t have to over rely on lecture to “teach” the content, I propose we re-evaluate our lessons and make sure students have clear and valuable purposes to read that go beyond memorizing dates and facts. We need to create situations where students are thirsty for facts so that they can use them for some ultimate outcome that has value…
You raise some great Qs that i think I will put in the next version of the survey next fall – namely, how much homework is assigned per might, how much do they actually do, which homework is hardest, easiest, most often done, least often done. That would be very useful.
My own view? There is no real need/incentive to do the reading since the teacher will just lecture on it; and the reading is pretty boring and/or difficult to non-history geeks compared with interesting novels.
That’s why we have to change the incentives, as I added in the post.
I’ve probably commented too much already but just wanted to agree with what you said. As a high school student myself, when I knew the teacher was going to lecture what we were reading, I would never pick up the book to read it myself, sad to say. I developed much better habits in college where if you didn’t read it, you would completely miss out and be lost.
My brother teaches history and has never broached the subject by lecturing. It’s always been through simulation, games, activities and lsome lecture. It helps that he is a gifted storyteller and debater.
Since that is far from common, it would be interesting to know how he came to his approach.
Yes! I will ask him to share!
I think it’s a bit naive to ask why, if the content is in the book, teachers still feel the need to lecture. As if students who have five or six other subjects, even if they did the reading (and a large percentage don’t for pretty compelling reasons–family, work, athletics, etc.) come to class with an adequate grasp of what they read. I find that even the most conscientious student, who has “done the reading” arrives at class the next day with only vague and inchoate ideas about the meaning and significance of what she read. I’m not faulting students; this is a well-attested phenomenon for all learners–one reading of any factually or conceptually dense material does not usually produce comprehension. Consequently, I see it as my job (and I am a 35 year teacher of AP U.S. History, Government, and European History) to shine a spotlight on the most important aspects of what they read and alert them to its possible significance. Yes, I think it’s lecturing, but there is plenty of back and forth between the students and me. At any rate, it’s not as if they are sitting still, pen or laptop in hand, recording everything I say. But there is no doubt that I am driving the discussion most of the time. I have the perspective, the knowledge of the broader context that enables me to see the most productive lines of inquiry. When I ask a question and a student responds, it not a catechism of recitation. That is a stereotype. In a good lecture/discussion, the teacher ought to be knowledgeable enough–about both the subject and his students–to know when and how to probe their answers with further questions, challenges, debates, etc. While I don’t need to be running the show at all times, I would never call what I do a “seminar” in the St John’s College meaning of that term; I have no reluctance to use that method to explore ideas, philosophy, literature; occasionally I will take that approach when interpreting texts that merit it–like the Declaration of Independence; the Gettysburg Address; a speech by Frederick Douglass or Margaret Chase Smith. But most history is about the synthesis of thousands of primary sources that the reader of a textbook or monograph only glimpses.
So, yes, a good deal of history instruction is repetitious. But it’s repetition with variation of perspective, and as the Jesuits understood very well, repetition is the mother of learning. Just the mother mind, you, not the father, too. That, I suggest, is imagination.
You know what would be helpful for aspiring or novice history teachers? Solid coaching on what makes a good story and how to tell it effectively. And what sorts of question arouse curiosity and intrigue students. This is true in any discipline, BTW, it’s just more obvious in history. On this subject, I learned a great deal from Kieran Egan’s work on story, especially “Teaching As Storytelling”: http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Story-Telling-Alternative-Curriculum/dp/0226190323/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429916809&sr=1-3
Thanks for the link to that book, David. Reading the forward, I see that storytelling seems to be a way to reveal meaning without relying on the positivist/scientific jargon (i.e. ‘learning targets’, ‘objectives’) which imprison student and teacher creativity.
DanF, are you suggesting that lessons or units be designed without targets or objectives? I disagree that these “imprison student and teacher creativity,” which are not ends in themselves. Perhaps the problem isn’t objectives but poorly conceived ones or objectives that are retrofitted to the lesson’s activities.
My daughter is in HS and HATES that her teacher does not lecture. She does all assigned HW, works in groups during class, etc. and STILL feels unprepared. She needs background knowledge, plus models of “how to think about it” and how that meaning changes throughout time. It is all very abstract and confusing to them at this age. In order for them to build these skills there has to be MUCH more talk from an expert. Ok, lecture is boring, and kids don’t feel confident discussing because HW is hard to understand by themselves (I end up reading the text book assignment aloud and explain it as I go along; only then does it make sense to her). How can a teacher do that?
Note that I specifically say that the aim should be to lessen lectures to a reasonable amount. I did NOT say: no lectures. Students need some sense of what matters and how to learn – so, some direct instruction is essential. That is not in dispute. But endless teacher lectures make no sense, given the goals of understanding history and doing history: that requires grappling with theories, documents, missing artifacts and evidence, etc.
Really – direct instruction essential? I don’t have a problem with a little direct instruction, but I’m not sure it has to happen in order for students to learn. What if it is a researched based course?
I get what V is saying,it’s not about pure lecture but students need to be taught the background.I like to use a worksheet summary.They need to read and answer short questions .Then I have them read orally in class and I explain,expand the information.I also like teaching map skills ,critical thinking,charts to teach the content.I try to connect it to old news and current news.Projects,organizers,dioramas ,videos and slide shows are change ups to support learning and break the routine
Prof. Wiggins.
Anyone who lectures a lot, probably an auditory learning preference and only understands their content area from hearing about it. That type of teacher has killed/frustrated learning and learners for decades. When I bring it to their attention, they are usually surprised by my statement. Neuroscience teaches us you learn “what you live.” If you are lucky to find a kindred learner you have hope in advancing your learning.
Jean J. Marston
I actually spoke after a speaker at an international school conference in Switzerland who chastised anyone in the audience who could not just listen for an hour – this, to explain his lack of Powerpoint or any visuals. I also co-taught with a guy (old friend) who was completely visual while I was far more auditory. He would write all these words, circles, arrows, underlinings… At one point, I asked: Jim what the hell do all those squiggles mean?? which gave everyone a big laugh – but it was very eye-opening and formative for me as a young teacher.
On the other hand, the use of Powerpoint in most classes is a death ray to the brain, as other commenters have noted, and as our student surveys reveal repeatedly…
This is a great post, Grant.
I think three things really contribute to the extraordinarily high incidence of lecture in history classes: (1) It was the way most history teachers were taught, so they replicate it. (2) Some teachers lack the toolkit to “cover” all the material in other engaging ways. (3) Too little time has been spent thinking about the actual purpose of social studies class.
That third one is the important one, in my mind. If teachers are firmly convicted that social studies is about habits of mind, literacy skills, argumentation, and historical thinking, then teacher talk time will almost always be devoted to facilitating discussions providing feedback, and most importantly, modeling skills and cognitive processes. But if history is about covering content, then lecturing makes a lot of sense.
I think #3 is the most important for getting at needed change. That’s why I address it in the post while sort of ignoring #1 and #2. I think the interesting thing about most of the responses so far is that few people are denying the fact. The dialogue is on what the fact means. That’s a start!
It’s got me thinking about a quick audit of all practices in the HS on any given day…
I agree it’s most important and in need of change. Thankfully, I really believe that most HS teachers would ultimately accept that the purpose of HS social studies is not to “cover content.” The key, I believe, is to provide the right forums to realize what the goals of social studies are and then actually reconcile with what that means for how the class should be taught.
If teachers are given the space to accept that history class is about civic literacy, critical thinking, argument, sourcing, etc., they’ll have to accept that lecture cannot be the primary instructional tool.
Well, the new AP framework should be a big help. I wish the IB would follow suit – their course frameworks are impediments. And we sorely need a blue-ribbon panel of historians calling for something other than superficial coverage. Recall that the National History Standards out of UCLA blew up over politics – even though it remains a great report. Time to try again, perhaps…
I hope it helps. It’s definitely a step in the right direction.
Do you have any opinions on C3? I think it’s huge progress.
Good stuff – but i don’t see the impact of it. It doesn’t get to the hardcore history buffs…
Does the assessment “cover content”? Maybe this should be the starting point to attempt to change.
When I first started teaching with PowrPoint, I confess I overdid the text bit. Ultimately, I grew frustrated with students attempting to copy everything on the screen. So, I now use images almost exclusively. Some are illustrations to accompany the story I am telling ; others are visual documents that require student interpretation.
Presentation Zen was very influential on my paring back text with imagery. The data is very clear: spoken words and text on screen is distracting mentally – you do not know what to attend to. And the discipline of finding appropriate images is a good one – and made so easy by Google image searches.
This is a very interesting topic & observation. I want to start off by saying that I am a History teacher. However, over the years (20 yrs teaching), I’ve also taught foreign languages, Math and ESL. If we were to look at this objectively, it wouldn’t logically make sense to explain this solely as “History teachers”. In other words, History teachers have the same diversity of pedagogical strategies as other disciplines. Within our ranks, we have junior & senior faculty, women & men, innovators & traditionalists, etc. Thus, I see this owing more firmly to the nature of the discipline itself. History, unlike other disciplines, is fundamentally a “study of narrative”. In our field, new information and insights may change the perspective or widen the viewpoint, but it always remains a “narrative”. Thus, whether we have students read from a textbook (any textbook) or solely primary sources, the teacher still needs to guide the narrative that unfolds within the students’ interpretation of facts. Quite often, I’ve found that a young student cannot understand some of the subtleties of the “narrative” even when the facts are presented. For example, I might spend a class having them read about Germany of the 1930s & examine primary accounts of the Jewish ghettoes. But following this, I then have to dedicate 1-2 lecture classes (always in a Q&A style) to establish a narrative which usually is vastly different from their personal experience. Historical factors like anti-semitism, racism, gender bigotry, genocide, etc., are often illogical and don’t reflect their experience or (even) their reading of sources.
Consider this analogy: Grandma was your primary babysitter when you were young. In reading, she read to you but often let you read to her. In Math, she let you count the change at the market. In cooking (Science), she looked over your shoulder as you added ingredients. These areas focused on guides sets of skills thay didn’t rely heavily on a narrative. However, when you looked through the family photo album and/or family tree (History), it was primarily an exercise of her recounting the family’s “narrative” (e.g., why grandpa didn’t talk about his Vietnam experience, why Aunt Patty never got married, etc.). Even as you grew older and learned more about the family and past times, the narrative remained to be passed on to your own children in much the same way.
I’ve found that the difference between very good History teachers and mediocre History teachers isn’t so much about lecture style or not, rather it is about providing a wide range of perspectives on the narrative and giving students various resources to examine/critique/review the narrative.
But here’s my concern with your good, thoughtful point: any teacher, in any subject can make the same argument. The narrative has to be filled in by English teachers, the math has to be explained, the science needs to be made clear… but at a certain point that is all too egocentric. At a certain point the kids have to process, play with, do history if the materials are to become meaningful and the students are to become equipped. (The beginning of the McCullough video makes this point well, as do the books by Wineburg).
Because the kids don’t read the book.
Why not? They read it in other classes. As I have said in other comments, the failure to incentivize the reading may be a more important problem than lecturing too much. It makes them utterly unprepared for college.
I don’t believe they read it in other classes. English, for example, …sparknotes, and other such crutches are rampant. The reason we lecture is our content is details of stories, and stories need to be told. (not just read)javascript:void(0)
But by that argument, students are left merely as listeners to others telling stories. Surely there are goals that require less passive behavior than that, e.g. analyzing primary documents and conflicting secondary accounts, etc.
What is wrong with listening to a story? A good storyteller can be just as engaging as other activities because listening is an active process. I am surprised you have fallen into the misconception that listening is passive…
I have not fallen into that misconception. I have sat in many times on poor teacher talk that leaves kids bored. “A good storyteller” – that’s not the point of school, to listen to stories. Then, should English teachers just read the books they assign, too? You are failing to grasp the deeper point: by talking most of the time, history teachers are simply not going to honor worthy educational objectives in terms of what students leave able to DO with having those “stories” told to them.
Let the students tell the stories! Then let the students disagree that it has been told properly. That’s history in a nutshell!
Yes, history is a story. Perhaps we should be encouraging our students contribute to that story instead of passively receiving it in a lecture.
I teach on-level courses in a low socio-economic school that is a pretty rough neighborhood. I have the lowest failure rate in my department and I believe that is because my style is radically different. I expect the best from all my students – whether they are in a gang or living in stable home.
Instead of lecturing, my students engage in simulations, discussions, and document analysis. I lecture no more than 2 times a month and only when necessary.
Grant, thank you for this post. As a history teacher, and former history department chair, I completely concur with you. I’m sorry I don’t have time to read all the comments (I’m currently grading papers!), but a few quick thoughts: 1) to those who are frustrated with students not reading homework, have them read concise, quality (both primary and secondary) reading as part of class–that way they are still doing the work of history and not relying on the teacher lecturing, while also building their reading skills. 2) I’ve never considered when it is that I lecture, but as I read your post, I realized it’s exactly when you mentioned–when I have info from research, reading or lectures I’ve been to that contradicts/builds on/or complicates the info to which the students have already had access.
Thanks again! Keep these quality critiques coming, for those of us working in environments somewhat insulated from this critical thinking about teaching and learning.
Grant, thank you for pointing this out. When do we start shifting classrooms from “Teacher Centered” to “Student Centered”? We take away so much of the student’s thinking when we just lecture and don’t allow them to formulate their own thoughts. I am so glad to see these kinds of post’s.
I chuckled when I read ‘most history textbooks are comprehensive and reasonably well-written.’ History teachers are typically pretty passionate about what they teach and would never consider a textbook as either comprehensive or well written (at least at the grade school/middle school level.
For middle school American History, try: America, the Story of Us by Joy Hakim. I use it in my history class and really like it. Tells a story rather than a list of information. I would read those books for fun/interest. I’d never say that about a traditional text, and I’m a history teacher.
I agree. As a former history teacher and chair, I have seen this and tackled it with colleagues, often unsuccessfully. I think there are two issues. First, history teachers love content and context, and it’s hard to explore them thoroughly (to the teacher’s mind) without “just giving it to them”. Second, most history teachers have not been trained in how to teach reading comprehension, so they end up negating reading assignments by covering them in class. The best history teachers understand that their job is not to “cover” but to develop a curiosity in the content. They demonstrate the value of reading the book by scaffolding the reading with reading comp strategies, and they begin the class conversation about the material in connection with those strategies. In the end, they worry less about “coverage” and more about curiosity.
AMEN. Your point about teaching kids to read history texts is spot on: this is a glaring weakness in history courses, and this is one reason why Common Core folks wisely brought history into the Standards in upper grades.
And this is as problem that goes back to my own teaching days: 40 years ago my colleagues and I developed a reading handbook for students in history and English for just this reason. Hard to believe we are still fighting this battle…
While I wholeheartedly agree that students need to be taught how to read history texts, I cannot ignore the fact that part of our job as educators is to make sure we do “cover” all of the standards/benchmarks as well as develop the curiosity that is so necessary to develop into historians. It is a delicate balancing act, no doubt, but one that cannot be forgotten. I remember my Social Studies Ed professor putting a towel on our textbook saying, “There, now it is covered.” Sadly, not so anymore.
As educators, we need to look closely at what is causing us to say “we must cover it all”. As a Principal in an international school, I don’t have a state or district system holding me to account with standardised (or other) tests, so I (along with my teachers) get to decide what we cover. I always advise depth over spread!
DITTO!!! So happy to see someone bring this point up. As a Literacy/Instructional Coach this is one of my BIGGEST obstacles…. content coverage vs in depth comprehension. So many of the literacy strategies I teach teachers get pushed aside for the following reasons: “I can´t do that….I would be way too far behind if I gave up class time for kids to read one article that way”; “they should know how to read the book/text, I can´t slow down my content and teach reading”; or my favorite one, “they can´t understand it unless I teach it to them….they won´t do it”. There are so many assumptions about adolescent students and their literacy skills and not enough educators believe that literacy scaffolding is required, or necessary, for deep comprehension and ownership of content and complex thinking. It is such a difficult battle, and I absolutely feel for history/SS teachers´ plight of too much content. However, in the end, if we haven´t taught students how to ENGAGE in information and extend their comprehension to other circumstances, places, and times, what have we really taught them, except a bunch of facts, dates, and names.
After 25+ years, as a professional educator in a variety of roles from Drop-Out Prevention to AP to Academic Coach to administrator, I can safely say there needs to be a distinction between a traditional “lecture” and “lecture/discussion”. The traditional lecture is what I perceive as a teacher-led oration about the content. A lecture/discussion is a teacher-led review of the content with discussion of the content between the teacher and students. The traditional lecture is what I believe many have experienced at the college level, and some at the middle/high school level. Are there some of both at play in the middle and high school level? Definitely.
Although an increasing number of beginning teachers have been moving away from the traditional lecture style, there are still those that rely on the traditional lecture. From my experience, I see several reasons for this:
1) In Florida, due to a teacher shortage many years ago, anyone with a Bachelor’s Degree or higher could become a teacher by passing a State of Florida certification exam. This “new” teacher did not need to have any pedagogical background or in-depth content knowledge. For example, a CPA with an Accounting degree could become a history teacher by passing the State certification exam for Social Sciences. I found many of these teachers, not just in History, would choose the easiest path which would be the traditional lecture method. Thankfully, things are slowly changing in Florida and now teachers with non-education degrees must complete pedagogical coursework throughout their first year of teaching. I predict Florida will have another teacher shortage – in all areas – as the FLDOE is increasing the rigor and cut scores for teacher certification exams.
2) History courses have taken a backseat to anything STEM related. In many places, history at the elementary level is considered add-on core content that is taught through Reading/ELA. I can attest to my own child’s elementary school in which they are given a “Weekly” to work through the state standards/benchmarks. I can in no way fault elementary teachers for this madness because this is the system we have to deal with. This leads to students not having the requisite background knowledge by the time they get to a middle school social studies class. The MS teacher has to ensure the students have some background knowledge so they can proceed with their content. The effect appears to revert to the traditional lecture method and “dumping” the content into student brains – for better or for worse. As a MS student progresses to HS, the content is often unrelated . Then you have the same process when the student moves to HS. There is no real cohesion between the state standards and many are stand-alones with no connection to each other.
I know there are many other reasons for traditional lecture-based instruction, but I wanted to keep it kind of short and hopefully to touch on some of the practical reasons.
All in all, I have seen a predominance of wonderful teachers that engage their students with thoughtful and thought-provoking ideas that will stand the test of time. These are the teachers that still use, when necessary, the traditional lecture style. Albeit, sparingly.
Thank you for this thorough reply and important distinction (oration vs. mini-lesson/discussion). Something you do not mention – which I think is crucial – is that secondary history people do not receive that much first-rate instruction in pedagogy related to history. Thus, it is highly likely that they will revert to college over-lecturing. If finding qualified people becomes harder and harder, that only makes matters worse.
What strikes me in reading the defenders of lecture is how input-focused their position is: history is narrative, hence I will tell stories – and we all learn from good story-tellers, don’t we? This is a very myopic position. Nothing in that view will lead to valid outcomes in which students have learned to do something with historical narrative and reasoning. It’s like saying: watch me from the sidelines wax poetic about baseball and its grand history… oh, but that won’t get you either playing baseball or be in a position to judge the quality of the narrative. Never mind that it puts another nail in the coffin of civic uninvolvement.
It is becoming more and more difficult to find qualified people that have a background in pedagogy and content. It is a vicious cycle and our students are the ones that suffer. The only good thing that I can see with traditional lecture/oration so much is that IF AND ONLY IF it is tied directly to the textbook resources a school district/system uses so it will provide viable, standards-based instruction to minimally meet state standards/benchmarks. There would also need to be a couple of caveats…namely that the teacher using so much lecture/oration would be a 1st year teacher or a slightly experienced teacher that is out-of-field. The lecture/oration would provide both teachers with a little breathing room to learn the content, but they should be moving toward more student-centered pedagogy as the year progresses.
Fortunately, teaching and the process of educating our students remains an art. It isn’t for everyone and anyone cannot do it. I think the bigger question is how do we move those lecture/oration style teachers in the direction of student-centered pedagogy while still maintaining the validity of standards/benchmarks. As I have said in another post….it is a delicate balancing act we perform.
I LOVE a good story, and I love reading a good narrative history book. I encourage my student teachers in history to tell stories. And tell them well.
But history is much more than just storytelling. If all we do is tell stories (aka lecture), when do our students think critically about things like, who is the storyteller? What point of view is being told? What point of view is being left out? How does the story change over time? Take Vietnam, for example. How is the “story” we tell about Vietnam different today from the story we told before the end of the Cold War? Or after 9/11?
I do love to give and hear a good lecture–but I agree with Grant, that we cannot rely on them at the expense of other more student-centered pedagogical tools. And I think the point about how we need to better teach students to read history texts is point very well taken. Something to chew on…
I was watching a good interview wiah historian david McCulloch on his new book on the Wright brothers (Charley Rose) and he said many modern historian need to be better story tellers
1) The brain likes good stories. Note lecture vs good stories see Terry Small brain research
2) Content is essential to critical analysis see Dan Willingham ‘Why Students Hate School’. DI is the easiest way to present content
But there is really a multifacted approach to teahing, DI, Soccratic methods, inquiry, etc….
What a great post! And thoughtful comments!
I think the problem has many overlapping layers. First, there has been little attention in these comments to the issue of good lectures vs. bad ones. A good lecture should NEVER just repeat the reading that kids didn’t do. I work with student teachers and I tell them it is okay to lecture, BUT they should avoid bad ones and they should avoid doing it often. And so they need instruction about what makes a good lecture. (Not a powerpoint that kids just copy, plenty of stopping to ask questions & engage in discussion, reference to primary sources, a great quotation, images, music, etc.–the kinds of things mentioned in the McCullough piece in your PS.)
But the bigger problem has to do with the overwhelming content burdens– not for the students, but for the teachers. The number of history teachers without a strong background in history is much higher than in other fields, partly because teachers are certified in “social studies” so they have a few classes in history, a few in geography, a few in sociology, etc. (Diane Ravitch wrote an essay on this I can cite, if anyone is interested). And even if you have a history degree, what is the chance that you are highly knowledgeable and have had coursework and read multiple books on the American Revolution AND Andrew Jackson AND the history of slavery and the slave trade AND the Civil War AND…you get my point.
As a classroom history teacher, I have found that the more I know about a topic, the easier it is to come up with an alternative to a lecture that is still rich in content and engages student in argument and interpretation. One resource I love is Bruce Lesh’s book, Why Won’t You Just Tell Us the Answer. He offers fantastic lessons that have little lecture. But you can also see how much work he put into those lessons and how much content knowledge he has about the topic. That is no easy feat. Hence, the lecture.
Great points. Yes, when Diane Ravitch was a conservative(!), she – along with Checker Finn – wrote on the problem of historical illiteracy and its roots. It was an outgrowth of the first NAEP History-Civics test, as I recall.
No question: the more you know – in all subjects, not just history – the more you have the knowledge AND the creative spirit – to resist boring and safe approaches to teaching. Alas, we cannot wait for the day when all teachers are qualified in history (or math, especially). So, it is up to curriculum writers, department heads, and subject-area supervisors to constantly reinforce the message that the outcomes, not the inputs, matter most – and to ensure a solid set of outcome statements frame the curriculum. (Hence, UbD).
Tough question that I’ve been thinking about off and on all day. If I were being completely honest, I lecture because it is easier and it gives me more control. Bear with me on this because the reality is a bit more complicated. But that is the honest answer. As much as I would love to have the perfect differentiated standards-based Bloom’s Taxomony of lesson plans, I don’t teach the same class twice in one day. Many of my classes do not have textbooks and the school cannot afford to buy them. Which is generally fine because I usually want to hit fewer topics at more depth than most textbooks allow. I also have enough schooling that in about 20 minutes (or less) I can put together a bullet PowerPoint with a quick Google review of the topic. In comparison, it might take 20 minutes to find primary sources that are age appropriate (most of my classes are mixed in grade level) and interesting. Some additional time to type up, or find, a worksheet and there goes my prep time and I still need to stay after school to work on that stack of quizzes. As to control, lecturing allows me to quickly jump between topics that I think are the most relevant and interesting. There are likely excellent texts covering Haymarket, the Pullman Strikes, and the Herrin Massacre. I can also cover all three in 2 class periods and then allow some time to do a review activity. So, in short, it is just plain more efficient to put together and give a lecture.
For the record, please do not assume that I only lecture. I’m currently experimenting with a couple alternatives. However, the previous point still applies. Time limits the amount of effort I can put into a particular class. So any new idea usually get rolled out for one class for one year. Even then, it can prove challenging to find good, and free, material.
Thanks for this honest and thorough reply, Jim. I think you have added an important point to the discussion that no one has mentioned thus far: Lecturing allows you to go into detail about something given cursory/inadequate attention in the book.
But it still begs the question that I began this whole thing with. Why do history teachers fall prey to this in a way that teachers in many other subjects do not, to this extent? And my hunch, as I have said in many comments, is that history teachers are not working from clear, prioritized, and outcome-based learning goals. They are more fixated on inputs than outcomes.
I think, therefore, that an antidote to excess teacher talk in history is to require a clear and thorough syllabus that explains the performance requirements and the learning outcomes. By having to say things like “analyze and evaluate historical claims” and “do history” teachers would be forced to lecture less.
Because History is the easiest discipline to get certified in and so coaches becomes History teachers.
Because that is the only way we have ever been taught History.
Because I have never felt that my role in the educational system was well defined. Or defined at all. Am I supposed to emphasize base knowledge or skill development? I’ve arrived at my conclusions entirely on my own.
Okay, I’m feeling a bit snarky and cynical. I’ll try and contribute something productive….I think I agree that inputs are prioritized over outputs. I only had one assessment class in college and it was terrible. Most of my classes tried to familiarize us with a variety of theories and strategies.
It also seems relevant that the fundamental nature of each discipline is different. The nature of Science demands experimentation. Textbooks and resources are loaded with these kinds of hands on activities. Math has a certain and defined answer, with perhaps several different routes. English is wide open to interpretation and debate. If History is taught like Math (the other lecture-intensive discipline) then the outcomes become boring and uninteresting (names and dates) because the historical outcome is predetermined. Dr. King will ALWAYS fight for Civil Rights. Doing History then becomes a play. We could look to the English Department for lessons on interpreting primary and secondary sources and I think we should. However, the class is still sitting down for most of the period with little movement. Which brings us to Science and my gut-reaction answer to ‘Why don’t we DO History compared to other subjects?’
Experiencing History in either a simulation or game requires a certain degree of historical agency that is VERY difficult to set-up and be comfortable with. For example, I focus the 1st Semester of my World History class on a broad overview. (Week’s worth of notes followed by a week-long review activity like a poster). For the 2nd Semester I allow the students to pick a topic and then I set-up a simulation for the students to experience alongside the notes. This creates an entirely set of problems because I only create conditions, I do not demand a particular historical outcome. In 2 years, nobody playing through the Middle Ages has declared herself/himself a monarch. The students have been perfectly content to work as a loose confederation to solve the problems I throw at them (the Huns, the Plague, the Vikings, etc.) In short, in order to move past a ‘lecture first’ approach History teachers need to become comfortable with a level of ambiguity about why things happened. This is difficult because you risk setting up an experiment with a wildly different outcome than is historical and THAT I think is what set History apart from other disciplines. It could also explain some of the difficulty History teachers have in getting away from the control a lecture provides.
Jim, it would occur to me that a lot of what you refer to is driven by the assessment at the end. What are teachers held accountable to? Based on what metric? If teachers are held accountable to assessment results, and those assessments focus on recall of facts, then the move away from lectures might be a futile pursuit.
Bruce, I agree. Though I will add that as I have practiced and read and practiced some more, I’m increasingly convinced that I can focus on skill development without losing the factual base. I’ve got some very rough and not terribly data that suggests that lecture results in lower recall than even imperfect experiential learning. Also, other commenters have mentioned this, but how you approach the lecture can make a difference. My big experiment this year was in switching from bullet point style lecture to a fill-in-the-blank notes with short 5-question quiz immediately following. They take the quiz individually and then immediately retake the same quiz in small groups. We finish up by going over the answers. All of that to say, perhaps moving away from lectures isn’t futile insofar as it at least challenges teachers to rethink how they approach a lecture.
Jim, have you taken a look at sheg.stanford.edu and beyondthebubble.stanford.edu? I am not a history teacher, but if I were, they’d be two of my go-to resources. Their materials are topnotch. And free. I also recommend checking out Reading Like a Historian by Sam Wineburg et al.
J, I have not yet stumbled across either of the Stanford sites. I will definitely check those out today. Thanks! I have found and purchased ‘Reading Like a Historian’ and have found it very good concerning its selected topics.
History and social sciences instructors lecture and lead class discussion because it works. Very good research in the UK which looked directly at history classes showed that students who were taught via classic “chalk talk” or straight lecture retained more information and gained understanding of a wider range of topics than did students taught by other methods. If you’re not lecturing and doing class discussions in history classes, you’re doing it wrong and short changing your students.
There are lots of great review and summary activities kids can do to reinforce what they learn, but lecture is the best way to explain large amounts of information in a short time.
Kenneth, I cannot agree less!
Kenneth, I’m a sponge for research and would very much like to see the UK studies to which you refer. Thanks. Doug
This gets back to the purpose of history class. I believe that the research you’re citing is about “retention.” If that’s the goal of history class, lectures might be effective. But most scholars of history education in the states agree that historical thinking and argument are the main goals of history class: sourcing, contextulization, corroboration, research, critical thinking.
These things aren’t taught through lecture. Stanford’s History Education Group is a great resource here.
This isn’t strictly about the tendency towards lecturing, but I recommend the article by Abby Reisman in the February edition of Teachers College Record – Getting High-School Students Into the “Historical Problem Space” (http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17783). Kim Marshall summarized it in his Marshall Memo. Ms. Reisman observed teachers using historical documents to prompt discussion – and the results were very discouraging. After six months of classroom observations and careful analysis of videotapes of 100 lessons, she concluded that, despite the fact the teachers were experienced and enthusiastic and were working with authentic documents on engaging topics, ‘disciplinary discussion was surprisingly rare, and discussion that promoted historical understanding even rarer.’ According to Reisman, the problem is not just lecturing in history classes – it is teachers’ skill in developing contextual historical empathy, helping students appreciate the complexity of the past, and (allowing) the actual texts to paint a picture of a textured and foreign historical context. She also notes that the most effective discussions were those in which teachers took charge and actively facilitated the conversations to ensure that they resulted in substantive historical discussion and not opportunities for students to apply present day standards or values on events of the past.
Thank you for posting this and for the excellent discussion of the issues that History (and other) teachers are facing. I wholeheartedly agree that there is too much lecture in history classrooms in particular, and we in our school and district have been working towards getting more students DOING history and less listening to history. We started with the end by asking what the purpose of teaching/learning history was – we came up with ideas around citizenship, critical thinking skills, literacy and self-motivation. We now use an essential question (or two) for our courses (Is Canada a country you can be proud of? How did we get here? etc.) and working towards a final interview instead of a final exam. Students answer that essential question and also answer: What are the skills of history and how did I learn them? We are lucky that we have some flexibility in our final assessments, but it does refocus the course on using the Historical Thinking Concepts as expressed in our new curriculum document, born of SHEG and then via Seixas et. al. in Canada. Three things were missing before that we have now that make me hopeful for change: 1) Clear disciplinary thinking concepts are now clearly expressed for history teachers and many resources are being developed 2) Primary sources are readily available via the web, many in document sets for educators to just pull out and use 3) Many textbooks are being written with primary sources and good questioning/doing in mind.
This has become a great conversation that has touched on many different areas. I have learned some great ideas that I can implement in my own teaching and a continuing impetus to find ways to minimize the lecture/oration format. Although the lecture/oration format is useful/necessary at times, it is just another tool in a teacher’s toolbox.
More to the point of Grant’s question…if HS history teachers lecture so much because that is the way they were taught, you would have to apply the same rational to other subject areas. Comparing apples to apples, Math teachers lecture less because that is how they were taught and on down the line. We do it this way because it is how it has always been done. End of discussion.
I think the broader questions are, “How do we help those that lecture/orate too much move to a more balanced approach?” and “How do we help those that are completely student-centered move to a more balanced approach?” I’m sure there is a better word than student-centered, but I think you get the point. Personally, I don’t care for the extremes at either end and prefer being in the middle so I can help my students grasp the concepts. The topic and student circumstances dictate which side I lean more toward. Do I provide lecture/oration? Sometimes. Do I provide lecture/discussion facilitation? Sometimes. Do I give a concept and allow for student self-direction? Sometimes. As we all know, what works for one class might not work for the next!
I really believe helping teachers understand the benefits of all types of pedagogy enhances the learning experience for the student and the teacher as well. Additionally, teachers at all stages in their career need to see different pedagogy in action and take and use the best.
Instead of having students “doing” history, I propose helping more teachers “do” balanced teaching.
Sorry I’m late to this, but I thought I might discuss how I teach. I’m usually a math teacher who was given a history class each of the last two semesters. I don’t lecture in math. I would be perfectly happy to lecture in history but the kids just zone out. I also don’t think much of “doing” history. I’m not turning kids into historians. I want them to learn how to see connections, understand developments, realize that history doesn’t just “happen”. I want to make them better readers, writers, and thinkers. In the neverending skills vs. knowledge debate (discussed by Larry Cuban here:https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/how-many-teachers-teach-a-new-kind-of-history/ and I’m one of the teachers he observed, and comment on that post), I have determined that kids seem to acquire knowledge when I demand that they use or develop skills.
The work involved in developing curriculum was intense, particularly the first semester (we do a year in a semester). I was often at school until 8 or 9, and more than a few of my lessons went kerflooey the first time around. I had outstanding kids who were very tolerant of my errors, and I would readily acknowledge them. The second semester (which I’m in now) has been going exceptionally well, I think. I’m much better at tossing together a lesson. I’m still developing lessons at the lat minute.
So my classes are one or more of these activities:
1) an in-class reading. Never a textbook (I don’t use them). Sometimes it’s a primary source, sometimes it’s an essay I’ve written for their reading (cobbled together from various sources). Sometimes it’s an entertaining newspaper article. I usually make the kids sit silently and read to absorb the information for 10-15 minutes. Then they are allowed to highlight. Sometimes I have them summarize the text in writing, other times we discuss. Lately the kids have been pushing back and asking for group readings, where they read aloud to each other. A bit crazy, and definitely not to my tastes, but they like it. I still insist on quiet most times. Recent readings: John Quincy Adams on his conversation with Calhoun, an essay on Southern Yeoman farmers, entertaining newspaper accounts on the Compromise of 1790 and the Whiskey Rebellion. The accounts never have questions, once I learned that kids went to the questions without ever reading.
2) Data analysis. Two that I’m really pleased with–one in which the kids develop information tables about early indian tribes (pre-columbian) and look for patterns. They learn that corn cultivation always took place in areas without a rich supply of food,for example, and that leads to an interesting discussion of the immediate vs. long-term advantages of hunter-gatherers vs. farming. The other one I’m happy with is an analysis of the growth of slavery in the south after the cotton gin–why some states had tremendous growth, others not. And that led to the horrible realization that some states were in the business, literally, of selling people.
3) Documentaries: Not the kind you sleep through. I include a graphic organizer or a series of questions. American Experience (the French/Indian war one narrated by Graham Greene is good, also the one on the abolitionists), the Ken Burns Civil War series (about 3 of them). Sometimes they’re brief–there’s a good 6 minute video on the impact of the cotton gin, or the history of the railroad on youtube. The content is tested just like anything else. I often stop the movie, ask questions, discuss what we’ve seen.
4) Jigsaw presentations. My kids sit in groups and I give them each a topic to present on. Some kids get a primary source–a law, a letter–others get a brief summary of information, others might get a map. They have some amount of time to put together a presentation (20 minutes, an hour, depending) and then give the presentations while the kids take notes. They’re required to pull out the key information, the big takeaways. So recently they did a jigsaw on the different approaches to ending slavery, from Massachusetts immediate abolition to PA’s gradual version, to New York and John Jay, to South Carolina’s well, sure, you can free a slave if you have a really good reason to Georgia’s outright banning of manumission. The impact of the presentations is a big-picture sense of what was going on at a particular time period.
5) Map analysis. Lordy, I love me some maps. They had to draw the US canal system on a map of the Eastern US with just text descriptions to guide them, and follow Bacon’s rebellion through various parts of VA and MD, had to follow the Portuguese path around Africa through time, and so on.
6) Writing. Sometimes they have to take notes, sometimes summarize a reading passage, sometimes a compare contrast of two populations we’ve just learned about.
7) Lecture: At the end of every activity or lesson, I summarize what the big takeaways are, and make sure they know what they need to remember.
I’m still learning at this. What I’ve found is that teachers who don’t lecture generally aren’t interested in content, and I’m very interested in content. So I’m definitely charting my own course. But it’s fun.
Oh dear, more people not remembering how their college professor taught them. History is and always will be a subject which at college will be a lecture discussion class. You want every student to go to a four year college (thinking which is obviously not based in reality as 70% of this country do jobs that do not require a four year degree) but you are not willing to prepare them for it!
This is an AP course. Yes, college course. Please do not try to tell me college professors have stopped lecturing. We have been trying to do differentiated learning for a long time now and has it worked it terms of results and scores? The answer is no! The next thing you are going to say is this is a different generation of students. That has been said over and over again every decade for seventy years. Students want to be entertained so of course they are going to tell you they do not want lecture. This profession has become about if the class is not fun then I am not learning anything…rubbish! The greatest thing about a college class was when we got into a discussion or debate. That was enlightening and talk about critical thinking, being challenged, and then having to respond. I don’t remember the group work and playing games.
Prepare your students the right way. Seniors should be doing lots of lecture preparing themselves for a college history classroom. The students will do presentations at college where they will be asked to talk, probably using a powerpoint. Go to any school in India or China and see what they do. They listen to their teachers and respect them. Why do you think they are kicking our butts and why do we bring so many international people here to teach at our schools and colleges? The trouble is again, some of our students do not have the capacity to focus,listen,think critically, and be part of a discussion. There is a skill in lecturing and getting the students to think. The trouble is some don’t want to!
We need to do what the conservative government in England has done. You cannot leave school till you are eighteen. At sixteen you have the choice of doing your A-levels to get into college or you take the vocational track. Two years of learning a skill. This country would be so better off moving to that system. I believe I can teach anyone and they will be interested. But, only if they are willing to learn. For so many people forcing them to learn from sixteen to eighteen knowing they are not college material is crazy. Give them the option of learning a skill that they want to learn, which can make them some money and give them some pride. Get the students ready for the real world. That is the real college classroom experience or the idea of after leaving school at eighteen becoming self sufficient and a productive member of society, by having a skill to get a job!
Adam, I disagree on two fronts – though not with all of your sentiment.
First, the fact that college professors do it does not make it valuable or worth emulating. In fact, we know how poorly many professors are regarded for the teaching abilities – they aren’t there to teach, many don’t care for it. Why emulate that?
Second, I teach many AP courses and they mirror college content. But I have never bought that they are actually college courses or that I am teaching college students. I teach many sophomores and juniors in my AP classes. I reject that I abandon good teaching practice in the name of “mimicking the college experience.” In fact, as the post and much research shows, my students learn more and do better work as I move away from lecture.
If I want to prepare my students for both the college course and beyond, that requires preparing them to do more than sit and focus on a lecture. I have the responsibility to teach reading and writing, to help them develop their thinking skills.
A couple additional thoughts about the college vs high school experience. First, as noted, just because it is done in college doesn’t make it better. I’d go farther. No one enjoys straight lecture format. Universities do it in their large courses especially because it is tough to do anything but when you have 500 students. They often have break out sessions, though, in smaller groups where they do more active learning activities. It’s not good though. And in high school, where there are 30- 50 kids in a course, it is more reasonable to come up with alternatives. Even lecture paired with critical thinking questions to students and from students is much, much better than strict lecture or lecture + power point.
Also, in college, students are learning more on their own time than in the classroom. Having a course 3 times a week for an hour each time is tolerable. Having lecture 5 days a week in all 6 or 7 periods of classes at an hour each is intolerable. And many kids have that situation.
I did not have endless lecturing in college. In fact, it was rare to have lectures. It exists in large universities as an economic measure, not a pedagogical virtue.
Wow. You sound frustrated that students don’t want to listen to your lecture. From what you’re saying, I wouldn’t want to listen to you either. There is a large body of research now that supports active learning. If your lectures are of such value, then put them out on video and cancel class.
OK, Grant, we have identified the problem. A problem that a lot of us have identified long ago. Lecturing a bunch of disengaged students does nothing for them except disengage them further and drive them away from a possible love of history and social studies (something our society sorely needs).
I do not lecture in class anymore after doing it for my first three years of teaching. It burned out my students, along with myself. I flipped my classroom and have seen good results. No lecture in class has turned into great time for discussion, activities, and real-life connections. But my point is:I wish you offered some solutions rather than harp on the problem. When my colleague sent this article to me, I remarked about how I enjoyed the comments section more than the actual article itself. People in the lively debate offered solutions and even defenses about how lecture does have some small place in a history course (which I realize you conceded yourself).
Please don’t take any offense to this. It was a well-written article about a common problem. But do you have any solutions to the problem?
I have no problem recommending solutions – in earlier posts and in all my work in UbD I have done so. I was merely calling attention to student input on this. But, fair enough: I’ll happily offer some solutions, some old, some new, in a future post.
I’m a non-traditional student at a private university of small classes. One of our history teachers lectures the entire class period, every class period. Traditional students don’t do the readings because: the professor is going to lecture the material anyway; there is almost no opportunity for students to speak about what they’ve read; the students see the lectures as a good time to take a nap.
Several students said they loved the subject matter until they took this professor’s class(es) and then grew to find the subject matter too boring. We’re not talking anecdotal or passionate lectures here. We’re talking about recounting information from the readings to the extent that those of us who do the readings are bored stiff hearing it repeated in a mono-tone voice in a half-lit room.
My high school history teachers didn’t give full-period lectures. If, as some say, the professors lecture straight from the readings without additional information because the students don’t read the material, why should those of us who do read the material have to endure classes enabling students who don’t read the material? Aren’t we all supposed to be responsible adults in college?
Professors who lecture through the class period are irritating the responsible students and enabling the irresponsible students. Period. I avoid classes “taught” be professors who lecture only material from readings done ahead of time. Too many teachers and professors play the martyr role of “having” to lecture because some students don’t read the material. Why penalize those of us who did!?
Technology has been an indispensable tool to help me reach a “happy medium” in the “tug-of-war of content and the love of history.” The first day of class, students choose a topic from a list of topics/historical events, from the California State Standards. Students, then, research, annotate their research (using Google Docs, and many Add-ons), cite sources and fill out a main idea chart (which includes the basics- who, what, when, where, causes, effects and why it is important to learn about this event). I threw my students into the world wide web to see what they can do on their own. While students are researching/investigating their topic, I can give individual attention to them. They know they will have to teach their topic to the rest of the class. During their presentation, we will read and discuss primary documents and have a class discussion about it.
Technology is not a panacea, however. Students will copy and paste if you allow it. Sometimes they copy and paste completely irrelevant information. Many students watch videos, research, read and reread many sources but still do not get it. I found myself explaining the history to many students on an individual basis. It made me wonder if lecturing would have been more efficient.
I teach in an impoverished area. Some of my students have no prior schooling and are completely illiterate in English and even their home language. On the other hand, I have a few students who have a pretty good academic foundation.
Reading and comprehension is a huge issue. I greatly appreciated reading the comments from the blog because I felt frustrated that my students were given all of these technological tools to help them comprehend the text and were still unable to understand the basics. Thank you, I feel like I am not the only history teacher dealing with this problem.
It took over a month to help my students acquire skills needed to complete this one project. I felt beat down and overwhelmed. But once some of my students understood the basic facts about their topic, they began asking me dynamic and critical thinking questions. They truly engaged in history and wanted to learn more; I am beyond elated.
As a history teacher, I feel that I have chosen quantity over quality. My actions were to try to get my students to do well on a state exam (which emphasized quantity or an impossible content to cover). I knew that this mandated exam would be used to judge my students, and me. After 18 years of teaching, I have come to understand some of the politics beyond education. Instead of focusing on a government mandated exam, I try to focus on skills that my students can use in their lives. I teach those skills using my love of history.
Spend most of an AP History class doing this if you want them to succeed: Make the students read. Ask them what they’ve read. Ask them how the sourcing impacts what was written (or said). Correct misperceptions. Send them home with more readings or a video clip (documentary, preferably) to prep them to read more tomorrow. Oh. And remember to pick multiple perspectives and make them argue.