This board is closed and will be kept as an archive. Please head to our new home at tch-forum.com
(Existing members: Please check your PMs for your password on the new board. If you do not have a PM, then please send one to me)
| Welcome to The Coffee House - your dose of caffeine! The Coffee House is a friendly and informal community dedicated to having fun. We're a diverse bunch, and so we have plenty to offer, including:
Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should history be taught in chronological order? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 9 2013, 03:51 PM (469 Views) | |
| CJ | May 9 2013, 03:51 PM Post #1 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21600298 It's well documented on these forums (see here, here and here) that I'm not exactly a fan of Education Secretary Michael Gove (his radical proposals for reforming education must make him one of the least conservative Conservatives out there ). A few days ago, I discovered that he's had another one: he wants to revamp the history curriculum, so that history is taught in strict chronological order up to age 14. Is this a good idea?It should come as little surprise that - yet again - I don't agree with Mr Gove. To be fair, it's not as bad as his other ideas: it does have some merit, but I still think it's no better than the status quo. For example, many children would leave school with no real understanding of anything from the Middle Ages backwards, partly because they hadn't covered these topics at all after the age of 11, and partly because primary school teachers (at least at the school I attended) have to teach about every subject: most won't specialise in history. Another concern is that children love hands-on learning (including school visits), and teaching in strict chronological order offers little opportunity for this early on. I'm very worried that this, in combination with the curriculum's previously-documented emphasis on rote learning, would fail to engage children or generate any real interest in what they were being taught. So, what should be done instead? Here's my idea - which is pretty close to how history's already being taught anyway:
|
![]() |
|
| Mechanized | May 10 2013, 06:37 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
Well here's how it went for me, Primary School: Basic understanding of the Romans and Greeks Early High-school: Expanded knowledge on Romans, discovered the Medieval age, Renaissance, industrial etc. Late High-school: Discovered the Dark Ages, learnt about Medicine and Surgery throughout history, learned more about 1900 on-wards. It may have just been the schools I went to but I had received a pretty good education on History xD |
![]() |
|
| CJ | May 10 2013, 09:33 AM Post #3 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
That does sound pretty good. However, I'm guessing that anyone who dropped the subject at Year 9 would never have reached the 20th Century? If so, I think that's a serious problem. |
![]() |
|
| Giselle | Jan 23 2014, 01:47 AM Post #4 |
|
Rank 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Primary: Private School (barely any history, I want to share because of it's insanity) 1st grade: Math nonsense I was never able to get a grasp of: mixed fractions, wordy math problems, long division 2nd grade: Columbus, sea exploration, theories of Earth 3rd grade: sciences ,vitamins, usage of microscopes and even more math nonsense Schooling in America: Intensely Colonial American from what I can recall. I arrived here at 4th grade. 5th grade: Upper Americas 6th grade: American Indians (it's all what I can remember my teacher taught) Middle School: 7th: US History is what I recall. It's laws, it's presidents, how the presidents were and how they acted to change the country. I think the teacher taught much more, I do not remember. 8th: I remember there was a Civics class High School: Early: Freshman: Earliest man kind, Earliest civilizations, until Colonization Sophomore: Specifics of Middle Ages. Economy, Lifestyle, Culture, etc. Late: Junior: Intense American History. Economic philosophies, Political Philosophies and their origins, Government was something the teacher would always discuss, he was very critical of it. Presidents were heavily analyzed. Senior: Government: How the American government works Writing this now made me realize how glorious it is to have learned all of these and how glorious history is and that I'm thankful that I live in a place where education is considered top of America. What I learn is hidden in my memory. If you ask me, I can recall with a little bit of thinking. I wish school wasn't so unbearable. It would have been very much fun. During one of my years, I was very motivated and so curious to learn everything for some reason. Maths to History to Sciences and I excelled in everything. This innate curiosity of children and motivation must never die off and I wish teachers would encourage positivity in the learning environment. What they do is threaten us instead. |
![]() |
|
| CJ | Jan 23 2014, 05:46 PM Post #5 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
Sounds like the 'American history' components of the course would have been covered pretty comprehensively, then. However, I can't imagine that world history would have been covered in much depth, considering how little time was spent on it! |
![]() |
|
| Giselle | Jan 23 2014, 06:02 PM Post #6 |
|
Rank 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
World History is too rich. Children should be given the option to select courses if they wish to learn more. It is impossible to squeeze many subjects in such a short time span without making the work very loaded. My Father constantly quizzes me on countries around the globe, their capitals, states, their imports, lifestyles, and cultures constantly, and when I don't get the answer he says "c'mon y'gotta know this stuff!" Oops! It's not my fault my education was inadequate! I need to catch up soon.I would like to say that it doesn't matter if it's taught in chronological order. My teachers always said "History doesn't happen in a vacuum and in a linear fashion." The students can puzzle the pieces together. The earlier it is taught, the more likely kids will forget and not care. I suggest teach this in highschool. Many other classes supplement history, such as politics, philosophy, math, art, and literature. Learning doesn't happen all in a vacuum. |
![]() |
|
| CJ | Jan 23 2014, 06:07 PM Post #7 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
That's very true . Learning definitely doesn't happen in a vacuum!I would have loved to have been given options, especially later on. There were quite a lot of courses on 20th Century history, but our school chose which ones we did (USA 1919-1941, Germany 1918-39, World War I, Causes of World War II, Cold War 1945-49, Women in the 20th Century, Vietnam War). Those were all perfectly good courses, but some of the others they didn't do (which covered subjects like Britain, Russia, and later Cold War history) sounded rather interesting too. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History, Culture and Philosophy · Next Topic » |



). A few days ago, I discovered that he's had another one: he wants to revamp the history curriculum, so that history is taught in strict chronological order up to age 14. Is this a good idea?






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/28000/86/0/f673143/111227_rightcoffeemeter.png)
. Learning definitely doesn't happen in a vacuum!
12:35 AM Jul 11