A past issue of Perspectives (Feb., 1986) “reopened” a discussion on the teaching of US history that had never really disappeared. Michael Henry’s article, “The Intellectual Origins and Impact of the Document Based Question,” emphasized inquiry-based teaching in place of a factual-oriented approach.
Some teachers, however, were just adopting this “new” American history program as late as the early 1980s, when the pendulum swing of “back to the basics” began urging a return to the traditional approach. Instead of this fluctuation between the two modes of teaching, we should realize that there are benefits to be reaped from both. As conscientious educators, we should incorporate the best aspects of the traditional and the inquiry approaches. In this manner, our students will acquire both the factual knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary in helping them become valuable members of our society.
Before reading further it is important that one understands what is meant by the terms traditional and inquiry. The definitions used are provided by Byron Massialas and Benjamin Cox in their book Inquiry in Social Studies (McGraw-Hill, 1966). In the traditional class the teacher is the expositor of knowledge and the students are the recipients. The major task is transmitting finished knowledge from source to recipient. Whether one uses lectures, discussions, reports or study questions, the idea is to transmit knowledge. Traditional teaching is expository. Its intent is to inform the students of an organized system or some predetermined knowledge.
On the other hand, in the inquiry class the teacher acts as a coordinator of inquiry into testable propositions about human affairs. The students take factual information and reorganize it around new centers of interest. “The learning situation is characterized by seeking, discovery, reorganizing and testing knowledge.” (Inquiry in the Social Studies, p. 62).
US history has long been a required course for graduation in American high schools. It is in this course that a student is expected to become better acquainted with the events and people that shaped the United States. The techniques, methodology, and tools of social scientists (primary sources, graphs, charts, maps, etc.) are taught and examined in order to sharpen the students’ analytical and evaluative skills. Hopefully, the traditional values of citizenship and pride in one’s country and one’s self are also strengthened here.
Based on the above, three broad, major objectives for US history would seem to be: A) to acquire knowledge of specific facts about US history; B) to develop critical thinking skills; and C) to develop a positive and realistic self-concept. The ability to meet these objectives is largely determined by the mode of teaching employed. In order to fully realize all three objectives, a style that encompasses both the traditional and the inquiry formats is recommended.
The choice of textbooks has a fair degree of influence on course structure. Douglas Gilmore, in his doctoral dissertation “A Critical Evaluation of Selected Instructional Practices” (Michigan State University, 1963), made three pertinent points: A) the classroom teacher is the most important factor in class structure; B) the textbook followed the teacher in importance; and C) any efforts to improve instructional practices must focus on the teacher and an analysis of the role the textbook plays. As the textbook is normally the guideline that a teacher follows, adjusting it to meet his or her particular goals, it is imperative that the text (or combination of texts) be chosen that will fulfill the three major objectives.
It has been my experience that texts that are geared specifically toward one format or the other tend to fall short on the objective they do not stress. Textbook (or combination) selection should, therefore, be made to insure adequate coverage of both traditional and inquiry formats.
In the traditional class the teacher is the expositor of knowledge and the students are the recipients.
Speaking to the National Council for the Social Studies about the problems and prospects of American history in schools and colleges on November 21, 1979, Paul Holbo stated that you cannot interest students in important ideas if they do not have the skills to understand those ideas. He felt that there were three vital bases for the rejuvenation of history: skills, standards, and subject matter. Social science skills are stressed in the inquiry approach. Subject matter (factual knowledge) is stressed in the traditional approach. Standards are evident in both.
Advocates of each program, however, indicate that by teaching their method, the students will also acquire the skills and/or knowledge stressed in the other program. As professionals, we must inquire whether or not these claims are truly justified and not just accept them on blind faith. A review of literature into these areas has shown that not much has been done to respond to these claims. Moreover, in what little research that has been done, the findings have not been conclusive.
Very little has been written about the traditional format. Most teachers are comfortable with it because it was the way they were taught. In the 1970s, the methods classes in education generally indicated that transmitting knowledge was still the major function of high school level US history classes. Since the inquiry format is relatively new, there is more research available.
Psychologists have stated that a learner learns more effectively and efficiently when he or she is actively involved in the learning process. According to Jerome Brunner, the developmental psychologist who has authored such books as Process of Education and Toward a Theory of Instruction, this “learning by doing can be seen as learning by discovery.” The proponents of the inquiry format maintain that by using their method, the underlying structures of history can be grasped. Robert Hanver, in “Raising Standards of Learning in the Social Studies” (Social Education, Vol. 27, 1963), contended that social studies students attain a better understanding of US history by investigating general concepts rather than specific facts. Backing this up, Alvin Toffier, the author of Future Shock, stated in 1981 that it is not the individual facts that are important, but the student’s ability to analyze the information they are given. In an attempt to justify these claims, several studies have been conducted.
Arnold Rothstein’s study “An Experiment in Developing Critical Thinking Through the Teaching of American History” (Inquiry in the Social Studies), showed that an experimental group, in which critical thinking skills had been emphasized, gained in critical thinking and acquired the same amount of factual information as the control group, which had emphasized subject matter acquisition. William Hutchinson, in his doctoral dissertation “Creative and Productive Thinking in the Classroom” (University of Utah, 1963), compared a traditional class with a class geared to the student as a thinker. He found that the latter class of students used a wider range of mental abilities and it was done at no expense of learning the subject matter.
A classic study in critical thinking was conducted by Edward Glaser in 1942. He is the president of the Human Interaction Research Institute and co-author of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. In his report, discussed in James Shaver’s article “Educational Research and Instruction for Critical Thinking” (Social Education, Vol. 26-1, 1962), he was able to conclude that the students who were taught specific concepts of critical thinking made significantly greater gains on the Watson-Glaser Test of critical thinking than did those who had studied the regular course.
If all the research had been able to reach the same conclusions, we would probably all be teaching the inquiry format. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In a study by the Stanford Social Education Division, also discussed in James Shaver’s article, it was concluded that there was little difference be tween the inquiry and the traditional groups in the area of critical thinking.
Similar studies were conducted by George Weinick, for his doctoral dissertation “The Comparative Effectiveness of Two Teaching Methods in Attaining Specific Course Objectives: An Evaluation of Two Different Methods of Teaching a Course in Psychology With Respect to the Student’s Acquisition of Course Content and Changes in Personal Adjustment” (New York University, 1960), and Leland Bechtel in his doctoral dissertation “Comparative Effects of Differentiated Teaching Methods on Certain Personality Characteristics of College Students: The Effect of the Traditional Approach to Teaching Psychology as Compared to an Interpersonal Approach to Psychology Upon Beliefs, Attitudes, Values, and Adjustments of College Students in a Course in General Psychology” (New York University, 1963). Both dissertations dealt with comparing the effectiveness of the two methods of teaching. The two studies showed no superiority of one format over the other. An evaluation of the two methods which I conducted also indicated that there was no significant difference between the two formats. The key word here, however, is significant. Some differences were evident and these differences indicated a need for an approach that incorporates both methods.
… in the inquiry class the teacher acts as a coordinator of inquiry into testable propositions about human affairs.
In my evaluation both formats were able to meet the cognitive objectives with the inquiry format possibly performing slightly higher. Both formats were able to meet the affective objective with the traditional format possibly performing slightly higher. The cost of the traditional format (when the evaluation was done) was slightly lower. The amount of time for preparation and grading by the teacher was less for the traditional program. Based on these results, I have instituted a course on US history that combines both the traditional and inquiry formats. I have found it to be very rewarding, for both myself and my students.
The process is very simple. It is based on the idea that if you are going to build knowledge you must first have a foundation. In US history this foundation is the factual knowledge found in any good traditional textbook. My students are first required to read the assigned chapter and answer a set of study questions. This ensures that they have the necessary information that will allow them to engage in a later discussion. The study questions are normally followed by a lecture that covers any areas that the text may have missed, or it may act as a bridge between this chapter in the text and the preceding one or the following one. I try to include some form of audio-visual presentation in an attempt to reach as many learning styles as possible.
Once the students have an understanding of the background of the time period, we usually enter the inquiry section. This is presently accomplished by using Edward Fenton’s New History of the United States (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975). The students read a section containing copies of primary source material from the time period we are dealing with. We then enter a discussion period using the excellent questions pre pared by Fenton for our guide. There is no attempt to direct the students in any particular direction. The factual information gained earlier in the lesson allows the students to back up their point of view with historical incidents. The benefit is that the students are discussing from a foundation of acquired knowledge and not hearsay. It has been my experience that without this foundation the discussions revolve endlessly around some insignificant aspect because the students base their arguments on feelings, and not historical fact.
It is recommended that US history teachers investigate the combined use of traditional and inquiry formats within their own programs. The method most conducive to this would be the ordering of a traditional text book for the students’ general use. The inquiry format could be ordered as a classroom set and shared by all students. This can be accomplished by ordering Edward Fenton’s New History of the United States or Reasoning with Democratic Values by Alan Lockwood and David Harris (Teachers College Press, 1985).
Ordering in this manner will entail a slight increase in one’s budget, but the rewards will offset the added expense. By following the combined format, the student will have the potential of becoming a well-informed citizen, capable of making responsible decisions. If this is the result we would like to achieve, we should combine and use both formats in the teaching of US history.
James D. Heffernan Jr. is chair of the Social Studies Department for the Patch American High School, a Department of Defense School in Stuttgart, Germany.
