Today's Top 3 Ways to Support Student Engagement

1. Technology is out there; use it!

     Technology has changed incredibly in just the decade or so since I graduated high school, and students likely use it on a regular basis.  Why, then, shouldn't we harness this fact and use it to help promote student engagement?  There are a lot more ways to do this than I have space to describe here and much more eloquent and tech savvy people to suggest them.  Some of these include utilizing electronic resources such as Kahoot, Schoology and the like to cut down on papers students have to organize and use.  They can also enable activities which allow for group interaction and competitions, as well as formative assessment in the form of quizzes and surveys.  One idea I've had lately was a Game Show format as a way to preview content.  In this case it's Meso-American geography in the precontact era.  In the game, students would get in groups and then have 30 seconds to discuss whether the image being shown in quiz represents a geographic area where people can or have lived.  This could be adapted for all sorts of content, and like any technology it's fairly adaptable and potentially engaging if used appropriately.

2. Let them have choice!

     A common complaint students have, especially at the secondary level, is that the content is boring because it's required.  Something being required makes even the interesting seem more like work and less like anything you'd want to read about or do.  It's just more work.  Students are more likely to be engaged in class if they have some control over what and how they're learning.  Howard Gardner illustrates that everyone learns differently through his Multiple Intelligences.  Allowing students the ability to choose an assessment option while still meeting the standard being taught addresses both differentiation and granting some ownership over learning.  Even if it's just in the form of learning centers, students having some choice in the matter could open the doors to engagement rather than just having more work to do.

3. Physical movement - learn to use it

     I feel like this one gets overlooked when discussing ways to get students engaged in class.  The teenage brain is changing chemically in quite drastic ways that can mess with their energy and motivation.  It's not necessarily their fault if they seem zoned out in class - some times of day are just bad for them.  One thing that can help students process information and re-engage with class is to incorporate some activity or just mental break where they can get up and move around.  Getting the blood flowing again can help processing and also help them refocus.  This obviously needs to be done within certain guidelines - you don't want students to be distracted by the movement to the point where re-engaging with content is impossible.  However it could really help, maybe for bodily-kinesthetic learners.

Four Things You Might Not Know About the Aztecs

Four Things You Might Not Know About the Aztecs

      There's a lot to be said about the civilizations of the Western hemisphere before Columbus showed up and decided that the natives would make good slaves.  Unfortunately there is a great deal about some of them which we may never learn due to a lack of evidence to inform us.  One such culture that comes to mind is the mound-building civilization which arose in what's now the United States.  However there are some which are recent enough, with extensive enough evidence, that we can get a pretty good idea of them.  Yet even then there can often be things we don't learn about in school, or simply have never heard.  With that in mind, here are four things that you might not know about one of the most powerful Meso-American civilizations: the Aztecs.

From swamp island to powerhouse city, Tenochtitlan was the vibrant Aztec capital.

1. Aztec Elites Practiced Ritual Cannibalism

     Actually this might be the least surprising entry on this list.  The Aztecs are well remembered for large scale human sacrifices to appease the gods.  It's not that much of a stretch to imagine they might also have participated in things such as cannibalism.  What's notable is that this isn't just stories the Spanish told to justify their conquest - we have documented evidence of such things occurring.  Bones have been found at the Sacred Grounds of Tenochtitlan which bear the marks of butchering and prolonged exposure to heat.  Archaeologist Gabino Lopez Arenas has studied the bones and concluded that the victims were decapitated, dismembered, butchered and eaten.  It's also something that only the elites of Aztec society participated in for special events, so humans weren't part of a balanced Aztec diet.  You can read more in this story at ancient-origins.net.

2. The Aztecs Were Incredibly Adaptable

     Part of the success the Aztecs enjoyed was due to creative thinking and incredible adaptability to their environment.  According to tradition the Aztecs began their civilization in the as-yet unidentified land of Aztlan, which became barren due to prolonged drought.  Other peoples were scared of them and refused to let them in, but eventually the Culhua allowed them to take some land that nobody would really want.  Somehow, the story goes, the Aztecs thrived anyhow but one of their gods engineered a debacle involving a trick marriage of the Culhua chief's daughter, human sacrifice and some rather gruesome wedding attire and the Aztecs got kicked out.  

     Beyond this legend, however, the Aztecs did in fact settle in a swampy area encircled by rocky mountains.  They are said to have settled there because it served and important defensive purpose - the Aztecs were weak at the beginning, it seems.  Aztec ingenuity created three bridges to the island through Lake Texcoco, as well as using mud from the lake bed to create fertile gardens.  With wildly varying geography the Aztecs modified their architecture to suit a given environment.  It was through this adaptability that they managed to turn a swampy island into a major power center of Meso-America.  (Source: https://bmssancientcivilizations.wikispaces.com/Aztecs)

3. Aztec Armies Were Massive and Dynamic

      Often times we hear about the vast sizes of armies in ancient battles, tens of thousands of men battling for glory and their cause or nation. These usually center around Western civilizations such as the Greeks or Romans, but the Aztecs had much the same mentality.  As the Spartans did, the Aztecs trained boys from the age of eight in preparation for becoming warriors.  By seventeen they were enlisted into the king's army and sought to prove themselves by capturing prisoners - who would probably end up as sacrifices to the Aztec gods.  In the military adaptability was on display on a daily basis - the Aztec forces wore cloaks soaked in salt water which stiffened them, acting as a kind of protection in battle.

     What's more impressive is that, according to this source a large unit in the Aztec army consisted of around 8,000 men.  Major battles could see up to 25 such units in the field for the Aztecs.  A quick calculation shows the Aztecs could field a force of 200,000 men.  Whether these numbers are completely accurate, the Aztecs relied on military force to expand their influence and military culture was an important part of Aztec society.

4. The Aztec Empire Was Still Growing When Cortes Arrived

     So why did the military powerhouse of the region, able to field such a huge force, fall to a small number of Spaniards?  There's already been evidence that disease and native allies aided the Spanish cause.  The Aztecs allowed their conquered subjects to maintain distinct cultural identities so long as tribute was offered and order maintained.  Prior to the Spanish arrival the Aztec Empire had recently expanded its territory a good deal under Emperor Ahuitzotl. Because of this the Empire was consolidating power over the new territories when Cortes moved inland, and newly subject peoples were many.  These people might have been happy to join forces with the Spanish against the hated conquerors; a large amount of land would have been difficult to maintain order over, especially if they joined  forces with a new and determined enemy.  For more details and some introduction to the last Aztec Emperor, go to this entry at aztec-history.com.

     This is part of a collaborative series on Meso-American civilizations.  Further entries on the Maya and Inca will be re-blogged here to expand on this article.  Stay tuned for updates.  

Was there anything surprising about this list?  Disagree with it?  Have more surprising facts about the Aztecs?  Leave a comment!

In Retrospect: What Aren't We Learning?

In Retrospect: What Aren't We Learning?

A look at James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me

Introduction

     I'm sure that a lot of us who either teach or have an interest in social studies have heard of James Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me.  In summary Loewen contends that American history textbooks have whitewashed events so much that all we learn in school is a sanitized version.  He further alludes that this clean, uncontroversial approach contributes to overall distaste of history by high school students.  Students find it boring because their textbooks only tell a dry, undramatic account of events in the past; too often teachers have fallen into the trap of using reading comprehension questions written to accompany the book's chapters.  

The Focus

     For my purposes, I'm not going to dwell on the overall approach Loewen takes to history so much as focusing in on a single chapter.  Consider it kind of a case study on his work to see what comes of a smaller sample size.  To that end I have elected to look at Loewen's chapter on Columbus entitled, 1493: The True Importance of Columbus.  Now Columbus is one of the monoliths of American history whose story is very much sanitized.  What few things I recall learning about him were in elementary school and amounted to, "In fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue."  That's it, just that he was a brave explorer who "discovered" America.  This is exactly the presentation of the man which Loewen attacks, and it was interesting to see just how he would do it.

What does it look like?

     In the chapter Loewen first references a selection of American history textbooks and what they say about the famous explorer.  In summation he finds that they largely perpetuate the myth that he was the first and/or most important European to discover the Americas, as well as proving the earth was round.  Throughout the chapter he goes on to attack these assertions using a variety of sources as textual evidence.  For instance he cites studies that suggest there may have been up to 15 different groups or personages who traveled to the Americas, many long before Columbus was even born (p. 40-41).  Loewen also does a decent job of going through each of these entries to discuss how much veracity the particular claim has in truth.

Among other possibilities, Loewen cites that vikings did in fact establish a settlement on Newfoundland.

     With regard to the true legacy of Columbus he cites many different sources which give a fuller picture of who the man was.  He uses past writers' work to support disproving of typical claims repeated by textbooks, such as a 1915 writing that proved trade had in fact not been cut off by the Turkish capture of Constantinople.  Most intriguingly to me was his use of Columbus' own diaries to support his claims that the man was directly involved in the development of the slave trade in the West Indies and was motivated by greed.  Direct sources can paint a more detailed picture than simply restating facts.  Myths about Columbus being the only sensible man in his crew, that the crew was about to mutiny after sailing through rough weather and that Columbus died poor are all shattered with similar textual evidence.

     This is all fascinating but it does raise a question that a number of reviews online have been concerned with: how objective is Lies My Teacher Told Me?  The author does make it clear that he has a problem with the established history texts, the picture they paint, how they are written and the effects such history has on students studying it.  These are legitimate concerns of course but it does reveal a bias in favor of revisionism and underrepresented groups.   When discussing the alternative explorers he contrasts the treatment of various claims  using quotes from textbooks to reveal a bias toward the possibility of other Europeans traveling to America over that of Afro-Phoenecians.  He attacks the established Eurocentric depiction of Columbus as a great explorer who was the everyman of his day, barely getting the support he needed and then dramatically avoiding disaster en route to opening the door to a new period of European exploration.  In short he exposes his own biases while revealing those held by textbooks; however, does this negatively effect the chapter's message?

Conclusions

     Ultimately I believe the book has more positive than negative elements.  Loewen, if nothing else, raises the very important question of how our history is being taught.  Emphasizing other explorers who may have reached the Americas before Columbus could have a lot of practical use in diverse classrooms.  Students may be apt to find more interest in content if there are people they can relate to.  Including the possibility that Afro-Phoenician, Japanese, Polynesian and West African people encountered America allows for more diversity in history.  Offering a full picture of Columbus' exploits, including what the man himself wrote, provides opportunity for much deeper critical thinking. Instead of 'look how great he was!' we can ask 'how did Columbus impact the people of America and European expansionism?'.  I would advise that as in any case we find other sources of information to corroborate the claims Loewen makes, though.  Just as he uses multiple sources of information in discussing Columbus, we should uses multiple sources of information to look at whatever topic we're studying. 

     

     As always I invite comments and questions about this.  Does Loewen's treatment of Columbus reveal any bias or flaws in methodology?  What impact does his writing have on how we teach social studies?

Making Historical Connections

Making Historical Connections

Tying historic events into modern concerns.

     Something I've mentioned which could potentially help make history be more interesting and engaging in the classroom is making it relevant.  By this I mean that a teacher can take a historic event, period, theme or other category of study and tie it in with current events.  Comparing these things might help shed some new light on topics which might be considered boring if not treated properly.  With that said I figured I'd share an inspiration I had recently, one which might be more controversial than we'd normally be comfortable considering.  This might end up being a series over the course of my teaching, but I don't know if it'll be added to regularly at this time. Let's dive in!

Today's Historic Period and Connections

     One of the big topics in international news these days is the situation in the middle east, specifically with ISIS.  That's already a controversial topic, but controversy creates interest and interest can lead to engagement.  Something characteristic of this whole debacle is that foreign fighters traveling to Syria and Iraq to join one of the factions currently fighting.  Many of these foreigners are young people, which could offer another connection for students.  Or at least maybe make the topic more something they could relate to.  What's this got to do with history?

The Crusades had some striking similarities to the current situation in the middle east.

     Enter the other controversial side of this inspiration: the middle ages, specifically the Crusades.  Don't get me wrong, the Crusades were an incredibly messy period in world history.  Also very confusing with the amount of political maneuvering that occurred during the period.  Having read a good deal about it recently I realized that there are connections to be made between this mess and the current one.  Specifically that we have in both cases: young people leaving their homes, sometimes thousands of miles away, to join a non-governmental fighting force in the same region.  Groups that operate with religious motivation of a bent that strays from mainstream interpretations.

Conclusions

     Establishing the connections is one thing, figuring out how to utilize them is another thing.  At the moment this is more of a general inspiration rather than a solid unit plan, project or even a singular lesson.  This would be more likely to be something to be discussed with older students - high school would seem to be a more appropriate fit than middle school.  The best idea I have regarding this so far would be to connect the connections with a Common Core standard appropriate for the level it's being taught at.  Raising the spectre of the Crusades is a very touchy subject and it won't work in all situations.  Yet it's also an important period of history that has connections to what's happening in our world today.  How do you think this kind of content could work?  Would it work?  Questions, comments and ideas are all welcome as always.

A Glimpse at the Past: What We Once Learned

A Glimpse at the Past

What We Once Learned: A look at an old Social Studies textbook

    It's no secret that I love old social studies books - I have a collection of about ten now, and it's always kind of fascinating to delve into them.  Doing so isn't just a matter of curiosity on my part of course.  It also helps me see just what kinds of things were being taught and promoted at a given time.  Having that historical context is always pretty interesting.  So out of curiosity I decided to take out one of these tomes and explore its demographics.  Basically I wanted to know not only how history is presented by this textbook but who the historical actors included are.  With that in mind, let's get started.

The Book

     For the purposes of this exploration I used Exploring American History, a secondary textbook published in 1938.  Its principle authors were Mabel B. Casner of the Washington School in New Haven, Connecticut and history Professor Ralph H. Gabriel of Yale Univeristy.  It also cites an advisory board consisting of J. Russel Smith (professor of economic geography, Columbia University), Willaim G. Kimmel (former supervisor of social studies in New York state) and R.V. Harman (school of education faculty, University of Missouri).  Interestingly the maps were drawn by George Bell, who'd worked on popular publications such as Time and Fortune.  The book's chapters are referred to as 'problems' and organized into chronological units; each problem has a set of discussion questions at the beginning and activities at the end.  By stamps in the book it was used by Douglas High School in Dillard, Oregon.

What We're Looking For

     Now that I've introduced the book itself, what kind of information are we interested in finding?  I was curious about what ethnic groups were represented in Exploring American History, so I generated a list of potential ethnicities the text might touch on.  These included: white Europeans, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics and people of Asian or Middle Eastern descent.  Armed with this list I realized it might also be important to see not only who was discussed, but how they were discussed.  This led me to decide how I would demonstrate the demographics of the text.

Analyzing the Data

     Knowing what I'm looking for, I decided to add ways to measure the data I collected.  To measure the weight given to each ethnic group represented I would record how many paragraphs were devoted to each.  Since the text's chapters are organized into sub-headings of between one to six paragraphs this seemed the most efficient way to gauge the demographics.  In order to get a picture of the text's tone, I would also keep track of how the group in question was presented - either in a positive, neutral or negative light - and how many paragraphs were dedicated to a given tone.  Armed with this, I dove into Exploring American History.

What I Found

     To make things easier, I decided not to look at the entire book (which is over 600 pages long!).  Instead I focused on two chapters, or 'problems' in the text's vernacular.  Specifically chapters on periods which I knew could be contentious, dealt with multiple ethnic groups and thus might contain important omissions.  For the purposes of my investigation I chose chapters on the European conquest of the Americas ("What were the results of Spain's discovery of gold in America?") and the roots of the American Civil War ("Why did the United States divide into two warring sections?").  First up, European colonialism:

     As can be seen here,  Europeans made up the vast majority of page space in this chapter.  Spain is represented the most, having twice as many paragraphs discussing them than any other ethnicity.  While England and France are part of the text's story it mainly focuses on the actions of Spaniards during this period.  Native Americans are represented by a good number of paragraphs but combine different nations including the Aztec, Inca, Pueblo and Cherokee.

     Being the main focus of the chapter, Spaniards are treated mostly as heroic, bold adventurers who were after glory and fame.  I was pretty surprised to find that some atrocities committed by the Spanish were at least referenced in the text, however.  For instance it mentions how de Soto enslaved natives and forced them to wear chains, natives were forced to work in Spanish mines and fields and that the Spanish lords acted cruelly.  It also takes time to criticize the Spanish society in its colonies, citing severe economic inequality and disregard for their subjects.  It's important to note, however, that Spanish missionaries are portrayed in an entirely positive light along with the King.  They are portrayed as wanting the natives to be happy and to see the light of Christianity.

     Native Americans play a major role in the chapter but their treatment by the authors is largely evident of tokenism.  They are portrayed as being noble but misguided people who were apt to lash out violently at perceived weakness in their own culture and destroy the buildings and belongings of Christians.  Often they are described as becoming good friends with missionaries, happier after conversion and enjoying life on Spanish mission lands.  When they are actually depicted positively, the text mentions how Native traders established trade routes all the way to Florida from Mexico and that they were proud people who fought bravely.

     Despite the extent to which French colonialism took place in America, they are barely mentioned in the chapter.  When they are it is as antagonists to the Spanish who are trying to establish their own colonies.  No real moral judgment is used for them, they simply exist.

     Of any of the European ethnic groups discussed in this chapter, the English get the most overtly biased treatment.  None of the material is anything but glowingly positive.  When they first appear the English are praised as being strong and brave, led by a wise queen and weirdly praising Shakespeare in the same paragraph.  English culture is presented as superior to any other in the chapter.  A section on English piracy praises the 'Sea Dogs' who helped defeat the Spanish, and the Spanish Armada's defeat is celebrated as well.

     Before offering a final analysis, let's have a look at the chapter on the roots of the American Civil War.  For this chapter I established that there were three major groups being discussed - White Americans, African Americans and Mexicans.  That said, here is my data:

     With the topic being entirely about American history without those pesky Europeans around, the main focus becomes white/European Americans.  The vast majority of topics are entirely from the perspective of this group, particularly white men.  Both North and South are included in this but there is very little room for other groups to even appear.  African-Americans appear only when the topic of slavery is discussed and even then usually in passing.  More on that in a moment.  Part of the roots of the conflict deal with Texas and the war with Mexico, so Mexicans are given a little bit of space as well.

     As mentioned African-Americans are only discussed when slavery itself is, and then mainly in passing.  The bulk of their contribution in this chapter is the Dred Scott case.  Even that is not really about African-Americans at all, but rather the ruling handed down by the white Judge Taney!  The negative perspective comes into play early in portraying slaves as happy to serve on a young Jefferson Davis' plantation. As far as this text is concerned African-Americans are nothing more than set pieces for a stage dominated by white men.

     Clearly showing a bias for the European descended Americans, the only mentions of Mexicans in the chapter deal with Texas and their war with the United States.  All that is said about them is negative: they didn't know how democracy worked, mistreated American settlers and their whole government was inferior to the Articles of Confederation.  Thus the text justifies America's annexation of Texas and the southwest.

     The main ethnic group discussed in this chapter was Americans of European descent, and was overly positive in most accounts.  It reminds me of what Loewen describes as the American Legion influence on social studies texts - that it must be 'optimistic'.  Men from both sides of the Civil War are treated as heroic.  Southern senator Calhoun's speech on Southern grievances regarding slave vs. free states is given nearly a full page on its own, while Lincoln has two speeches quoted in part.  Yet despite the optimistic and passive tones the text takes most of the time, it makes clear that slavery was a central issue in causing the Civil War.  While at times the South is romanticized the text carries a Northern bias that reminds the reader that slavery was a major motivation.

 Conclusion

     What we see in this 1938 textbook is a clear preference for European and white American perspectives on history.  Non-white ethnic groups are barely given the time of day, and when they do appear they are presented as inferior to the Europeans.  There's no diversity in the perspectives at all, even when it comes to the Europeans.  The authors are promoting Anglo-American superiority in military and civil matters, along with Christianity as the only true guiding compass of morality.  What is odd is the occasional mentions of less flattering information - Spanish cruelties to natives and the South's focus on slavery for instance.  These can be explained as the perspective of northern, white authors. 

     What do you think?  How does this data reflect on the American educational environment in social studies during the 1930s?  What does this tell us about America in general?  Please feel free to comment and share your thoughts!

Action Plan Principles for a Better Social Studies Classroom

Action Plan Principles for a Better Social Studies Classroom

    A major theme in today's educational world is to promote change that will make students feel safe, engaged and included.  Ours is a really diverse country, but it seems that social studies can be quite unpopular with students.  In the well-known text Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen mentions that history is regularly a content area that students find boring.  It seems to me that a not inconsiderable part of this is that textbooks themselves don't portray the same diversity we see in America's classrooms and at large.  Why should students care if they don't have people they can relate to who are involved?  What's there to be interested in if events, topics and curriculum in general are just presented as 'things that happened' with no room for interpretation or difference of opinion?  In this entry I'll try to propose the basics of a plan which might help remedy the problem of social studies, in particular history, that  is boring, hidebound and stuck with traditional misconceptions.

     One important factor is to both recognize diversity and respect it through cultural responsiveness.  How can we do this?  How is it possible to include so many different groups when you also have set content (topics, periods of history, etc) that have to be covered in the course of the year?  I think a simple way to do so would be to ensure that anything we're discussing in the classroom should be able to consider the experiences of multiple groups.  Try to find documents or sources which allow for voices that aren't white, mid-to-upper class men to speak!  Everyone experiences things differently, so providing another side of the story will not only make the story more engaging but also tell that story more fully.  For example if you're teaching history and the topic is, say, the Great Depression, there are ample opportunities for more perspectives.  Adding the migrations of African Americans during this period could help make the experience more meaningful; tying the Depression's effects on families to today's economic difficulties could make it relevant as well.  Another idea I've had is to place images of prominent people of diverse backgrounds in my classroom to demonstrate the importance of our diverse world.  People like Percy Julian, Sylvia Rivera, Lyudmilla Pavlichenko and so many others could take places of prominence rather than those like Andrew Jackson who tend to be whitewashed in history textbooks.

     We as teachers need to be sure that we're checking value judgments based on perceptions of diverse populations at the door.  This is really hard to do, not in the least because we really like to think that we're not biased and are very open minded.  I'll admit to being defensive about such things as well.  If it's not something that we can consciously check at the door, we should at least be ready to take a step back and question our motivations for thoughts.  Do a double-check to see if we're assuming a student is doing something based on our perceptions or based on evidence.  Rather than deny that differences exist, we should recognize them but treat them respectfully.  Discussing how this will look in the classroom is a whole separate discussion.  

     The big problem with our content is finding ways to make students engaged with content, to make it meaningful to them.  In short, to make it interesting when it seems as if it could be boring.  Making connections with present day events and basing assessments and activities off of this is, generally speaking, a great idea for how to do this.  Another thing I want to touch on is inclusion as the third pillar of this action plan.  Educational theory speaks to the benefits of allowing students choice and voice in their education.  Student engagement and achievement is said to grow when they have a stake in their learning.  Again the question arises: what does this look like in social studies?

     As teachers we know that social studies isn't actually boring.  It's how the content has traditionally been taught that's really boring.  What I'm proposing is what others have already championed - ask students what they want to learn about.  This is going to be easier in some parts of social studies such as civics or economics than in history, but it's worth the effort.  If you include what students are genuinely curious about in units, they'll likely be more interested in what you want them to learn.  Pairing standards with content students are eager to explore could definitely improve motivation, achievement and differentiate things so that different types of learners can achieve the same goal.