Teacher Develops Game To Make History Interesting

[Dastardly]

I think you would appreciate this lecture.


OT: I personally love history (see the hours Ive clocked into the Total War/Civilization series), and I would definitively like to try out this game if I ever get the chance.

Oh, I definitely agree with a lot of what he has said here. The odds of us getting a ground-up reform of education are pretty slim, but it could be a huge help. For one, I'm a huge proponent of gutting the curriculum.

Now, I do believe there is a certain amount of basic knowledge that should be common to everyone who finishes school. (Those that do not believe so are simply taking a lot of that knowledge for granted, because they don't remember what it feels like not to have it.) The world isn't full of tutorials, so there's a certain amount of basic capability within certain subject areas that each person should have.

I just happen to believe it's about 25% of what we currently try to cram in there. As a for instance: The quadratic formula is very useful in Algebra... but can you think of any instance in which 95% of the world would use this? I can't. And knowing that formula didn't make me any "smarter" or more "productive" as a worker, either. Cut it.

The notion of "literary classics" is another tricky one. What makes Romeo and Juliet interesting is its cultural impact... but do students have to read the entire play to understand that? Do they need to grasp the finer points of iambic pentameter in order to find modern, familiar stories based on the same basic plotline as this "classic?" No. Cut it (partially).

See, there are two big problems with our current curriculum model:

1. We decided kids needed to know X facts by the time they leave high school, where X is about three to five times the actual number.

2. We decided that the 13 year curriculum is best paced by teaching "X / 13" facts per year, resulting in some concepts getting shortchanged, while others are being taught at developmentally inappropriate stages.

We could cut out 75% of the facts we try to teach kids. And instead, teachers like me could spend all of that newly-found time teaching skills instead. We could spend more time in math class making sure Timmy understands why 5 X 4 = 20, rather than just knowing it as a discrete fact. And by doing that, we're laying a framework in Timmy's mind so that, if he so chooses, he can learn more advanced math much faster later on.

Now, where I disagree with some of the suggestions being made are when they start to buck the system too much. For instance, the lecturer wonders why kids are group by age, insisting that it's just a convenient mathematical sorting device. Perhaps a bit, yes, but one also has to consider that kids of different ages are developmentally different, separate from their academic performance. You might have a kid who's sixteen, six feet tall, and ridiculously immature -- do you want him in the same room as your four-year-old?

(This is especially true given the huge push in the lecture for "group learning.")

School is about teaching kids how to learn -- that is, how to seek and acquire knowledge for themselves. Right now, we're in "give a man a fish" mode, when we need to be in "teach a man to fish" mode. On that, I can wholeheartedly agree.

HOWEVER.

The other extreme is this misconception that kids will always "enjoy learning." Fact is, they can't and they won't. Learning is an uncomfortable process. It will have its ups and downs. There will be things kids don't want to do, and there will always be things they would rather be doing. We can't fall into the trap of trying to "make learning fun" all the time, because it doesn't work and it's not good for them.

Real work and real life aren't always fun, and kids need to learn how to maintain focus and responsibility in not-fun environments. And they will learn that... either the easy way (in school) or the hard way (when the world mercilessly beats them with that fact). I'd prefer to spare them that by making sure they get started early on.

It is a child that bases the value of a thing based on how fun it is or isn't. And adult bases the value of a thing on how useful or effective it is. Our job is to turn children into adults. So that means we need to wean kids off of the "fun-only" diet and gradually onto a more realistic "work first, play later" model.

As for me? I teach band. One of the arts. However, it's not the carefree, freewheeling "exploration" that people seem to think it is. People misunderstand how it works. It's not like "coloring time." It's more like "flight lessons":

Flying a plane can be very liberating, a feeling of complete freedom. However, there are some necessary skills a person needs to correctly and safely use an aircraft... and these skills aren't open to interpretation and individual taste. Now, once you have those skills, choosing where and when to fly are up to you... but the process of acquiring those skills is not as free and open.

People have trouble understanding that this is how teaching an instrument works. You can't just read a pamphlet and know how to play trumpet. There are muscles that need developed, listening skills that are important, and reading/understanding musical notation is a must. Why? So that the child can then choose music for themselves, and actually be able to use their freedom. At first, though? Not free.

That kind of encapsulates the current problem in education for me. We don't collectively understand what we should be teaching (HINT: Teachers do.), and so we don't recognize that we're building the wrong machine for the job that needs done (and for the "fuel" that we have -- the kids). Instead of changing the machine, we're adding bits and bobs on that alter the "fuel" to fit the machine, and we change the goal so that the result is what we want.

Let the teachers run things for once, and you'll see that change. We're experts on teaching and learning, and we're aching to use all that knowledge.

 

[Jamous]

That actually sounds really interesting. It's good that the teacher's doing something to keep the students engaged.

History needed to be more interesting than it is now? Boy do I sound like a nerd...

I don't think it needs to be made any more interesting either.

I don't know about America but in Finland 90% of the students love history.
I don't know if it's about the fact that USA is such a big country and has been involved in most things happening and therefor they only talk about the stuff they've been doing. But here our History since grade 3 (age 10) is about the world and only small portions about our own country so history here is REALLY wide.

History doesn't need to be made more interesting, but the way it's taught does. Some teachers are -really- bad at teaching.

 

[gphjr14]

I have two words for you all.


Oregon Trail.



Hell, I'm not even American and I still love that game and the history of the whole Manifest Destiny, westward-ho kinda thing. It sounds incredibly adventurous and, despite the dangers and the hardship, it is the kind of thing I would attempt were I alive at such a time.

Imagine it - travelling a looooong road, through barely known lands, past treacherous rivers and perilous mountain passes. At the end, the opportunity to stake a claim in a new world; to provide for your family and your descendants. To, essentially, establish a new country.

Doesn't help that I'm a nutjob survivalist who makes and eats his own hardtack because I like it.

You forgot to mention the forced removal of Native Americans. No offence but it sounds like you've been fed a sugar coated romanticized version of US history. Westward expansion was made possible through forced migration and good ol ethnic cleansing.

 

[immortalfrieza]

General knowledge is fairly important to most jobs. Most history classes actually have a hidden importance. They teach you how to do research and develop your ability to think in different ways. So is knowing why the American revolution was fought particularly relevant, no. Is understanding how to look at various events and seeing different variables beyond the obvious useful, of course.

If so, why not just cut out the middleman and have a class that teaches people how to do the above specifically?

 

[SnakeoilSage]

We need more ways to get truth and knowledge to our children's generation, so they aren't raised on the lies and ignorance of our parent's generation. *Eyes Heartland Institute* Right?

 

[Smiley Face]

I have two words for you all.


Oregon Trail.



Hell, I'm not even American and I still love that game and the history of the whole Manifest Destiny, westward-ho kinda thing. It sounds incredibly adventurous and, despite the dangers and the hardship, it is the kind of thing I would attempt were I alive at such a time.

Imagine it - travelling a looooong road, through barely known lands, past treacherous rivers and perilous mountain passes. At the end, the opportunity to stake a claim in a new world; to provide for your family and your descendants. To, essentially, establish a new country.

Doesn't help that I'm a nutjob survivalist who makes and eats his own hardtack because I like it.

You forgot to mention the forced removal of Native Americans. No offence but it sounds like you've been fed a sugar coated romanticized version of US history. Westward expansion was made possible through forced migration and good ol ethnic cleansing.

Oh yeah. American Independence was NOT a good thing for the various Native peoples. The US got to throw out the big territorial line they weren't, as British subjects, supposed to cross in their colonization efforts, and kill their merry way to a brighter future, not to mention disregarding Native rights, etc. Not that the French or the British weren't bad, but the Americans were worse.

That's one of the things I love about history. Pretty much every party did vicious, unspeakable, and interesting things, and centuries later people are proud of them. And they have such lovely names for everything. 'The First Defenestration of Prague' sounds so technical, you wouldn't think that it refers to that one time that diplomats were thrown out of a window and only survived by landing in a dung heap. AND YET THEY HAVE A NAME FOR IT.

I'm sort of curious - how much do you folks from the US learn about Native history? I'm Canadian, and the curriculum o far has thrown a lot at me.

 

[jawakiller]

This game taught me more about medieval history than any book or teacher. At least til I went to college. Seriously, the people who did this game read their history.

 

[dyre]

I'm sort of curious - how much do you folks from the US learn about Native history? I'm Canadian, and the curriculum o far has thrown a lot at me.

We learn a decent amount on Manifest Destiny and various conflicts the natives had with the US.

If you're wondering about US schooling whitewashing our history though, what we mostly don't learn is the US occupation of Cuba and the Philippines, the US involvement in the Panama revolution, the crappy stuff the US agreed to in the Yalta Conference, and newer Cold War stuff in Iran, Nicaragua, etc. But we do learn about the natives.

 

[Strazdas]

last time we saw something like this it was History -- Civil War: Secret Missions and it was awful.

 

[Guffe]

That actually sounds really interesting. It's good that the teacher's doing something to keep the students engaged.

History needed to be more interesting than it is now? Boy do I sound like a nerd...

I don't think it needs to be made any more interesting either.

I don't know about America but in Finland 90% of the students love history.
I don't know if it's about the fact that USA is such a big country and has been involved in most things happening and therefor they only talk about the stuff they've been doing. But here our History since grade 3 (age 10) is about the world and only small portions about our own country so history here is REALLY wide.

History doesn't need to be made more interesting, but the way it's taught does. Some teachers are -really- bad at teaching.

yeah but that applies to everything and not just history.
Althou it's always painful when you have a bad teacher in something that might be interesting if done correctly.

 

[Commissar Sae]

General knowledge is fairly important to most jobs. Most history classes actually have a hidden importance. They teach you how to do research and develop your ability to think in different ways. So is knowing why the American revolution was fought particularly relevant, no. Is understanding how to look at various events and seeing different variables beyond the obvious useful, of course.

If so, why not just cut out the middleman and have a class that teaches people how to do the above specifically?

Because teaching research methods and points of view is even dryer than history. Can you imagine sitting through a year of classes that are basically only telling you how to make a bibliography, or how to read an article and find the salient information. Hell even teaching that class would be boring as hell.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

As upstanding British citizen I'd love a chance to put the silly colonists back in their rightful place. UNDER MY WELL POLISHED BOOT.

All joking aside, this actually sounds pretty cool. It's not something we cover in the UK curriculum and it'd be interesting to learn about.

 

[Jamous]

That actually sounds really interesting. It's good that the teacher's doing something to keep the students engaged.

History needed to be more interesting than it is now? Boy do I sound like a nerd...

I don't think it needs to be made any more interesting either.

I don't know about America but in Finland 90% of the students love history.
I don't know if it's about the fact that USA is such a big country and has been involved in most things happening and therefor they only talk about the stuff they've been doing. But here our History since grade 3 (age 10) is about the world and only small portions about our own country so history here is REALLY wide.

History doesn't need to be made more interesting, but the way it's taught does. Some teachers are -really- bad at teaching.

yeah but that applies to everything and not just history.
Althou it's always painful when you have a bad teacher in something that might be interesting if done correctly.

Yeah, I know how that feels. :/
Not fun at all.

 

[immortalfrieza]

General knowledge is fairly important to most jobs. Most history classes actually have a hidden importance. They teach you how to do research and develop your ability to think in different ways. So is knowing why the American revolution was fought particularly relevant, no. Is understanding how to look at various events and seeing different variables beyond the obvious useful, of course.

If so, why not just cut out the middleman and have a class that teaches people how to do the above specifically?

Because teaching research methods and points of view is even dryer than history. Can you imagine sitting through a year of classes that are basically only telling you how to make a bibliography, or how to read an article and find the salient information. Hell even teaching that class would be boring as hell.

True, but I'd much rather sit through a year doing those boring as hell classes than 13 years doing a just about as boring as hell classes that give me the runaround to teach me the same thing.

 

[Commissar Sae]

General knowledge is fairly important to most jobs. Most history classes actually have a hidden importance. They teach you how to do research and develop your ability to think in different ways. So is knowing why the American revolution was fought particularly relevant, no. Is understanding how to look at various events and seeing different variables beyond the obvious useful, of course.

If so, why not just cut out the middleman and have a class that teaches people how to do the above specifically?

Because teaching research methods and points of view is even dryer than history. Can you imagine sitting through a year of classes that are basically only telling you how to make a bibliography, or how to read an article and find the salient information. Hell even teaching that class would be boring as hell.

True, but I'd much rather sit through a year doing those boring as hell classes than 13 years doing a just about as boring as hell classes that give me the runaround to teach me the same thing.

Problem is that its not something you just learn like that, it needs to be develloped in increments over those 13 or so years. It needs to be learned in steps over a long period of time, otherwise a childs brain won't be able to adapt to the information without the necessary scaffolding.

Plus if you find history boring then its really because you had crappy teachers. A motivated teacher who knows what they're talking about can do wonders for the subject.

 

[immortalfrieza]

True, but I'd much rather sit through a year doing those boring as hell classes than 13 years doing a just about as boring as hell classes that give me the runaround to teach me the same thing.

Problem is that its not something you just learn like that, it needs to be develloped in increments over those 13 or so years. It needs to be learned in steps over a long period of time, otherwise a childs brain won't be able to adapt to the information without the necessary scaffolding.

Plus if you find history boring then its really because you had crappy teachers. A motivated teacher who knows what they're talking about can do wonders for the subject.

That's probably only true because we teach kids that way and always have. I would never agree that kids are less capable or need a longer length of time than an adult to learn something.
A child's brain is no less capable at learning something than an adult's, they just have less information in their brains to begin with, in short, they lack context.

I can't argue that my teachers were boring, I like history when it's presented to me in an interesting format, thus it's no surprise I like the History channel. Really though, that's because the History channel producers are paid to make history interesting, teachers, not so much. Teachers get paid to ramble off facts all day, over and over again, and they get paid regardless of whether kids learn them. Is it any wonder why they would not be motivated to make things interesting?

 

[Commissar Sae]

True, but I'd much rather sit through a year doing those boring as hell classes than 13 years doing a just about as boring as hell classes that give me the runaround to teach me the same thing.

Problem is that its not something you just learn like that, it needs to be develloped in increments over those 13 or so years. It needs to be learned in steps over a long period of time, otherwise a childs brain won't be able to adapt to the information without the necessary scaffolding.

Plus if you find history boring then its really because you had crappy teachers. A motivated teacher who knows what they're talking about can do wonders for the subject.

That's probably only true because we teach kids that way and always have. I would never agree that kids are less capable or need a longer length of time than an adult to learn something.
A child's brain is no less capable at learning something than an adult's, they just have less information in their brains to begin with, in short, they lack context.

I can't argue that my teachers were boring, I like history when it's presented to me in an interesting format, thus it's no surprise I like the History channel. Really though, that's because the History channel producers are paid to make history interesting, teachers, not so much. Teachers get paid to ramble off facts all day, over and over again, and they get paid regardless of whether kids learn them. Is it any wonder why they would not be motivated to make things interesting?

As a teacher I find that kind of insulting. I'm passionate about history, and I put that passion into my class. I'm paid to make sure that my students learn the material, and the best way to do that is to make it interesting to them. There needs to be some scaffolding using facts for the students to learn and thats what every single class in compulsory education is trying to do.
Advanced math is going to be next to useless to you later on, hell I can't name a single subject that I can guarantee will be relevant to the lives of students. But thats not the point of education, deep down. the goal isn't to make things relevant to the students daily lives in a direct way but to help them create links in their head so they can think critically about the world and not be mindless sheep.

 

[pastrami05]

What? History isn't bor-

Oh, right. You guy only get American history.

Shame. It's very monotonous. Just war after war. And there's barely any of it.

Anyway, I suppose that could be an okay idea. As long as EA and the likes don't get their hands on it, that is.

You could describe the history of the world as just "war after war" if you're looking at it the way you do. I don't remember what the number is, but there has been a ridiculously low number of years of total world peace. The thing is, there is other stuff to learn about, beyond the wars. In addition, when looking at a small area, like one country, there are significant periods of peace between wars to learn about.