Toby French is a history teacher and blogger at MrHistoire.com. One glance at his blog and I was caught by his post, "Away with you, would-haves".
In this post, Toby raises the problems of what he calls "genericism" and "would-haves". He notices that a lot of students are not being specific enough in their responses to historical questions. Examples Toby mentions:
‘The peasants would have been angry because of the Statute of Labourers’.
‘Germans would have been upset at the Treaty of Versailles.’
‘Workers would have been sad at the way they were treated by Bryant and May.’
‘The communists would have been wary of US interference in West Berlin.’
Yuk. Which peasants? All of them? And which Germans? Right or left wing? Prussian Junkers and Bavarian farmers, or Berlinistas in their cafes? You mean the Match Girls were angry and sad? Which ones? Annie Besant? And all communists, or those from Moscow? Did Czechoslovakia’s Dubček and Svoboda feel the same way about capitalism in West Berlin as, say, Kádár in Hungary? And when?
According to Toby, this kind of writing (and speaking) turns history into a "vague, citizenship-soup" - which I completely agree. Genericism, first, is inaccurate, and second, simplifies the many nuances of history. I myself have been guilty of being vague, of not clarifying to students and teaching them to be more specific. As Toby wonders if students receive this generality from their teachers, I confess this in the first part of my response to his post, explaining that time and standard pressures were often the reason for my vagueness:
Hello Toby, I really agree with this post! As a student-teacher, I started out with getting rid of genericism and 'would-haves' as one of my goals. Teaching students to be more specific turns out to be not easy, as I myself, oftentimes caught up in how much information I need to teach, didn't have enough time to scaffold students' understanding properly, so that they know how to distinguish Lenin from Marx, Muscovite socialism from Beijing communism.
Toby then mentions that he strictly prohibits this kind of vague language in his classroom, even banning students from saying "biased", "they" or "back then" and thus forcing them to state the exact time period, individual or group of people, and source. This encourages me to put more effort in my teaching. At my placement, I've already introduced thinking, reading and writing routines that require students to source and contextualize historical documents. I should just continue reinforcing these routines more effectively, stopping to correct students' lack of specificity (and accuracy), not bypass or gloss over it. Thus ends my response to Toby:
I really like that you ban students from using 'biased' or 'they'. I definitely should reinforce this routine more, or a thinking routine that forces students to be more specific over and again.
Pleasure to be here :)!
In this post, Toby raises the problems of what he calls "genericism" and "would-haves". He notices that a lot of students are not being specific enough in their responses to historical questions. Examples Toby mentions:
‘The peasants would have been angry because of the Statute of Labourers’.
‘Germans would have been upset at the Treaty of Versailles.’
‘Workers would have been sad at the way they were treated by Bryant and May.’
‘The communists would have been wary of US interference in West Berlin.’
Yuk. Which peasants? All of them? And which Germans? Right or left wing? Prussian Junkers and Bavarian farmers, or Berlinistas in their cafes? You mean the Match Girls were angry and sad? Which ones? Annie Besant? And all communists, or those from Moscow? Did Czechoslovakia’s Dubček and Svoboda feel the same way about capitalism in West Berlin as, say, Kádár in Hungary? And when?
According to Toby, this kind of writing (and speaking) turns history into a "vague, citizenship-soup" - which I completely agree. Genericism, first, is inaccurate, and second, simplifies the many nuances of history. I myself have been guilty of being vague, of not clarifying to students and teaching them to be more specific. As Toby wonders if students receive this generality from their teachers, I confess this in the first part of my response to his post, explaining that time and standard pressures were often the reason for my vagueness:
Hello Toby, I really agree with this post! As a student-teacher, I started out with getting rid of genericism and 'would-haves' as one of my goals. Teaching students to be more specific turns out to be not easy, as I myself, oftentimes caught up in how much information I need to teach, didn't have enough time to scaffold students' understanding properly, so that they know how to distinguish Lenin from Marx, Muscovite socialism from Beijing communism.
Toby then mentions that he strictly prohibits this kind of vague language in his classroom, even banning students from saying "biased", "they" or "back then" and thus forcing them to state the exact time period, individual or group of people, and source. This encourages me to put more effort in my teaching. At my placement, I've already introduced thinking, reading and writing routines that require students to source and contextualize historical documents. I should just continue reinforcing these routines more effectively, stopping to correct students' lack of specificity (and accuracy), not bypass or gloss over it. Thus ends my response to Toby:
I really like that you ban students from using 'biased' or 'they'. I definitely should reinforce this routine more, or a thinking routine that forces students to be more specific over and again.
Pleasure to be here :)!