| Subject: Re: Forgotten anniversaries |
Author:
Dmitri
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08:00:21 05/19/15 Tue
In reply to:
Leo Kerr
's message, "Re: Forgotten anniversaries" on 19:39:47 05/16/15 Sat
>it almost sounds like you're proposing... a systemic
>method of... exploring history.
>
I'm not sure method matters a whole lot, and that will depend on teacher or curriculum requirements (or the committee stipulating such) at the school.
What I was questioning was content. I do agree that something probably needs to be taught, but teachers or curriculum committees also have to realize that interests differ in students. In teachers, too. And many students won't care at all about any aspect of history.
As I said before, there's an awful lot of history, more than can be learned by any one person, and more is happening all the time to be added to the whole. What portion of it to cover for a "history course?" Contrary to belief, they can't teach it all. It is always specifics that are taught, though some may be more general than others.
For instance, here in the USA, American History is the concentration. How much history of Thailand or Russian Georgia is taught here? Not much, if any at all. How much American History is taught in those and other countries, much less Michigan specific, or that of Chicago or Peru, Indiana? (That's "PEEE-Roo" by the way, not pronounced there like the country in South America.)
Looking at it that way, it's always some portion of a systemic whole in method or content, more specific than the term definition of "covering the whole system" (total world history?) would require.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 