Interpreting primary sources

As an entry into the year 11 course on the Israel/Palestine conflict I have started with a whole lot of primary sources generated around and during the recent invasion/assault/slaughter/crisis of Gaza (depends which news agency you look at) and have asked students to interpret them to write 'a short history of the 'assault...' on Gaza'. The intention is to show that all historical narratives are based on the interpretations of primary sources and open to constant reevaluation. But also to teach them how history is an evidenced-based subject; if you are going to make a claim, have a good reason to make it. The other intention, of course, is to show students how you can't really understand this event without a much broader knowledge of Middle East history. I think I started with far too many sources which bamboozled a few of them, but there were some excellent discussions about what 'historical truth' is, and how to deal with conflicting sources. However, had I done this again I would:

• Have fewer sources - it was too overwhelming for some to select from a multitude of maps, photographs, graphs, newspaper clippings, internet printouts etc...
• Break down the task requirement more. The first thing they should have done is to decide, based on the sources, what to call their short history (was it a slaughter? Crisis? Assault? Crime? Offensive? Attack?) and to give reasons for this. It would have been a nice little exercise to hand in.
• Be more explicit early on with the difference between long term and short term causes. Perhaps have had a few long term causes in their primary source pack.

The other thing which I did too late was to show them what a "history" is. Sam Wineberg in "Historical Thinking and other unnatural acts" quotes someone who writes that all histories have a motive, actions and effects. Today we brainstormed what they had found from the sources and related this to these three ideas which gave them a reasonable framework with which to do their first piece of writing.

Pretty soon they are starting their research assignments where they have to show how history is important to the present. I am planning on a couple of periods per week for 3-4 weeks to be in the library with the other two periods carrying on with the long term causes of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It will be interesting to see whether this works without confusing them too much. I am hoping that together we can learn how an historical understanding of the Israel/Palestine conflict is essential to understand the present situation which will at the same time provide a model for their own research. Some have some excellent ideas which I will write about once they have been firmed up. One thing that has become clearer to me than it has in the past, is that research, done well, takes a lot of time. They need time to decide on a topic, read around it, develop some research questions, do the research, take notes, possibly rejig a question, write up a draft, have it peer edited, write the final copy and have it published in an authentic manner as possible. Weeks of hard learning!

The key competencies and teaching history

Having spent a year experimenting with the new curriculum and integrating the four core junior subjects with 3 other teachers in 2008 it has been interesting to see how that thinking has affected the way I approach the senior subjects. I have completely overhauled year 11 history, following Rosemary Hipkin’s advice to use the key competencies as lenses on the senior subjects to ‘see what happens’.

It was awkward reading Keith Barton and Linda Levstik’s book “Teaching History for the Common Good” over summer for two reasons. First, in four years as a history teacher it was the first book on teaching history I had picked up and second, because their description of the reasons for teaching history that plagues many (most?) history classrooms felt very familiar. The reasons they identified were: (i) maintain control, (ii) cover the curriculum. Below is what I have written for students to expect in the first term as a response to this situation:

Behind the headlines – using the past to make sense of current events

One of the most important reasons for studying history is the perspective that historical knowledge can bring to current events. Without understanding the historical roots of, for example, the Israeli offensive on Gaza in January 2009, it is very difficult to participate in reasoned discussion about what should be done or how nations, organizations and individuals should act. The “Behind the headlines” assignment gives you the opportunity to select and research any current event you care about and research how an historical understanding of this problem will better enable you and other young people to understand it. The research you do will be published in a combined year 11 history magazine for students at school. The exact nature of this publication will be negotiated between the two history classes and could involve multi media such as pod casts or video clips uploaded to YouTube with the link in the publication. To get the ball rolling this unit will start by all of us looking at what problems of world significance are present in the Middle East, most significantly, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We will spend some time looking at how historical knowledge of this issue is essential for understanding before you can choose your own line of inquiry for the class newspaper.

Having spent a lesson with the students on what they know I have been surprised at what some students don’t know about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Not so much about the conflict in general, but about the Israeli invasion of Gaza in January. Perhaps I should be pleased that they weren’t paying much interest to the television network news, which barely counts as news, and I hadn’t expected them to be trawling through Israeli and other international newspaper websites, blogs and opinion pieces, or following the terrifyingly live Twitter updates on Al Jazeera’s website, but the experience highlighted how important my approach for term one is, assuming it works. It is essential to understand the historical context of current issues if we are to understand and take part in intelligent conversation, or respond in more active, participatory and democratic ways. I will just need to spend more time than I thought on teaching the actual current issues before the history than I thought. Ronald Wright, historian and author of "What is America: A short history of the New World Order" captures the importance of this perfectly:

"History is the best guide we have for threading our way through the frenetic video game of current events. As the game speeds up, with runaway technological and social change, the great risk is that both the old and the young become isolated, in different ways, by the parochialism of the present: one generation gets marooned, the next swept along without a ship's log or rudder." (p.14).

As a part of this assignment I also want to bring in some guest speakers, and my ideas had been to get in some interesting, local and opinionated people to talk and rark the students up a bit before we deconstruct the validity of their ideas. I met with a local rabbi for advice on how to approach this topic, and it was gently pointed out to me that it would be better to start with the middle ground with guest speakers, or at the very least have real Palestinians and Israelis talk rather than the plenty of people available with their own opinions, valid or otherwise. Focusing on the extremes, you teach students that the issue is about extremes (irreconcilable ones at that) and that history is black and white and essentially simple. This, of course, is anathema to the discipline of history let alone the understanding needed for democratic participation. History is nuanced, contextual, objective, and highly complex; none of which says you can’t take an ethical stance on an issue. Being “moderate” doesn’t mean you can't totally deplore the Israeli Defence Force's killing of 100s of civilian children and their parents in Gaza. The quote that stood out the most from Barton and Levstik’s book is “the ultimate purpose of history education, in our view, is to enable students to take action in the present”. So, a focus on understanding current events from an historical perspective, the product of which will be peer reviewed articles published together for other students is my initial response to the key competencies of Thinking, Using language, symbols, and texts, Managing self, Relating to others and Participating and contributing. It is scary but kind of exciting to start using history for real issues other than some nostalgic, humanistic idea that reading history is good for the soul - or instead a bureaucratic-technocratic purpose that you maintain control and have them pass the exam so students can cash the knowledge in for credits and later contribute to the economy. As Neil Postman says, such a purpose for education “mocks ones humanity” and should be a by-product, not a reason for education.