History, Engagement and Collaboration?

In his article, "Beyond 'content' and 'pedagogy': In search of a way to talk about history education," Peter Sexias argues that there is often a separation between content and pedagogy. In an attempt to distinguish the two, Sexias argues that they are, in fact, two distinct, yet related concepts in the teaching of history in education. Sexias argues that rather than teaching content, students will be more engaged by a discipline focused pedagogical approach. Through bringing historians to collaborate with educators, they can skillfully combine content and pedagogy. Interestingly, one of the cases that he presents, and arguably perhaps the most effective teacher presented through his cases, is one who skillfully combines content and pedagogy. This is both a creative and innovative approach to teaching history. She (Davis), "through her research, was teaching the audience how to learn from examining a source, and showing the kinds of questions which could arise from this particular source" (pg. 327). She did this so skillfully that observers argued that she presented only content, which was not the case. This aligns with my definition as teacher as facilitator. She does not simply 'impart' knowledge on the students, rather she requires them to think critically and respond appropriately. This lends itself seamlessly into a discussion of learning. Sexias, in one of his cases discusses the possibility of 'doing the discipline.' "`Doing the discipline’ establishes a basis for teachers and professors to work together in away which recognizes the expertise of historians, not as dispensers of fixed content, but as practitioners of a craft into which others are welcomed" (pg 328). This type of learning would align well with a collaborative, project, or problem based learning approach. Students are engaged in their own learning by, 'doing the discipline.' The Galileo Network in Calgary is an advocate of this approach to learning. And they have posted a discipline based project that they facilitated. You can view it here, http://galileo.org/canadian-identity-gr11/.

In terms of innovation, teaching discipline based history is not new, but it does align with my own definition of innovation. There is a problem presented that needs transformation, there is also collaboration, and an original approach to content and pedagogy. In addition, "conceptualizing teachers’ challenge as `learning to do the discipline’ with young people (rather than learning the content and figuring out a way to deliver it) has the enormous advantage of conveying `knowing’ as an active process" (pg. 333). Knowing as an active process is innovative and creative.

Sexias argues that they key to combining pedagogy and content is solid, well focused professional development for teachers. What would this look like? And how could we engage teachers in this professional development when doing what they have always done is the simplest route for many?

Seixas, P. (1993). The community of inquiry as a basis for knowledge and learning: The case of history. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 305–324. doi: 10.2307/1163237