Historic Battles. April Austin.
by Austin, April; ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Series: SIRS Enduring Issues 2005Article 4Institutions. Publisher: Christian Science Monitor, 2003ISSN: 1522-3256;.Subject(s): Academic achievement | Education -- Curricula | Education -- Standards | Effective teaching | History -- Study and teaching | Social sciences -- Study and teachingDDC classification: 050 Summary: "History teaches dates and facts. Social studies offers context and perspective. Why are the two disciplines so fiercely at odds?...At the core lie two distinct views of education. History advocates insist on a return to traditional instruction, while opponents assert that students need context. What the argument hides is a basic agreement that schools need to do a better job of teaching history. But neither side seems prepared to listen to the other." (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR) The author presents both sides of the history/social studies debate, noting that history advocates see social studies "as too touchy-feely and lacking in rigor" while "those who favor social studies blanch at what they see as an attempt to drive history back into the territory of rote learning."| Item type | Current location | Call number | Status | Date due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Books
|
High School - old - to delete | REF SIRS 2005 Institutions Article 4 (Browse shelf) | Available |
Articles Contained in SIRS Enduring Issues 2005.
Originally Published: Historic Battles, Oct. 21, 2003; pp. n.p..
"History teaches dates and facts. Social studies offers context and perspective. Why are the two disciplines so fiercely at odds?...At the core lie two distinct views of education. History advocates insist on a return to traditional instruction, while opponents assert that students need context. What the argument hides is a basic agreement that schools need to do a better job of teaching history. But neither side seems prepared to listen to the other." (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR) The author presents both sides of the history/social studies debate, noting that history advocates see social studies "as too touchy-feely and lacking in rigor" while "those who favor social studies blanch at what they see as an attempt to drive history back into the territory of rote learning."
Records created from non-MARC resource.
There are no comments for this item.