Why Do High School History Teachers Lecture So Much?
by Grant Wiggins, Authentic Education
Ed note: On May 26, 2015, Grant Wiggins passed away. Grant was tremendously influential on TeachThought’s approach to education, and we were lucky enough for him to contribute his content to our site. Occasionally, we are going to go back and re-share his most memorable posts. This is one of those posts. Thankfully his company, Authentic Education, is carrying on and extending the work that Grant developed.
Why do high school teachers lecture so much?
Almost every high school I go to I see teachers talking and kids listening (or not) more in History than any other course.
And you needn’t take my anecdotal word for it. For the past year, students taking our survey have been asked to respond to questions about use of time in class. Here are the results for HS students (the “skipped” vs “answered” number refers to prior years when the question was not asked; this reflects all HS students from this school year, with no filtering out of answers):
So, half of HS teachers lecture at least 3/4 of the period regularly – some all period.
We also asked students what they think the ideal amount of lecturing is. Interestingly, below is not only the aggregate data, this is almost a universal answer across each school – there is practically no range on the answer to this question:
My question is basic, history teachers. Given that most history textbooks are comprehensive and reasonably well-written, why do you feel the need to talk so much? Your colleagues in science and English, for example, do not feel the same urge.
And please don’t tell me there is ‘so much to cover’ – that is silly. You are paid to cause understanding, not on how many words you speak. And don’t tell me you can’t do projects and simulations. My old friend and former colleague Mark Williams has prepared kids for AP for decades by doing cool simulations and performance challenges (e.g. Silk Road trading game plus debrief, editorial team decision on how to eulogize Sam Colt, etc.). The best teacher I have ever seen at the HS level, Leon Berkowitz at Portland HS years ago, organized his entire history course using the Steve Allen Meeting of Minds format.
Furthermore, most history programs have mission/goal statements that identify skills, performance abilities, and critical thinking that should be highlighted. (And the new AP framework which also does so is based on UbD.) That requires coaching kids to do things.
I can only see two good reasons for lecturing at length, sometimes, in history:
1. You have done original research that isn’t written down in a book
2. You have rich and interesting knowledge based on research that can overcome confusions and missing elements in the current course.
I am NOT saying “Don’t Lecture.” I am wondering why you do it so much, more than I think reasonably is necessary to achieve your goals. (You might want to read the research on lectures while you’re at it, especially the forgetting and disengagement that comes after 20 minutes for college learners, never mind HS kids).
What am I missing? Or: what might you do differently for 3/4 of the period, to engage and equip students? I think any reasonable job description of “teacher” demands that you rethink this habit.
PS: A number of tweets and a few comments below cite the reason as: “Kids can’t/won’t read the text.” But then that is a more serious problem than you lecturing all the time: they will be utterly unprepared for college at any level. Why isn’t this treated as a departmental priority? Why aren’t you looking for better books? Why aren’t you proving them with better incentives to read (e.g. necessary for simulations, debates, and Seminars)?
PPS: David McCullough on the 5 important things to learn in US history.
Here is a typical lecture, found on YouTube in a search on HS History Class Lecture. Is this the best use of class time?
PPPS: In response to a query: the data for just MS students:
This post first appeared on Grant’s personal blog; Grant can be found on twitter here; Why Do High School Teachers Lecture So Much? image attribution flickr user mikewillis
I would be interested in the question, “how often do you complete textbook reading that is assigned to you”. I’m guessing for most of the student population it is a very low number. As a history teacher a majority of my students do not read the textbook. Since their tests, and the district test that is given and I’m evaluated on is based on the textbook, I am forced to lecture when I wish I didn’t have to. No time for cool projects when you have 2-4 standardized tests that you are giving through out the quarter!
You know what would be nice? If people who aren’t experts in a field would quit telling people who are experts in a field how to do their jobs.
Nice job. There’s no better way to get the data than from the students themselves.
Many students cannot interest in this subject. that why they feel feel too much.
I love telling stories! I guess I just feel that students will have a better chance of remembering History if I tell it like a story. I might be wrong…
I have found that my student’s attention span is about equivalent to their age. So for my Freshman, Every 15 minutes or so I switch to a new activity in the lesson.
I think that is alright for History teacher to tell the story in order to create the interest of students, BUT…probably teacher should not finish the story but let the students to do their own research and to finish the second half.
I think the article is academically sloppy and highly polemical. I expect more reasoned and nuanced analysis and arguments from my high school students. Has any analysis of the data been carried out – by grade, region, type of school and syllabus, for example? How were the respondents selected? How was the following conclusion derived from the data? “So, half of HS teachers lecture at least 3/4 of the period regularly – some all period.” It doesn’t say history teachers here, but high school teachers. Is there a peer-reviewed paper on this?
This article is fucking amazing.
So what would you recommend as solutions to lecturing, then? This just seems to be a troll article.
Instead of this article, why don’t you get Leon Berkowitz from Portland to write out a day-by-day plan for all History teachers. This article does nothing to help.
This entire website is crammed with alternative activities to lecturing. But if you are not interested in reading through it, here are some ideas – discussion, inquiry and investigation, role play, make a memory box and have students research the contents, have the students make a memory box, read primary sources, debates, practice local history, go to a local archive, do oral histories… I always hated being lectured to, especially by people who were merely one chapter in the textbook ahead of me. I have a graduate degree in history +30 and I am more aware than ever of where… Read more »
Here’s an article I just wrote on the same idea….like you… I understood that lecture has it’s place…but …is not all inclusive…. One of the greatest experiences I have had in teaching World History is to create a blended-learning class that is based on using technology with thematic learning, in-class activities, and world projects. When students can physically and intellectually wrap themselves around a subject doing real-world and simulated activities it helps them take their learning a mile deep. The use of technology to do blended thematic learning is a great example of this type of teaching. To do this… Read more »
I agree. History is a class where you only need to copy the book to your head and paste it on the test to get an average degree. There is nothing anyone really need help with when it comes to history, because there are nothing to not understand. Some might need help to understand math, but there is noone who won’t understand why WW2 ended, because it is straight up in the book. But to get a better degree, you have to reflect, discuss and compare, so that is what a history teacher should focus on. Not reading the book… Read more »