History has a bad reputation among most college students. Small wonder since most of them were subjected to several years of it (poorly taught) in elementary and high school. Sadly, history for many, if not most, Americans is synonymous with memorization of names, dates, battles, and other mounds of factual information.
I am not a historian because I crave trivia about the past. For those who do, that's fine. But the usefulness of studying the past in a systematic, disciplined way is not primarily to prepare ourselves to be good contestants on "Jeopardy" or "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," or even so you can win the history pieces of pie in Trivial Pursuit. That can be fun, but it is hardly worth building a career around.
So why am I a historian? First and foremost, I like it. One should choose a major in college based on this criteria: What do you like the most? Then one should find a career that allows one to do what one likes. For me, that is history. I do not know why, anymore than Professor Z in the biology department knows why she likes biology. Another reason that I am a historian is my belief that the past is endlessly fascinating and worth knowing. Everything and everyone has a history; it is one aspect of life that binds all humanity together. In studying my own past and the pasts of others, I am better able to understand myself. A third reason is that I believe I am good at doing history and that I have significant contributions to make to our understanding of the past. And finally, I am a teaching historian because I like sharing the past with students and trying to overcome their misconceptions about what history is.
No matter what course or level, we will focus on doing history. Some people do not normally think of history as an activity, as something that one does. But as time passes, I grow more and more convinced that doing history is the best way to learn history. For this reason I have become involved in the experiential learning program (EXL) at MTSU, and I have allowed more of my public history training in oral history, for instance, to make its way into my classes. Other historians have other ideas about teaching and learning, so do not be surprised if other history classes you take reflect different philosophies than mine. I know, after nearly fifteen years of teaching, what works best for me and my students, and this is what I describe in the paragraphs that follow.
All historians agree that good history is impossible if it is poorly written. I probably emphasize writing skills more than some others in my department, mostly because I have had training in editing and believe that writing and other good communication skills are those that history can teach especially well. Doing history well, therefore, not only involves sharp critical reading and analytical skills but also superior writing and speaking ability. Thus, we read, write, and talk a lot in my classes.
At the survey level (HIST 2010 and 2020), I suspect that you will find my course unlike any other history course you have ever taken. For one thing, we will not be plodding through a 600-page, expensive (and need I say boring?) textbook. Instead, we will read different kinds of historical literature, such as original documents, novels, essays, and short books about a particular topic. We will also watch and analyze quite a few films (documentaries as well as Hollywood fiction). Learning to analyze these types of historical works is a more useful skill, I believe, than understanding textbooks. You are more likely to watch films and read novels than you are to pick up a textbook after you graduate from college.
Another difference you will notice is that I do not give exams. Americans are testing themselves to death, and I have decided that exams, even essay exams, only confirm the idea that history is about memorization. The life skill that I would rather promote is good, clear, argumentative writing. This is why you will write a good deal in my courses, sometimes a paragraph response to a film, sometimes a three-page essay about a book, and sometimes an even longer course essay in which you address the overall questions that the course explores.
You may also notice that we spend a good deal of time learning how to be historians. There are particular skills that historians must have to analyze the past, and many of these skills are useful in other areas of life. So, while we learn about the events of American history, we also learn the craft of being a historian. (It is not as complicated as it sounds; most students have just never been asked to think about these issues before.)
Finally, at the survey level, you will notice that most class periods are built around discussion. There are times when I lecture, because there is information that you will need to tie other course materials together. But most days we will be working in small groups and as a class to discuss readings, films, songs, and whatever else comes up so that YOU can decide what to believe about the American past.
At the upper-division level (3000- and 4000-level courses), you should expect much the same as at the survey level. A variety of readings, some films, and essays instead of examinations. We will read more primary documents and spend more time analyzing them. We will write longer essays because we will be exploring issues in more depth. And we will spend most class days in discussion. I lecture even less in upper-division courses.
The upper-division courses that I teach usually reflect my understanding of colonial American history as essentially the meeting of American, African, and European people in the Americas and the big issues and rather momentous outcomes of these cultural interactions. There are other issues, of course, but I find these secondary. In my Salem witchcraft class, for instance, the focus is on the colonists' society and religion, but I also take into account more than most historians would the African and Indian people involved in the witch scare of 1692. Take a look at my syllabi elsewhere on my web page for more details about the topics and readings I use in these courses.
At the graduate level, I realize that most students in my courses are not going to specialize in the colonial period. Keeping this in mind, I hope that my graduate seminar, for instance, exposes students to the major themes of the period and a few of the ways in which historians are currently addressing those themes. I also downplay the distinction between history and public history, since I believe all good historians should be aware of how the public perceives the past and how historians and other professionals are challenged to teach the public (whether students in a classroom or visitors to a historic site or museum) about the past. The skills I emphasize at the graduate level are sophisticated interpretation and critical writing. We spend most of the time in class discussing primary and secondary sources. Most of the grade comes from a variety of written work.
I hope you will find this philosophy of history, and particularly of the teaching of history, useful and that you will decide to join me in one or more of my classes.
Copyright and all rights reserved
Updated 10/4/2007