Tôi thì nghĩ, lựa chọn hướng nào cũng được, vì không có điều gì là hoàn hảo. Miễn là mình có lý do chính đáng để lựa chọn. Tuy nhiên tôi thấy lập luận của Hội Sử học khi phản đối việc tích hợp Sử vào môn khác là không hợp lý, không có căn cứ, và hoàn toàn cảm tính. Vì họ bảo, trên thế giới chẳng ai làm thế cả. Làm như vậy là phá nát môn sử.
Đặc biệt, trên báo Công an nhân dân hôm qua 15/11/2015 còn có một bài với cái tựa rất nặng nề, gần như chụp mũ, như thế này: "Tích hợp lịch sử vào môn "công dân với tổ quốc" là tùy tiện và thiếu cơ sở".
Không biết họ dựa vào đâu mà dám phán như thế? Vậy hóa ra các nước phương tây tiên tiến họ đều tùy tiện và thiếu cơ sở đến vậy sao? Nếu chỉ có ta làm đúng, còn các nước tiên tiến làm sai cả, vậy sao học sinh của mình lại ghét môn sử đến thế, nhỉ?
Nếu có ai không tin những gì tôi nói thì hãy vào đây mà đọc này. Chương trình khoa học xã hội tích hợp từ lớp 7 đến lớp 12, bang British Columbia của Canada. Tôi đã đọc lướt qua rồi, và thấy hộ không chỉ tích hợp Sử vào với Địa, mà còn tất cả các môn khoa học xã hội khác - giáo dục công dân, hiểu biết về thế giới, về quyền bình đẳng vv, tất tần tật.
Nhân tiện, xin mời các vị nào lên án Bộ Giáo dục về sự tích hợp thì xem bài này của một thầy giáo dạy môn Sử nhé, viết mới tháng 9/2015 thôi. Bài rất hay đấy.
Why Do Students Hate History?
Some Thoughts on the 'Boring' Social Studies
It starts with the origins of civilization, and it wraps up with a rushed snapshot of today. That's 5,000 years of history.
"So," I asked myself early in my career, "we're supposed to teach everything that's ever happened everywhere on Earth?"
"Right (inject sarcasm)."
It wasn't until my fifth year that I began selecting units to merely touch upon and other units to dive deep into, but in a class based on chronology, that can be difficult for students. I was never much into the European Middle Ages, but I couldn't breeze over it and expect my students to understand why the European Renaissance emerged.
About my seventh year, I began to wonder, "What's this all about? Who cares about DaVinci? Who cares about the Roaring Twenties? Who cares about Sun Tzu? Who cares about any of this history?
What's the point?"
I mean, I care, because I nerd out over it. I'm guessing most historians do. But I'm also guessing many kids don't.
I run into people all the time who say, "I hated history as a kid, but I like it now." They also can't tell me anything about their history class, except for how boring the teacher was, but they can tell me about whatever history interests them today. Why does that happen?
Why do students hate history?
"Why is it boring?" I ask.
Students often answer with something along the lines of, "How is learning about the Treaty of Versailles going to help me in life?"
It makes me question whether the content should be the focus.
What is it about the social studies that's most important to my students?
My answer: strengthening their thinking skills.
I want my students to think. I want them to make reasoned decisions that consider the many variables of an event. I want them to understand a decision's consequences, for the long term as well as the short. I want them to understand how others will be affected by the decision. And I want them to act accordingly.
If my goal is, as the Ohio Department of Education puts it, to "prepare students to be participating citizens," then it seems that I want to challenge students' decisionmaking, and to provide them with the opportunity to take action.
And it makes sense that students can practice those decisionmaking skills with any subject—not a boring one.
Why does history have to be taught through a chronology of topics?
Why do my students have to learn about the fall of Rome or the East India Trading Co.? Maybe one of them would like to focus on elections in Burundi.
Textbooks are often written with brief and incomplete details, blowing through the specifics, kind of like how a teacher who isn't comfortable with the subject matter would teach a topic. This method misses out on the many variables that matter in understanding cause and effect.
Textbooks also tend to dismiss the humanity of the subject—akin to telling a story with no main character.
My students ask questions that show how perceptive they are. They realize that there are gaps in a lesson, or that I've breezed over something. I could run with that awareness, answering the students' questions, fulfilling the so-called "teachable moment," but why not let the students discover the answer on their own?
Unfortunately, our courses aren't designed this way. They are not à la carte. The menu is set, and the dishes are going to come out in the same order every time. And because the structure is already set, a student looks at her text and thinks: "Oh, well, that question isn't in here, so it won't be on the test, so let's just move this along. What's on the next page, I wonder? Oh, vulcanization. How awfully exhilarating."
I could construct a lesson that leaves a gap open for all of my students to practice inquiry skills and develop a conclusion, which I do. But might there be other options that attract the students—that allow them to decide what they like, instead of giving me that choice?
Why not let each student decide what gap he or she wants to research and solve, instead of demanding that all students have a similar learning experience with the same topic?
Rather than a standardized chronology of events, why not choose one topic to dive deep into for the semester, allowing the students to really tear the topic apart, providing them with the necessary details to make valid arguments?
If one topic per semester sounds a little extreme, try four topics during the course of a semester. The point is that fewer topics, with a concentration on depth, will allow the richness of the history to attract the students.
As history classes are currently designed, time is a huge issue. "How am I supposed to get through 5,000 years of history?"
Teachers are deeply and constantly concerned with time, and for good reason.
"I can't spend any more time on the Korean War because I have to be to Watergate by next week, and I still have to cover the civil rights movement to adequately prepare my students for the test."
What hogwash. All the students need in order to practice their social studies skills is one of those topics. They are all fascinating. Let's choose one.
A semester could be based on the themes Inquiry, Analysis, and Solutions, and teachers could let those concepts guide the course, instead of the label Western Civilization. A course that focuses on methods could choose five interesting and unrelated events or people to study in depth.
Social studies is just that: studying society. We love to try to build equations about how society and the people within it will act. Economics tries to predict these trends all the time, but there really is no way to predict with any consistency what a person will do. Because there is a level of uncertainty about human behavior, we try to categorize it and make sense of it. We attach names to eras and titles to chapters, and we stick it in a book, and we call it history.
"Here is what happened in the past," we say. "Phew, we got that figured out."
And then a student asks a question: "Why is the U.S. prison population so high?"
And then we're like, "Oh, that's not on the test, let's get back to the timeline" and the kid's curiosity is shattered, and they're like, "History's boring."