World History Teaching and Public Education

Expanding Knowledge In World History

By Susan L. Douglass  - November 23, 1998

As a result of several centuries of global contact and advancing higher education worldwide, research has vastly increased our understanding of world history. Countless new sources of evidence and methodologies for interpreting it have been discovered, involving every historical discipline and tradition. A remarkable set of techniques contribute to historical knowledge—everything from the textual analysis used by our medieval forefathers to futuristic genetic sciences, microbiology, satellite imaging, and even Antarctic ice cores. It is ironic and fascinating that such grand efforts have probably contributed most to learning about ordinary people’s lives long ago, adding a whole new dimension to the traditional history narrative.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of the last half century has been the effort to synthesize historical knowledge by integrating the disciplines through which it is gathered, and by re-evaluating the theoretical and cultural frameworks within which it is understood. The global sweep of research continues to fill out detailed pictures of individual societies over time, while cross-cultural studies reveal larger patterns and relationships among them. The effort by many historians to reconcile the limitations imposed by an internal cultural perspective with the requirements of a global view of human history has spilled over into the debate about history education in US public schools.

The Information Revolution has made a remarkable amount of this scholarly research and discourse available to the public. The rapid dissemination of information is an important educational trend in itself, creating increased awareness of new discoveries and ideas. Scholarship that once circulated among a tiny group of specialists can now be accessed for use in home or classroom. The impact of this innovation promises to change the very nature of instructional material and the way it is used in learning.

The knowledge explosion presents an enormous challenge to K-12 education, and has polarized opinion over how much of this material can and should be taught. Calls to expand world history curriculum often meet with the protest that new topics and multiple interpretations are too much for youngsters to digest. Critics warn that world history curriculum is in danger of becoming so overstuffed with trivia that students will lose sight of important themes and significant milestones, particularly those related to European history. The solution, some suggest, is to limit world history survey courses to a set of agreed topics and issues, structured around a core narrative which traces Western civilization’s development, with the addition of several cultures and civilizations of Asia, Africa and the Americas. Advocates believe that such programs should emphasize issues in Western history and cultural values as a means for developing common civic and intellectual discourse among US citizens and bridging our national diversity. While advocates of this model do not insist on exclusive coverage of Western civilization, they argue that limited world history class time should be utilized for in-depth study of historical issues affecting the Western heritage, rather than risky enterprises that offer a less focused view of history.

Other educators assert that students can learn, and indeed may be more willing to learn from world history courses which offer a global view, incorporate a great deal of recent scholarship, and emphasize research and analytical skills to investigate the past. They assert that many teachers have the interest, motivation and ability to teach such innovative world history surveys. Advocates of high standards in world history on all sides of the discussion agree that history teaching should not be an exercise in memorizing facts, chronologies, and important biographies. There is a consensus that much of the value in world history teaching lies in providing material for analysis. There is likewise general agreement that coverage of European history should be thorough, with disagreement over the balance with other topics.

The major point of difference is over the structure of the world history survey. Critics of the traditional model of world history education argue that the core narrative of Western civilization and its appendages does not provide a coherent framework for understanding world history as a whole. They favor an educational approach that is founded upon work by world historians during the past half-century, among whom are respected Western scholars. They have proposed a model in which world history courses are structured around a simple framework reminiscent of the two axes of a graph. The horizontal axis represents global coverage, and the vertical axis chronology. World history is periodized into several eras (7-9), each representing a stage of development. The history course moves through the syllabus or standards by means of units of study based on each era. For each unit/era, students gain an overview of historical events, important figures, and cultures for each region of the globe about which there is significant information. As part of their study of each era, students learn about events and interactions among regions that resulted in technological, military, intellectual, religious or economic transfers and influences. They become aware of long-term historical processes that affected one or more region or society; they compare and contrast contemporary groups, themes and concepts. As they progress through the course, they become aware of shifting regional, temporal and cultural patterns. Advocates note that structuring historical material under this model allows better integration of geography, in terms of local conditions and larger patterns. Because chronological flow and global coverage go hand in hand, students are more readily able to grasp connections, understand change, and make comparisons than when they study individual civilizations sequentially under the traditional course structure. Cultures do not, in the perception of students, abruptly appear and disappear as they seem to in traditional courses. Instead, once a culture is introduced, it is followed through each subsequent era until the end of the course, or the point at which it actually disappeared.

In reply to the critique that such a large-scale study is too diffuse, and fails to give sufficient emphasis to Western historical content, advocates of the new model argue that in any given era, significant regions, civilizations or events can be emphasized in detail. All elements of the traditional Western history narrative receive major emphasis in every era, especially the pre-modern and modern eras. They would argue that Western history, far from being obscured or pushed aside in a hail of obscure details, becomes more comprehensible in the context of regional and global interactions in which Europeans participated.