ERIC Identifier: ED309134 Publication Date: 1989-09-00
Author: Woyach, Robert B. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Social Studies/Social Science Education Bloomington IN.
World History in the Secondary School Curriculum. ERIC Digest.
Since 1980 an increasing number of state and local education agencies have
reintroduced a world history requirement into their secondary curricula. These
mandates have raised important questions about the nature of such a course and
its role in the curriculum. This ERIC Digest looks at some of the key questions
in the debate over world history. It examines (1) the background for issues of
curriculum reform in world history, (2) the choice between Western and "world"
history, (3) the trend toward social history, (4) the viability of the
traditional historical survey, and (5) the issue of whether world history should
be taught over more than one year.
WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND TO CURRENT DEBATES ABOUT CURRICULUM REFORM IN WORLD HISTORY? In 1963, world history was the second most commonly taken
high school social studies course. Although called "world" history, the course
dealt almost exclusively with Western political history, typically a
chronological survey of the actions and contributions of great men.
By the mid-1970s world history had fallen from favor. Most states and local
school districts had dropped this decades-old requirement to give students
greater academic freedom. Many schools offered alternative "world studies"
courses, usually based on cultural geography.
The standard world history course also changed. By the end of the decade more
attention was being given to social history and the non-Western world. As a
result the threads of the old political survey were frayed. The course seemed to
be a mishmash of conflicting goals and unrelated content.
The movement toward academic rigor in the early 1980s gave new impetus to
world history. The easiest way for most schools to respond to outside pressure
was to re-establish the world history requirement. Today states as diverse as
Kentucky, New Jersey, Arkansas, and Oregon have some kind of tenth-grade world
studies requirement. But the shape of that course differs greatly from one place
to another. The once uniform image of "world history" no longer exists.
The current confusion about world history courses reflects conflicting
beliefs about the kind of history we should teach. The debate focuses on the
place of non-Western history, the importance of social history, and the value of
the continuous, chronological survey.
SHOULD TEACHERS EMPHASIZE THE HISTORY OF THE WEST OR OF THE WORLD? The world history that emerged during the 1970s was not a "world" history at all. It was a poorly integrated amalgam of regional histories fitted
uncomfortably into the chronology of the West. As a result, the added material
exacerbated age-old problems of coverage. By the mid-1980s, many observers
recognized the need for a better conceptualization (Alder and Downey 1985).
In part because of the lack of an agreed-upon, integrated view of "world"
history, there has been a renewed support for the teaching of Western
civilization in recent years. The appeal of the Western civilization approach
lies in its familiarity. The majority of American political and social
institutions also find their origins in the Western experience (Gordon 1989;
Gagnon 1987). Some curriculum reformers have gone further, arguing that students
must know their own culture before they can appreciate other cultures.
On the other side are those who argue that a changing world requires that
students have a broader experience than the Western civilization course can
provide. We live in a world no longer dominated by the West. Increased
immigration from Asia and Latin America has added new sources of diversity to
culture in the United States. To the extent that the study of Western
civilization encourages a narrow ethnocentrism, it may prove dysfunctional in
preparing students for life in the future.
The debate over Western versus world history may have become overly
polarized. Historian Michael Gordon argues that Western history must be seen in
the context of world history. For better or worse, the West has given impetus to
the modern world. Thus Western history must play a central role in any
meaningful approach to modern world history.
SHOULD SOCIAL OR POLITICAL HISTORY BE EMPHASIZED IN THE CURRICULUM? The addition of material on women, minorities, and
non-governmental affairs during the 1970s fit a general movement to make world
history more relevant. It also coincided with the trend toward social history.
New historical studies looked at the role of women in the Middle Ages and the
French Revolution. The industrial and scientific revolutions became as, or more,
important a focus for study as the political revolutions, wars, and alliances of
the old political history.
While social history may have made world history more relevant, it also has
made it more complex. Paul Gagnon (1987) notes that the trend toward social
history threatens a key goal of the course: to help students appreciate the
struggle for democracy. As the goals of world history multiply, the ability of
the course to address any one of them adequately declines.
Gagnon's point is well taken, especially given the general importance of
citizenship education in American schooling. At the same time, the distinction
between social and political history may be overdrawn. Political history has
traditionally been defined in terms of the progression of dynasties and regimes,
wars, and the policies of governments. However, true political history cannot be
bounded in this way. The rise of democracy--the democratic revolution in broad
terms--is not simply the story of governmental institutions, laws, and
documents. It is the story of ideas, and of institutions such as slavery. It
encompasses workers' rights, civil rights, and women's rights--fought not only
in the governmental arena but in the social and economic arenas as well.
Likewise, the key processes of political history play themselves out in
societies as a whole. The French Revolution, for example, can be looked at from
the perspective of kings and conventions. It can also be looked at from the
viewpoint of common people. In both cases, the lessons can be the same, but the
latter perspective may be more meaningful to students.
SHOULD WORLD HISTORY TEACHERS USE THE SURVEY APPROACH? History is
traditionally equated with the continuous chronological survey. Matthew T.
Downey (1985, 11) summarizes the typical viewpoint:
The people and events of the past can only be understood when viewed within the larger context in which they existed. That is not possible when historical events or topics are isolated and extracted from the web of historic time to serve some other curricular purpose. The value of history also depends upon the chronological presentation of events through time. It is only through a chronological survey that students can begin to understand the process of social and cultural change, which is one of the principal purposes of history.
Actually chronology operates at different levels in history. The different
levels can be thought of in terms of a complex chain. At the most basic level,
the chain is made up of links, each of which is a distinct "story." Many links,
hooked together, constitute strands that are "stories" in their own right. The
rise of democratic institutions is one such strand. These strands, twisted
together, make up a still larger story--the story of world history.
Ideally, in a survey course, students understand the links, the strands, and
the chain as a whole. It is only in seeing the strands and the chain that
students really see the "process of social and cultural change." Unfortunately,
research on historical learning raises serious questions about our ability to
achieve this ideal. Because of the emphasis on coverage and memorization that
survey courses encourage, real historical thinking skills are generally not
taught (Downey and Levstik 1988). The larger stories that give meaning to
history also tend to be neglected.
World history can be taught both discontinuously and chronologically. Reilly
(1989) outlines one approach to a discontinuous history survey. Similarly, some
major elements of a chronological survey (e.g., the urban revolution, the Age of
Rome, the Industrial Revolution) could be treated thematically, but in
chronological order. Such a course would not pretend to tell all of "world
history" but may well achieve the ideal: a more than superficial understanding
of some of the major turning points of the past.
SHOULD WORLD HISTORY BE TAUGHT IN A SINGLE YEAR? In recent years, major
recommendations for history reform have called for the teaching of world history
over more than one year. The Bradley Commission (1988) outlined four possible
sequences for world history, each involving at least two years of instruction.
In their assessment of history learning, Ravitch and Finn (1987) point to the
new California Social Studies Framework, which mandates world history at the
sixth, seventh, and tenth grades.
Teaching world history over multiple years is an ideal, but it may be
difficult to implement. The California framework is based on assumptions about
the capacities of sixth- and seventh-grade students to retain a knowledge of
ancient and medieval history to provide a basis for learning modern history in
the tenth grade. Most of the Bradley Commission's suggestions, alternatively,
place world history (or a combination of world and Western history) in ninth and
tenth grade. Here the major question is whether schools, faced with budgetary
constraints, will implement a two-year history sequence, or simply break world
history into a multi-course sequence and require students to take one course.
The latter option would hardly achieve the historical survey presumed to be
A multi-year world history sequence will soon become as full and as
frustrating as a single-year course, if it is taught with the same emphasis on
facts and coverage. In short, no matter the time devoted to world history, we
cannot escape the question of what kind of history to teach and what priorities
to have in selecting and treating content.
The following list of
resources includes references used to prepare this Digest. The items followed by
an ED number are in the ERIC system and are available in microfiche and paper
copies from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For information about
prices, contact EDRS, 3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304; telephone
numbers are 703-823-0500 and 800-227-3742. Entries followed by an EJ number are
annotated monthly in CIJE (CURRENT INDEX TO JOURNALS IN EDUCATION), which is
available in most libraries. EJ documents are not available through EDRS;
however, they can be located in the journal section of most libraries by using
the bibliographic information provided below.
Alder, Douglas D., and Matthew T.
Downey. "Problem Areas in the History Curriculum." In HISTORY IN THE SCHOOL, Matthew T. Downey, ed. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1985. ED 254 477.
Bradley Commission on History in Schools.
BUILDING A HISTORY CURRICULUM: GUIDELINES FOR TEACHING HISTORY IN SCHOOLS. Washington, DC: Educational Excellence Network, 1988. ED number will be assigned.
Downey, Matthew T., and Linda S. Levstik. "Teaching
and Learning History: The Research Base." SOCIAL EDUCATION (September 1988): 336-342. EJ 378 161.
Downey, Matthew T. "The Status of History in the
Schools." In HISTORY IN THE SCHOOLS, Matthew T. Downey, ed. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1985. ED 254 477.
Gagnon, Paul. DEMOCRACY'S UNTOLD STORY: WHAT WORLD HISTORY TEXTBOOKS NEGLECT. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, 1987. ED 357 591.
Gordon, Michael, "A Western Civilization
Approach." In APPROACHES TO WORLD STUDIES: A HANDBOOK FOR
CURRICULUM PLANNERS, Robert B. Woyach and Richard C. Remy, eds. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989: 61-93.
Ravitch, Diane, and Chester E. Finn,
Jr. WHAT DO OUR 17-YEAR-OLDS KNOW?: A REPORT ON THE FIRST NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF HISTORY AND LITERATURE. New York: Harper and Row, 1987.
Reilly, Kevin, "A
World History Approach." In APPROACHES TO WORLD STUDIES: A HANDBOOK FOR CURRICULUM PLANNERS, Robert B. Woyach and Richard C. Remy, eds. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989: 19-59.
Woyach, Robert B., and Richard C. Remy. "Strengthening
World Studies: The Challenge of Conceptualization." SOCIAL EDUCATION 52 (November/December 1988): 484-488. EJ 382 954.
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.