The curriculum in every history course I have ever taken has shared a defining characteristic: chronological order. I am looking forward to breaking with this model when I teach Modern American History at Baruch College this summer.
My course units will be standard, and follow Eric Foner’s popular Give Me Liberty! textbook and companion document reader, Voices of Freedom (special thanks to David Parsons for putting me on to these texts). However, I will present these units backwards relative to the traditional history curriculum.
As described in the course catalogue, this course “surveys United States history from the post-Civil War years to recent times.” My class be starting with recent times. Students’ first reading will be chapter 28 of the textbook (“September 11 and the Next American Century”). The day before the final exam, we’ll finish with the opening chapter (“Reconstruction”).
For over a decade I have aspired to write a history textbook in reverse-chronological order. The introduction and opening chapter would pose a series of questions about present day society. Subsequent chapters would incrementally drop further into the past seeking answers to those questions. I don’t expect that this format would drastically change the content covered. However, it would encourage a different mindset while reading, creating a sense of searching increasingly deeper into the past to uncover the roots of modern problems and success stories. There is nothing in the standard curriculum that prohibits this type of thinking, and good history textbooks frequently queue the reader to draw connections between the present and the past. By the graduate level, all students are expected to give this type of thinking priority, no matter what order the material is presented. But undergraduates (especially those in introductory courses) need practice in developing the skills and background knowledge necessary to read a history textbook critically.
I don’t have time these days to write a textbook, but I do have the opportunity to try out the approach in my classroom. During the opening weeks of my past classes, my lecture on the relevance of history and the importance of reading sources critically is normally followed by a sudden plunge back in time. But not this summer. I made my final decision about the reverse-chronological course design when I was preparing the assignments for the opening classes, requiring students to interpret the meaning of primary documents from the corresponding period. I believe that the survey course should introduce students to historical methods, and the basic strategies for historical inquiry, including critical reading of primary and secondary sources and communication of historical arguments in written, spoken, and visual formats. The first set of documents are correspondence and reports from the late-1860s and 1870s; the last set of documents are memos and emails generated in the last few years on controversial subjects like torture and the “War on Terror.” When teaching students the skill of contextualization and critical reading, it seems natural to begin with the easier materials (learn to ride the bike on a flat surface first, then practice on a hill). The most recent documents are naturally easier to relate to. It takes a lifetime of training to work with documents from the 1870s with the same contextual understanding as documents that appeared in your inbox this morning. Eric Foner is a leading expert on Reconstruction, so the gap between his contextual knowledge of the 1870s and the 2000s is slim. He recognizes and appreciates the contingency of events that transpired over a century ago, as well as their relevance to the present. However, for a student in an introductory course, this is not the case.
I have a similar goal in teaching students to read the textbook. With the reverse-chronological format, the last chapter covers events such as the war in Afghanistan, lending itself well to students’ critical reading. They are less likely to take the text at face-value, and instead question what is included and excluded from the text. The reverse-chronological reading breaks the flow of “the story” reminding students that we are not reading a straight-forward narrative of the past, but rather a guidebook to a more dynamic construction of historical knowledge.
I am not the first person to try out this format, although it does seem to be rarely practiced. The American Historical Association’s monthly publication Perspectives ran an article in 2005 titled “Reinventing the Survey: Pedagogical Strategies for Engagement,” discussing the merits of a few different twists on the survey course, reverse-chronology included. However, it did not go into detail about the success or failure of the experiment. I would love to hear from any of you who have tried anything similar to this, or if you have general ideas or advice on the topic.
Recent Comments