I. AP U.S. HISTORY PAST AND PRESENT
Approximately 500,000 students take the AP U.S. History (or APUSH) exam each year.[1] The purpose of the exam is to give high-school students who have displayed a sophisticated level of knowledge in the subject the opportunity to earn college credit. For many years, however, teachers of APUSH complained about the wide-open style of the exam and the course’s framework. According to Trevor Packer, head of the College Board’s Advanced Placement Program, many teachers found it hard to resist the temptation of filling students’ head with every stray fact out of fear that it would be on the test. In response, Packer decided to initiate a review process of the exam and course guidelines with what he described as “an incredibly expensive and exhaustive effort that any business analyst would have deemed insane given the steady, healthy annual growth in AP participation.”[2]
A team of college professors and AP teachers developed the new APUSH approach through a collaborative process that lasted almost a decade. As Dr. Fred Anderson, professor of history at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a member of the AP U.S. History Redesign Commission from 2006-2007, put it, the original goal was to “determine whether those high-school students who took AP U.S. History courses really were receiving instruction equivalent to lower-division history survey courses offered in university and college settings.” In short, Anderson and his colleagues determined that APUSH needed to be overhauled to accurately reflect the current practices in the teaching of history at the college level.[3] By the end of the exhaustive effort, professional historians working in secondary and postsecondary education had produced a 54-page concept outline to provide teachers with information about the topics and themes to be covered on the new exam. As well, Packer commissioned a survey of 458 teachers and professors to ascertain if the new approach was politically balanced; 98 percent responded that it was. The College Board’s Advanced Placement Program released the changes in 2012 so that teachers would have plenty of time to prepare the new framework, which the College Board introduced in all classes this fall. Students will take the revamped exam this May.[4]
While the old APUSH framework encouraged the memorization of a massive number of facts, the new approach prioritizes deep analytical thinking. The redesigned exam, for example, requires students to interpret primary source documents, analyze historical arguments, and evaluate evidence. On this point, every question of the multiple-choice section relates to a piece of text, a map, or an artifact. In addition, the exam contains four new short-answer questions. Even though the exam still includes a document-based essay, there is now only one long essay. As well, the new APUSH course guidelines stresses three different learning objectives: themes, key concepts, and historical thinking skills. In the words of educator Brenda Santos, “The beauty of the new APUSH framework is its synergy with emerging research on building deep, lasting understanding in students and how it sets them up to apply this understanding with agility.” The updated guidelines require students to consider patterns of continuity and change, periodization, contextualization, and historical argumentation.[5] Thus, the new approach pushes students to make the facts and themes meaningful by developing their own positions on historical topics.
II. THE CONTROVERSY
Yet, the release of the new approach has unleashed a wave of intense opposition. This past August, for example, the Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution criticizing the new framework as “a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.” The RNC has also called for a congressional investigation into the development of the new APUSH approach.[6] That same month, Peter Wood, an anthropologist, claimed that the new guidelines portrays the history of the United States as a story of “expropriation, imposed suffering, forced labor, exploitation, environmental heedlessness, class oppression, racism, sexism, and the rule of the privileged few over everyone else.”[7] A month later, Ben Carson, a potential GOP presidential candidate and a famed pediatric neurosurgeon, suggested at a summit for the Center for Security Policy that the new exam would encourage students to “sign up for ISIS.”[8] Two conservative groups, American Principles in Action and the Concerned Women for America, have also joined the chorus of criticism; they recently sent a letter to the College Board demanding the implementation of the new approach be delayed. In all, for the critics, the redesigned APUSH course ultimately ignores what they understand to be the exceptional achievements of America’s founders and the country’s unique mission to spread democracy and new technologies across the globe.[9]
Despite the fury of opposition, several professional historical organizations have come out in support of the new approach, including, the National Coalition for History (NCH), the Organization of American Historians (OAH), the National Council for History Education (NCHE), and the American Historical Association (AHA).[10] Many supporters have responded to the criticism by explaining that APUSH was restructured to move away from the previous emphasis on the memorization of facts to allow teachers greater flexibility in designing their AP courses. The College Board even went so far as to release the fall 2014-practice exam to show opponents that the test would not ignore traditionally important historical actors, such as the Founding Fathers.[11] College Board President David Coleman also issued a public letter rejecting the criticism. In the letter, Coleman noted that those involved in the redesign process had not intended the new framework to be a full curriculum; rather, they envisioned it as an outline for teachers to use when constructing their own lesson plans.[12] As well, in an article for History News Network, Anderson of the AP U.S. History Redesign Commission made clear that he and his colleagues did not recommend listing essential historical figures or detailing individual events in the new framework, because they assumed that “experienced history teachers would undoubtedly be familiar with those already.” They instead decided to focus their attention on defining the underlying themes and concepts that would form the organizational foundation of the course. As he concluded, “We never intended to prescribe coverage beyond the conceptual level because we believed that individual teachers should be free to construct syllabi suited to their own teaching styles and preferences, and to their students’ needs.”[13] In sum, supporters have claimed that while the older framework promoted a textbook driven teaching method that persuaded instructors to focus on test-prep memorization techniques, the newer approach offers teachers the space to develop an instructional style that encourages deeper conceptual engagement.
Further still, backers have also argued that the APUSH changes provide a better reflection of recent developments in historical scholarship and the overall nature of historical work. In its statement of support, for instance, the NCH declared: “Disagreement over the interpretation of history is inevitable and healthy. History is, by its very nature, evolving. Thanks to the energetic work of historians exploring archives and engaging in a process of discovery, we are enriching our understanding of the past and our recognition of the significance of our predecessors.”[14] Similarly, in an article for Perspectives, historian and executive director of the AHA, James Grossman contended that the substance of the criticism primarily stems from a misunderstanding of historical revisionism. On the necessity of academic revisionism, for example, Grossman noted that most people would feel reluctant to use a surgeon who did not read revisionist medical literature. As Grossman put it, “Much of what we do in life requires a willingness to reconsider our narratives, our understanding based on new evidence, and new ways of thinking.”[15] As these statements suggest, the nature of historical work is more complex than just acquiring an abundance of facts; on the contrary, it involves a thoughtful investigation into the past that recognizes the importance of interpretation.
III. HISTORICAL THINKING AND TEACHING HISTORY
As a whole, historical work engages a deeper level of thinking. Historical thinking, a skill that is central to the new APUSH approach, avoids the methodological style of “official history,” or the notion that the study of history should be the act of remembering a single, monolithic view of the past. Historical thinking also seeks to find a balance between the extremes of celebratory and cynical history, since it requires its practitioners to move beyond simple conceptual narratives that merely chronicle the stories of past heroes and villains. So, what exactly is historical thinking? Simply put, such thinking entails a process of understanding the past in terms of its own values, perspectives, and context. Moreover, it makes us reflect upon how past trends, events, and experiences might challenge what we consider natural or timeless conceptual categories. Historical thinking, then, is the antidote to self-centeredness, as it requires a constant reflection on one’s own worldview. Hence, this level of conceptual engagement encourages us not only to form productive questions about historical topics, but also to develop well-informed interpretations of the past.[16]
Many history teachers, however, realize that they cannot let their students walk blindly into the world of historical interpretation. Indeed, teaching history is a fine art that entails its practitioner to emphasize both historical information and historical thinking. Certainly, as the focus on historical thinking in the new APUSH approach indicates, the cultivation of deeper reasoning skills is a vital part of the history classroom. As educator Brenda Santos has argued, “knowledge without the practice of deep, independent historical analysis is shallow and short-lived.” But, many teachers also recognize that their students need to first acquire knowledge about the historical record in order to take the next step—learning how to think historically.[17]
Thus, most history teachers seek to apply an instructional method that balances the need to learn information about the past and advance analytical skills. Santos, for example, uses an approach that she calls the “loop.” She begins her lessons with an important historical question; such as, how can we understand the causes of the Cold War? She carefully constructs these questions so that they give students access to the range of issues at play with regard to a specific topic. She then lectures on the topic to help students learn the requisite historical information. As she has described it, the next part of the loop is the “main event,” since it requires students to utilize their historical thinking skills. During this segment, her students engage in a classroom discussion of the topic, particularly as it relates to the original question. Afterwards, she asks her students to write a response to the question to help them develop their own historical positions.[18] Others use a teaching style that employs multiple source materials, (such as primary source documents, maps, graphs, narrative secondary sources, and scholarly works), to let students examine particular issues within a larger framework while avoiding indoctrination and reductionism.[19] Through such balanced teaching methods educators are able to ensure that their students can do three things: identify important concepts and themes; make the details significant by reaching insightful conclusions; and organize information effectively to communicate a position.
IV. CONCLUSION
Critics have depicted the new APUSH approach as some sort of conspiracy to impose a radical interpretation of American history onto thousands of unsuspecting high-school students. In contrast, its advocates have insisted that the new framework helps students not only to unpack the various ways scholars have come to know and represent the past, but also to build the critical skills that are necessary for historical comprehension and analysis. Moreover, as this post has discussed, the redesigned course gives teachers the opportunity to develop an instructional style that promotes both the learning of historical information and the development of historical thinking. Most importantly, it encourages students to gain autonomy as thinking individuals and citizens. In this manner, then, the new APSUH approach more accurately reflects the nature of historical work, as it challenges students to become interpreters of history, and not simply consumers of it.
~ Rebecca DeWolf, PhD
[1] James Grossman, “The ‘Proper study of History’: What the Public Thinks About Historical Thinking,” Perspectives 52, no. 7 (October 2014): 7-8.
[2] Jay Matthews, “AP US History Change is Not Unpatriotic,” Washington Post, 12October 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ap-us-history-change-is-not-unpatriotic-it-makes-the-exam-less-stressful-for-students/2014/10/12/3b728e1a-4f74-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html (accessed 28 October 2014).
[3] Fred Anderson, “A Rejoinder to Critics of the New AP Course in History,” History News Network, 29 August 2014, http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156769 (accessed 28 October 2014).
[4] Jay Matthews, “AP US History Change is Not Unpatriotic,” Washington Post, 12October 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ap-us-history-change-is-not-unpatriotic-it-makes-the-exam-less-stressful-for-students/2014/10/12/3b728e1a-4f74-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html (accessed 28 October 2014).
[5] Brenda Santos, “Embracing the Challenge of the New AP History Exam,” Perspectives 52, no. 6 (September 2014): 42-43.
[6] Lee White, “Historical Organizations React to AP US History Debate,” Perspectives 52, no. 7 (October 2014): 14-15; Valerie Strauss, “Ben Carson: New AP US History Course Will Make Kids Want to ‘Sign up for ISIS,” Washington Post, 29 September 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/29/ben-carson-new-ap-u-s-history-course-will-make-kids-want-to-sign-up-for-isis/
[7] Peter Wood, “Pushing American History as a Long Tale of Oppression,” Minding the Campus, 19 August 2014, http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2014/08/pushing-american-history-as-a-long-tale-of-oppression/ (accessed 28 October 2014).
[8] Lee White, “Historical Organizations React to AP US History Debate,” Perspectives 52, no. 7 (October 2014): 14-15; Valerie Strauss, “Ben Carson: New AP US History Course Will Make Kids Want to ‘Sign up for ISIS,” Washington Post, 29 September 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/29/ben-carson-new-ap-u-s-history-course-will-make-kids-want-to-sign-up-for-isis/ (accessed 28 October 2014).
[9] Lee White, “Historical Organizations React to AP US History Debate,” Perspectives 52, no. 7 (October 2014): 14-15
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Valerie Strauss, “Ben Carson: New AP US History Course Will Make Kids Want to ‘Sign up for ISIS,” Washington Post, 29 September 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/29/ben-carson-new-ap-u-s-history-course-will-make-kids-want-to-sign-up-for-isis/ (accessed 28 October 2014).
[13] Fred Anderson, “A Rejoinder to Critics of the New AP Course in History,” History News Network, 29 August 2014, http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156769 (accessed 28 October 2014).
[14] Lee White, “Historical Organizations React to AP US History Debate,” Perspectives 52, no. 7 (October 2014): 14-15.
[15] James Grossman, “The ‘Proper study of History’: What the Public Thinks About Historical Thinking,” Perspectives 52, no. 7 (October 2014): 7-8.
[16] See Frederick D. Drake and Lynn R. Nelson, Engagement in Teaching History: Theory and Practices for Middle and Secondary Teachers (Columbus, OH: Pearson, 2009), 20-23, 52-73, and 87-89.
[17] Brenda Santos, “Embracing the Challenge of the New AP History Exam,” Perspectives 52, no. 6 (September 2014): 42-43.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Frederick D. Drake and Lynn R. Nelson, Engagement in Teaching History: Theory and Practices for Middle and Secondary Teachers (Columbus, OH: Pearson, 2009), 84-89.