From: Monica R. Edinger <edinger>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 05:57:45 +0000

Kathleen Keeler wrote, "
 
 
 
"

This isn't to question anything Kathleen does, but to question the use of historical fiction to begin a history unit. (For those who know me on this topic, I hope your eyes aren't now glazing over!)

I'm frustrated by the assumption that one of the best ways to engage children in a new study of history is via fiction. The underlying message to me is that history can only be made interesting and intriguing to children by fictionalizing it. ("A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down...") Why is this the case? Some of the reasons I 've come up with: 1. Adults had negative experiences themselves learning history in school (with boring textbooks) and are responding to that memory. 2. Adults are primarily using textbooks in schools and think historical fiction will be the most expedient way to make the topic more interesting.
 3. Adults like historical fiction themselves. 4. Adults think the children are too young to take on more challenging ways of learning history. 5. Adults are uncomfortable with the messiness of controversy and are avoiding it with historical fiction (which provides one dominant point of view on a topic and shuts down the need to figure out one's own.)
 6. Adults don't see nonfiction as engaging as fiction. 7. Adults don't like teaching history and use historical fiction to kill two birds with one stone (combine English and history, with English being the dominant discipline being studied.)

I've just returned from my first time at the annual social studies convention and was struck by the lack of trade book publishers at the exhibits. (I expected it, but it still felt very barren compared to the English conventions where I usually go.) The bulk of exhibitors were textbook companies and others who provide ancillary materials. There were a handful of sessions on using trade books in the teaching of social studies and historical fiction came up in a very few others.

It is ironic that while many elementary and middle school English teachers are taking a greater interest in nonfiction, social studies and history teachers are looking more at fiction as a way to spice up their lessons. Here we are having a wonderful discussion about nonfiction and yet many elementary teachers teach history by way of historical fiction.

I want to make it very clear that I'm not objecting to historical fiction at all; I am objecting to the relentless push for teachers to use it this way. Especially by teacher educators who have a great deal of influence on how teachers use books in their teaching. I use historical fiction myself in my own classroom, but after the kids have already been immersed in the topic. This way they can read the fictional critically. Again and again, when we get into discussions about historical fiction the answer has been that it is necessary to read critically. However, how can children be expected to read a work of historical fiction critically when it is the first thing they are encountering about a particular event or person? I think it is a lot easier to help children learn both about a topic/person and about consider the issues of point of view (the author's, the individuals', etc.) if the topic is introduced with something other than fiction. Say, nonfiction, which has been so wonderfully highlighted this month. Say, primary sources. Say, kids' own background experiences.


Monica Edinger The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at yahoo.com
Received on Sun 19 Nov 2000 11:57:45 PM CST