Pedagogical Philosophy
Drawing on the ideas of historians and philosophers from across the globe, my pedagogical philosophy begins with the conceptualization of historical thought as an innate mode of human cognition strikingly akin to map-making. The vast and inconceivably complex territory of the past (encompassing literally all the universe’s ordered processes of transformation from the Big Bang to the present moment) contains no inherent and unambiguous meaning for human purposes. To render it useful to us, individually and collectively, we selectively construct analytical narrative representations of it appropriate to our intended purposes. This activity is remarkably reminiscent of both the reconstructive nature and functioning of individual human memory as well as the cartographic mapping of territory, representing and emphasizing various features at the expense of omitting others in the interest of rendering a space navigable or understandable at a glance. While this highly selective activity necessarily eliminates almost all that customarily can be thought of as having happened, such is the price of identifying meaningful patterns, processes, trends, and evidence-based casual explanations for the specific trajectory of world events.
Just as there is no “correct” map of any given space – the appropriateness of each representation being judged merely on its factual accuracy and relevance to a particular user’s aims – there can be no single “correct” history of any portion of the past. There can, however, be erroneous or even misleading maps and histories. These typically draw conclusions on the basis of fabricated or (more often) non-existing evidence and make baseless claims that cannot be defended by reference to primary sources. Learning to critically assess the histories of others and develop the skills necessary to interpret and “make sense” of the past’s extant residue are the two most valuable promises of an effective historical education.
I sincerely believe that any study of history must necessarily begin with a survey of what aspects, problems, or challenges of either the present or some period in time after the historical era under examination compels a student. Forays into the past ought to always be guided by organizing questions, provided either by the instructor or the students themselves. I inaugurate each instructional partnership by asking what questions my students have about the subject matter at hand and subsequently employ that feedback to better structure our lessons. In this way, their understanding of history as a discipline is enlarged from merely a set of facts to be memorized into a way of thinking about and understanding problems and situations they encounter in the world around them.
These ideas shape my approach to teaching as I guide learners of all ages into the often confusing and disorienting terrain of the exciting past worlds which collectively gave birth to the one we inhabit today. I find that students learn best when they can develop what I call a propaedeutic overview of a subject before becoming immersed in its details. This overview represents a kind of rough sketch of the territory to use for orientation while we explore together. Rather than beginning with a dense chronological succession of names, dates, and events, I describe a broad chronology, key major developments to look out for along the way and highlight important underlying structures that shape change over time in the case study under examination. Whenever possible, we connect new material to concepts and histories the student already understands.
After establishing this foundation, we progressively deepen and complicate the initial overview with ever more detail. We move continually back-and-forth between overview and detail, asking where new information fits, what it connects to, what it helps explain, and whether it requires us to revise the larger picture. The objective is not to merely accumulate information, but to foster the development of an increasingly interconnected and nuanced understanding of the interrelationships between topics and ideas.
Crucially, I insist that the student participate actively in constructing their own understanding. While I always strive to calibrate my specific pedagogical approach to each particular student or students under instruction, whenever possible I rely heavily on Socratic dialogue. I use questions to encourage students to draw upon what they know, make connections, strive to offer their own explanations for causation, test various comparisons, identify uncertainties, and formulate personal interpretations of the past. I place far greater value on a student striving to reason through a problem with their own words – even if imperfectly remembering every particular detail – than on their passively memorizing a historical narrative from me. Speaking, writing, questioning, and struggling toward an answer of their own is the lifeblood of effective and durable learning.
As students develop their foundational understanding of a topic, I increasingly guide them through the historian’s craft itself. We critically examine both primary and secondary sources: who produced them, under what circumstances and for what purposes, what they can and cannot tell us about the subject in question, and how they compare with other evidence. Students learn that sources do not simply convey the past to us. They must be questioned, contextualized, compared, and interpreted in order to draw out their multi-faceted utility to the researcher.
This also means exploring multiple ways of understanding the same past. Political, social, economic, cultural, military, and individual perspectives may reveal different features of the same terrain. Historians working from the same evidence may reach competing interpretations because they ask different questions, emphasize different evidence, or understand its significance differently. These interpretations need not collapse into a single definitive account – nor could they. Nor, however, does this mean that every interpretation is equally persuasive. Students must learn to compare interpretations critically, evaluate their evidentiary foundations, recognize uncertainty, and forge their own reasoned and evidence-based interpretations.
My goal, in the end, is not for students to memorize a textbook’s narrative or my own. Nor do I focus only on helping students learn strictly what is likely to appear on a forthcoming exam. I remain awake to and respect the fact that many students consider this to be the primary benefit of study. Even so, I teach to provide students with the knowledge, orientation, confidence, and critical tools they need to construct multiple, increasingly sophisticated representations of the past – to understand how those representations relate to one another, recognize what each illuminates or leaves out, and revise their own understanding as they encounter new evidence and new ways of seeing and thinking about the world and how it became the way it is today.
Course Syllabi
Global History of Warfare (Online)
National and International Security
Teaching Experience
- 400+ hours of independent classroom instruction, syllabi development and refinement, and direct individual student/officer advisement and academic direction
- 700+ hours of independent private instruction in World, European, and American history for students of all ages ranging from elementary school to adult learners (including IB, AP, IGCSE/GCSE, and A-Level curriculums)