One large study by Ben D. Woodand Frank N. Freeman in 1932 paved theway for acceptance in elementary schools.The study included 14,947 children ofelementary-school age in an experimenton the effect of the typewriter on class-room performance (3). The children whohad typing instruction actually spent onlyan hour or two a week at the typewriter,yet at the end of the first year they out-performed the nontyping pupils in read-ing.

The compression of history, the winnowing of history, may seem naturaland neutral, but it is decidedly not. It is the means by which grade schoolhistory becomes our standard adult history.

As late as 1884 the four hundred American institutions of higher education had about twenty full-time teachers of history.”

Tout introduced original research into the undergraduate programme, culminating in the production of a Final Year thesis based on primary sources.[7]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who shockedthe world with Émile: or On Education ([1762] 1993).

Leopold von Ranke (German: [fɔn ˈʁaŋkə]; 21 December 1795 – 23 May 1886) was a German historian and a founder of modern source-based history.[3][4] According to Caroline Hoefferle, "Ranke was probably the most important historian to shape [the] historical profession as it emerged in Europe and the United States in the late 19th century".[5] He was able to implement the seminar teaching method in his classroom and focused on archival research and the analysis of historical documents. Building on the methods of the Göttingen School of History,[6] he was the first to establish a historical seminar. Ranke set the standards for much of later historical writing, introducing such ideas as reliance on primary sources (empiricism), an emphasis on narrative history and especially international politics (Außenpolitik). Ranke also had a great influence on Western historiography. He was ennobled in 1865, with the addition of a "von" to his name.

E veryone seriously concerned with teaching complainsthat most students do not know how to do indepen-dent work. They do not know how to read, they do notknow how to take notes, they do not know how to set up aproblem nor how to research it. In short, they do not knowhow to work intellectually.

One of the masters of the school, Hugh (d. 1140 or 1141), wrote a text, the Didascalicon, on whatshould be learned and why. The emphasis differs significantly from that of William of Conches. It isdependent on the classical trivium and quadrivium and pedagogical traditions dating back to St.Augustine and Imperial Rome.

Too many people who try to predict the future of education and education technology have not bothered to learn the alphabet — the grammar of schooling, to borrow a phrase from education historian Larry Cuban. That grammar includes the beliefs and practices and memory of schooling — our collective memory, not just our own personal experiences of school. That collective memory — that's history.

I know a number of my subs and viewers are in India and I've noticed on Twitter and on Abhijit Chavda's channel that there's quite a bit of controversy about the way Indian History is taught to Indian students. That interests me a lot, but what I'm PARTICULARLY interested in is, how World History surveys throughout the world cover world history. If part of this involves continuing the narratives introduced by colonizers, like the Aryan Invasion myth, that's relevant to my question.

I also did a bit of web and JSTOR research, and started a new Zotero folder called World History Comparison. Research Rabbit found a bunch of similar titles, but it will be a while before I can get to many of them. I DID, however, ask some people and groups such as the OE Global community on Twitter, and I want to extend that request to anyone who watches this video. I know a number of my subs and viewers are in India and I've noticed on Twitter and on Abhijit Chavda's channel that there's quite a bit of controversy about the way Indian History is taught to Indian students.

“What other subject is routinely taught without any mention of its history, philosophy, thematic development, aesthetic criteria, and current status? What other subject shuns its primary sources—beautiful works of art by some of the most creative minds in history—in favor of third-rate textbook bastardizations?”

And to Vivian Rolfe’s point made at OpenEd 16, are we are paying enough attention to voices of the past?

The current buzz about open pedagogy got kick-started in David Wiley’s 2013 blog post. Wiley defined open pedagogy as any approach or technique that would not be possible without the “5Rs” (at the time listed as the “4Rs plus free to access”: free to access, free to reuse, free to revise, free to remix, free to redistribute – the right to retain came later…) of OER.

“The textbook companies are not gearing their textbooks toward teachers; they’re gearing their textbooks toward states,” she said.

Our experience is that many of today’s technology leaders genuinely venerate Engelbart, Kay, and their colleagues. Many even feel that computers have huge potential as tools for improving human thinking. But they don’t see how to build good businesses around developing new tools for thought. And without such business opportunities, work languishes.

What David told me was his energy, enthusiasm in the class was at a much higher level with the OER approach. Sure we choose the polished “professional” textbook because of its assumed high standards, quality etc, but then its a more passive relationship a teacher has with it. I make the comparison to growing and/or making your own food versus having it prepared or taking it out of a package. Having produced our own food means we know everything about it from top to bottom, and the pride in doing that has to make the whole experience much more energized.