HUOM! Kohdassa 6 molempiin SAMA vastaus!


As a secondary school teacher, I was angered to read Sean Lang’s critique of history teaching in schools. Dr Lang seems to forget that we teach young people aged 11 to 13, 16, 17 or 18 1) (riippuen) how long they choose to study history). We don’t teach university students, who have already been inspired 2) my colleagues and me. We, therefore, have to battle hormones, social life, lack of interest 3) (prepositio) school, the opposite sex and other curricular subjects to engage the 4) (oppilaiden) attention.
​
As historians 5) (itse), we would like a break from the Nazis also, but the simple truth is that these are the subjects the kids want to learn about, and a walk into any history bookshop shows you they are not alone. There is so much media generated regarding these topics that it is a great vehicle for teaching in 6) variety of ways to 6) variety of pupils; not all of whom have the means and ability to go to university.
​
Dr Lang seems to forget that out of a class of 30, perhaps one or two 7) (choose) to study history at university level and that, essentially, he sees the cream of our crop. That is why the move towards content to teach skills is an important development. At a time 8 (jolloin) there is so much information available, pupils must 9) (teach) not to trust all that they read.
​
Therefore, if I say goodbye to a boy aged 13 knowing he will never study history again and the one thing he remembers is not why William the Conqueror 10) (win) the battle of Hastings, but that information is biased and must be questioned, then I consider my job well done.
Emma Slavin, Glasgow

Source: BBC History Magazine, November 2010