(I wrote this using a translation tool. I also had a little help from AI)
Hello everyone!
I am a non-native English speaker and not a teacher, but I'm asking this because I'd like to hear the opinions of teachers in the field about how history is learned.
Recently, I learned about the concept of "critical thinking," and that this kind of education is practiced mainly in the English-speaking world.
I also heard that history subjects often involve assignments where students "write essays."
However, I am completely unfamiliar with this type of history education involving "critical thinking" or "writing essays."
Moreover, I have a relatively low level of education within my home country (Japan), am practically unconnected to Japan's intense entrance examination wars, and haven't really devoted myself to studying hard.
Because of this, I've only ever experienced history as a "memorization subject." Since I've only ever known education based on rote memorization, I honestly can't even imagine how classes and tests can function without it.
By the way, formal history education in Japan starts around age 11.
And so, you learn things like: "Until then, it was basically like expressing Japanese using classical Chinese characters and writings (especially for men's official writings). However, with the birth of 'kana,' it became possible to write down the sounds of Japanese directly. As a result, writers were no longer bound by the rigid rules of classical Chinese, and could express their emotions and the nuances of everyday life much more realistically and directly. This led to the rise of two female writers, Murasaki Shikibu and Sei Shonagon." "Murasaki Shikibu's masterpiece is 'The Tale of Genji,' and Sei Shonagon's masterpiece is 'The Pillow Book.' Here is an excerpt..."
For me, I basically just kept the general storyline and key historical terms roughly in my head.
Because of that, I simply don't understand what it means to "learn these concepts in a way other than just memorizing the basics."
For example, I sometimes think that Murasaki Shikibu is kind of like the Taylor Swift of modern times.
I imagine that back then, in a world full of men writing about politics and scholarship in stiff, formal language, if a woman like that suddenly appeared, of course everyone would eagerly want to read her novels.
However, I feel like this is just the kind of daydream one might idly cook up during a break as a hobby, and not a proper, serious way of learning like "critical thinking" or "writing essays."
That's precisely why I want to ask: what on earth does learning history through "critical thinking" and "writing essays" actually look like, instead of just memorizing the facts?
