The Value of Interdisciplinary Connections
Some subjects just fit together more naturally than others. For social studies teachers, going interdisciplinary usually means teaming up with the English department. It makes sense. Both subjects focus on things like close reading, analyzing source bias and usefulness, building arguments, developing writing skills, and tackling media literacy…the list goes on.
Admittedly, the social studies classroom often benefits the most in this scenario. Skills like annotation, secondary source analysis, and note-taking getting shifted to other classrooms saves significant time. The chronological shackles of most history classes make it harder to shift curriculum timing or pacing the way English classes can, so English teachers end up being more flexible to make these curriculum connections work.
Still, there’s plenty of research and anecdotes suggesting that these approaches pay off for student achievement. Some schools, for example, pair AP U.S. History with AP Language and Composition to boost student writing skills and AP scores. A quick Google search pulls up many other studies of different sizes on interdisciplinary teaching. Personally, I’ve seen huge benefits from collaborating with my school’s librarian, a former English teacher, on research and media literacy skills. In general, I think these practices are also good because they show students that their learning has application beyond a specific classroom.
Mixing Social Studies and Math
All that said, I like being a little unpredictable. This year, I’ve started looking for ways to collaborate with a colleague in the math department. To be fair, his passion for math history could rival that of most history teachers. He’s been weaving math history into his integrated math lessons for some time, and I think it’s brilliant. I just wish all students immediately appreciated the possibilities as much as I do. His unit booklets provide historical context, and is then followed with specific mathematical examples and practice problems that link the history, math applications, and his standards. Some examples of the context are pictured below.
One of this math teacher’s favorite lessons is on the incomparable Eratosthenes, father of geography and chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. I won’t go into detail on the geometry and mechanics of the lesson, but I’ve observed it, and it’s pretty awesome. It’s always a pleasure to see a teacher nerd out about history in the same way I do.
After that lesson, we started talking about how my 9th grade Integrated Social Science course could bring in more math history to build bridges between our two disciplines. We both agreed that interdisciplinary connections, especially when they’re organic and teacher-led, help students see beyond the walls of individual classrooms and make a culture of learning just a little more contagious. With that in mind, I set out to design a Day 1 activity that would be fun, engaging, and source-based, while also laying some historical groundwork for his lesson on Eratosthenes. After a couple dead-ends, I landed on the idea of using historical flat-earth debates.
My Flat Earth DBQ
I prefer Day 1 activities to be unique and engaging, while also illustrating how history is an interpretative act. So for my 9th grade Integrated Social Science course, I decided to go down the flat earth rabbit hole so I could get at some content that would support the Eratosthenes lesson in the 9th grade math class. I got fairly lucky early on in the research process, and discovered this blog by Dr. Darin Hayton.
I like my Day 1 activities to be unique and engaging, while also showing students that history is ultimately an interpretive act. So, for my 9th grade Integrated Social Science course, I decided to head down the flat-earth rabbit hole as a way to contextualize my colleague’s Eratosthenes lesson. Thankfully, early in my research, I got lucky and came across a blog by Dr. Darin Hayton.
I chased down several of the sources he referenced, and along with others that I found, amassed a DBQ of a dozen sources that were organized around the question “To what extent have intellectuals throughout history believed the earth was flat?” I did not end up giving all of them to students when I did the activity, opting instead to curate a more selective set.
The two flat earth sources I wanted to include were Lactantius, a Roman and early Christian writer who argued against the existence of the antipodes, and the excerpt from Washington Irving’s A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus where the myth of Columbus vs. the church intellectuals at the University of Salamanca is born. Students would be entirely unaware of the background of Irving’s historical flourishes and how they set in motion this historical myth that would be cited by countless others. This story would be part of my debrief, so I could illustrate the importance of source analysis, corroboration, and quality interpretation. The round earth documents were more numerous, and I selected a few that could be understood relatively easily and would spark some interesting discussion.
Two of the flat-earth sources I chose were from very different contexts: Lactantius, a Roman and early Christian writer who argued against the existence of the antipodes, and an excerpt from Washington Irving’s A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, where the famous myth of Columbus battling church intellectuals at the University of Salamanca first takes shape. Lactantius’ arguments appeared a few times in the historical record as he is one of the few early flat-earth apologists who is frequently cited. Irving’s argument was the more significant work though, as he influenced several other writers into the 19th century.
Of course, students wouldn’t (and didn’t) know that Irving’s dramatic flourishes helped create a historical myth that would be repeated by countless others and still won’t die. That revelation would come later during my debrief, where I could highlight the importance of source analysis, corroboration, and thoughtful interpretation. Students did at least recognize that there was disagreement between this sources and others in relation to the church pushing the flat-earth argument.
On the round-earth side, I had more material to work with, so I narrowed it down to a few documents that were relatively accessible and would spark lively discussion. I opted not to use the maps, though I regret not including the world map according to Eratosthenes. I also wish I had more time to do a deep dive with them into Pope Pius II. I enjoyed learning a bit more about him through the creation of this lesson. I had to settle on a secondary source that referenced him, as I could not find a suitable translated version of his unfinished work that was easily excerpted.
I spent far more time putting these documents together than students spent doing the activity, but it was well worth it. The hooks of some modern flat earth videos helped build the interest for the lesson, particularly one where a flat-earther accidentally disproves his own theory. The students found Lactantius’ logic regarding antipodes ridiculous. After I filled in the backstory about Irving and how the flat earth myth was created, I saw quite a few flickers of understanding. History is interpretive.
I definitely spent more time pulling these documents together than the students spent working with them, but it was worth it. To grab their attention, I used a couple of modern flat-earth videos, including one where a flat-earther accidentally disproves his own theory, which got plenty of laughs. The students thought Lactantius’ arguments about the antipodes were ridiculous, and once I filled in the backstory about Irving and how the flat-earth myth was born, I could see some flickers of real understanding. It all went well and presented great opportunities to open a conversation on historical “truth” and interpretation. I would not have stumbled into this opportunity without considering collaboration with the unlikely partner of mathematics.