Most of the essayists seem to believe that history is an interpretive, evidence-based discipline, and they suggest the importance of engaging pre-service history teachers in this paradigm. While I agree wholeheartedly, I'm perplexed by the delineation most of the essayists make between future historians and future teachers. At what point do we introduce students to history as evidence-based and interpretive? If we want to begin in elementary school, should we introduce pre-service elementary teachers to this paradigm in their undergraduate history survey course? If we want the paradigm to continue in the secondary grades, should we model it for pre-service middle and high school teachers in their undergraudate history courses, too? If we want "future historians" to begin their graduate work in a full gallop, instead of tentatively groping along like blindfolded dupes feeling an elephant, shouldn't we use undergraduate courses as opportunities to make transparent for them, too, the nature of history as evidence-based and interpretive?

All of these questions point to the importance of how history is taught to ALL undergraduate students. Since "pedagogy" is a one-word synonym for how something is taught, perhaps it should no longer be uttered with disdain in history departments.

But perhaps many historians avoid teaching history as a way of knowing not out of contempt, but because they don't know how to begin, they don't know what sorts of strategies to use. This is another issue in itself...when and how should we teach postsecondary history teachers to teach??