What remains in dispute is what history, or whose history, Canadians should be learning more about. That’s why the Conservative-dominated Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage’s comprehensive review of (among other things) the history that is being taught in Canadian schools has become so controversial.
Proponents of the plan, some – but not all – of whom are Conservative Party supporters who maintain (not illegitimately) that Canada’s political and military past had been systematically marginalized in the public school system over the past few decades, immediately suggested that it was about time. History is subjective, they argued, and the Liberals and the social historians had controlled the narrative for too long. This review would help restore a degree of “balance” to Canadians’ understanding of their past.
On the other side stood a significant percentage of professional historians, who still maintain that Canadian history is too focused on old white men, their political schemes, and their wars; much of the broader historical community, which has justifiable difficulty countenancing the hypocrisy of a government that claims to support Canadian history while ruthlessly slashing funding for national and local archives; as well as those who deplored the dominance of Conservative MPs and individuals sympathetic to them in an investigative process that is allegedly meant to be non-partisan.
Notoriously missing from the arguments of both sides is any concern with how the concept of learning – roughly defined by researchers today as an experience that has a significant, lasting effect on one’s knowledge, understanding, attitude and/or behaviour – actually works. Indeed, the committee’s witness list does not seem to include anyone with a research background in teaching and learning at the secondary and post-secondary levels, or in cognitive science more generally.
That’s a shame, because the historical content – whatever its focus – will never mean much if it is not presented, or delivered, in a manner that engages Canadians at the individual level, either within the academic setting or outside of it.
Real learning is not a transaction that takes place between a teacher (or website) and student. It is a process by which individuals become inspired to seek out answers to difficult questions on their own.
If the standing committee is genuinely interested in promoting greater understanding of Canada’s past, it should speak to the cognitive scientists first, and worry about the actual history later.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Adam Chapnick
No comments:
Post a Comment