CANADIAN SOCIAL STUDIES
VOLUME 37 NUMBER 2, WINTER 2003

History Teaching in Alberta Schools: Perspectives and Prospects

Susan. E. Gibson and Amy J. von Heyking

University of Alberta

Abstract

Currently in Alberta a learning commission appointed by the Minister of Learning is consulting the public regarding the K to 12 education system in the province. This paper was written to alert the commission to what we believe is a very important issue -the teaching of history and its place in the social studies curriculum. Our concerns were rekindled recently due to a public comment made by a former premier of this province about the lack of historical knowledge of Albertans, which he attributed to the "junk" of social studies. This article begins by examining the place of history within the social studies. We then look at how effective this approach to history has been and what lies ahead for teaching and learning history based on the most recent draft of the proposed social studies curriculum in Alberta which is currently out for public consultation.

 

Introduction

History instruction in schools has long been a source of debate and discussion. In the 1920s and 1930s newspaper writers criticized schools for glorifying war and inculcating students with a false confidence in political institutions and decision-makers (Blain, 1924; Cash, 1933). Now writers blame schools for the fact that Canadians cannot adequately identify important people and events in Canada's past, are cynical about political institutions and are insufficiently loyal to the country or apathetic about national unity (Bliss, 1991; Davis, 2002; Granatstein, 1998). The public debate largely consists of the assertion of unsubstantiated claims, for example, that history provides role models for children or that an understanding of history fosters national pride. It is also characterized by faulty assumptions such as students can graduate from Alberta high schools without instruction in Canadian history. Our intention is to provide an analysis of the place of history instruction in Alberta schools and make suggestions for its prospects.

What is the place of history within social studies?

History has always had a privileged place within social studies. Much of the content of social studies courses, particularly at the secondary level, has been historical. The purpose of history instruction in social studies and the way it has been taught has varied over the years and from classroom to classroom. Indeed, history's role in social studies (and citizenship) education can be placed along a continuum from a cultural conservation conception to a cultural transformation conception. In classrooms characterized by a cultural conservation approach, the past is taught as factual content to be memorized, whereas the cultural transformation approach views history as constructed based on the historian's perspectives and assumptions on the other hand.

History teaching based on a cultural conservation conception of citizenship education has commonly tended to be teacher-centred and textbook driven with students being required to learn and repeat selected sets of `factual' information. In this case, history is viewed as an authoritative, consensual record of the past about which students are expected to memorize static facts such as dates, names, causes and other information in order to be successful in social studies. Students taught with this view of history in mind believe "there is a single story about what happened, that teachers and textbooks are neutral sources of information, and that their own judgments about the past are irrelevant" (Hartzler-Miller, 2001, p. 675). According to Segall (1999), this "closed sense of history…leaves students with the notion that the historical narrative is unnegotiable" (p. 367). This has been the dominant approach to history instruction within social studies classrooms.

Advocates of the second conception of history's role in citizenship education-that of cultural transformation-claim that no single authoritarian account of the past can represent the multiple interpretations of the same event. Instead, history needs to be viewed as a constructed undertaking based on evidence that is shaped by the historian's perspectives and assumptions (VanSledright, 1996). This view holds the belief that students need to encounter conflicting accounts of the past to force them to actively assess the claims made in each account in order that they will not accept them uncritically. Such an approach to history would place more emphasis on genuine understanding of historical events, not just acquisition and memorization of facts (Hartzler-Miller, 2001). "Primarily it requires a shift from questions which pertain to "What is True?" to those which examine "What is truth, for whom, and why?"" (Segall, 1999, p. 369). Some teachers have approached the teaching of history within the social studies this way. But if they have engaged their students in history this way, it has largely been because of their own interests and teaching philosophy rather than the requirements of the Program of Studies.

Have Albertans been well served by this approach?

Public critics of history teaching in schools generally seem to want more direct transmission of "facts". Despite having been taught social studies (rather than history), Alberta students seem to have learned the facts, at least to a greater extent than other Canadian students. The Dominion Institute in its 1997 Canada Day survey found that Alberta youth were most likely to know the name of Canada's first prime minister, that the Charter was patriated in 1982, that the dominant issue in the 1988 federal election was trade with the United States, and that D Day signaled the invasion of France (Ipsos-Reid, 1997). It should be clear, however, that these surveys have rarely asked Canadian students what they have actually learned in their history - or social studies - classes.

However, researchers who emphasize the importance of historical learning in shaping critical thinkers advocate a different approach to history teaching and, indeed, assessment; one more consistent with the ways children make sense of history. Such a view of history teaching requires a major shift in classroom practice. History teaching from this cultural transformation perspective would require involving students in the "doing" of history including, posing questions, collecting and analyzing sources, struggling with issues of significance, challenging students to rethink assumptions about the past and building historical interpretations (Levstik, 1996). Such an approach to history would engage students in constructing historical thinking or "how to know history" (Seixas, 1999, p. 332). There would be increased emphasis on historical inquiry and the use of primary sources in order that students are engaged in a "process of reasoning using contextual information, texts, empathy and imagination" (Hartzler-Miller, 2001, p. 672). Students would need to be taught methods by which to assess historical accounts as it is not enough to learn about the past; students must also be able to question all accounts of history they encounter and recognize them as interpretations in time. Seixas (1996) suggests that there are six elements of historical thinking that must be taught. These include: historical significance, evidence, continuity and change, progress and decline, empathy and moral judgement, and historical agency.

Levstik (1995) advocates the use of narrative in the teaching and learning of history as it encourages students to recognize the human aspects of history, to see history as an ongoing, participatory drama, and to develop a better sense of the interpretative and tentative nature of history. She cautions however that students must be taught that narratives are also interpretations of history, open to question and scrutiny. Wineberg (1991) also argues that students must learn to situate historical accounts, whether fiction or nonfiction, in the social world of the time and to think about the authors' intentions, rather than reading to uncritically gather information. Wilson (1990) and Levstik (1993) support the importance of teaching students in the early elementary years to question all accounts of history that they encounter and to recognize them as interpretations in time and space. Lee (1998) adds that not only do students need to be exposed to different versions of what happened; they also must learn how to be able to account for those differences.

Barton (1996, 1997) too argues for history in the elementary grades to begin with social history as a basis for developing understandings of societal institutions and their role in history. He argues that students must not only study famous people and events, but must also learn about the social relations that make those events and people meaningful.

When deciding on which approach to take to history teaching, Segall (1999) asserts that "the decision facing educators is between history in which students are receivers of information or one in which they are its producers; a history education that provides students with what to think or one that encourages them to think" (pp. 366-367).

Closing Comments

We are hopeful that the planned curriculum revision in social studies in Alberta will offer opportunities for this kind of historical instruction and therefore more meaningful historical understanding. An examination of the latest draft of the proposed social studies curriculum shows the potential to make a major difference in the way that history is taught in schools.

However, we still need to do more research into the nature of children's historical understanding as very little research has been done in Canadian classrooms and in a Canadian context. We also need to prepare teachers for the kind of history teaching required by a cultural transformation approach. This shift in thinking requires support for teachers in terms of adequate resources and professional development. Finally, we need to continue our public conversation about the purpose of history teaching. As Peter Lee points out, "Claims as to what children can do in history, are, on the face of it, empirical; but they too involved sorting out what there is to do in history, and once again the questions raised are ultimately philosophical" (Lee, 1983, p. 47). In other words, what kind of historical understanding children have is dependent on our public perceptions of history and our understandings of the past.