Historical Foundations of Teaching and Learning

Preamble

In March of 2022, I responded to a peer’s comment by stating the following: “You see, as I haven’t ever taught, I thought the best thing I could do with my posts was try to appropriate the subject matter by relating it to something I have experienced in my lifetime. And it’s been an amazing journey: I approached this new content with great enthusiasm and interest and I got to remember things from my past as a student, a child, a worker, a woman."

But... historical texts are just not my thing… 

I will be candid; this module was a struggle for me because the reading material just does not connect with the way my brain is cabled. I am not trying to criticize the choice of the course readings. But I am trying to explain what works and what doesn’t for me in this learning journey. To requote myself: I have really tried to “appropriate the subject matter by relating it to something I have experienced in my lifetime,” but I fail to find any connection that will allow me to integrate the learning. And it's not that I haven't tried, I have read four articles for this historical part. 😥

Below, I will try to express what I got out of the following two articles that I have read and re-read with little satisfaction.

The History of Education: State of the Art at the Turn of the Century in Europe and North America

My personal understanding of the Jurgen Herbst article – and I may very well be wrong – is this: what was to be a very positive and innovative methodology for historians of education eventually backfired. In the sixties, in the United States, historians Bernard Bailyn and Lawrence Cremin and in Germany Heinz-Elmar Tenorth seem to have pleaded for and directed historians of education towards a more academic study of education, leaving out the more practical aspects of what goes on in a classroom. We are told that “In both countries historians of education meant to be academic historians before they would consider their role in educational scholarship and professional training.” Now, this may be the font of what I consider and understand as a problem. If with their advice Bailyn, Cremin and Tenorth provided the impetus for four decades of prolific research and practices that led to the discipline’s recognition in the academic spheres, it also brought along with it other drawbacks. Perhaps it was wrong for historians of education to principally focus their attention on more scholarly issues while neglecting to monitor what was happening inside the classroom? Maybe it was wrong to scatter one’s attention on the “many other topics that could, with any justification, lay claim to educational significance?” This opening up to “all aspects of American life” may have “supplied their colleagues with fodder for endless and fruitful debates,” but in the long run historians of education may have neglected to gauge what actually goes on, how things evolve and what are the real problems arising in a classroom setting? And this may well be why Herbst states that at the end of the century, “historians still know next to nothing about what really happened in the daily life of schools and classrooms.” Supporting this thesis, Tenorth would have stated that: “Pedagogical practice is the central subject of educational history, and its absence has led to the dissolution of the ‘unity of reflection and practice, of research and action, of historical and contemporary awareness of the pedagogical task.’” 

Very humbly, this is my understanding of the article and I would say that this document tells the story of the introduction of an innovative methodology that may have reaped loads of debates and notoriety, but that in the end did not serve to support the world of education where support, engagement and investigation was needed: within the classroom. I would then consider this an example of innovation gone wrong, which can happen in any domain even if, at first, it may appear that the objective has been excellently reached. Think of the plastic water bottle.

My question to the author: Looking back in time, would you say that Tenorth was correct in stating that “Pedagogical practice is the central subject of educational history, and its absence has led to the dissolution of the ‘unity of reflection and practice, of research and action, of historical and contemporary awareness of the pedagogical task?’” Is scholarly research in the field of education more, less or equally important than what occurs in a classroom? And how would you respond today to Belgian scholar Marc Depaepe’s question: “Is there any place for the History of ‘Education’ in the ‘History of Education’?”

REFERENCE

Herbst, J. (1999). The History of Education: State of the Art at the Turn of the Century in Europe and North America. Paedagogica Historica, 35(3), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/0030923990350308

***

Foreign Influences on Curriculum and Curriculum Policy Making in Canada: Some Impressions in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

I haven’t much to say about the Tomkins article. All I seem to detect in this article is the recurring story of what I will call “educational cross-pollination” or of what Tomkins calls the external influences on the Canadian curriculum. In my view, whether we look at English Canada, as is principally the case in this article, or French Canada, the external influences were inevitable in this New World environment. Here we have two colonies fighting for their “survivance/survival” in a country characterized by rigid winters and uncleared territory. It stands to reason that the two Canadas would have been keen to replicate the educational models they knew back home. In fact, we learn that in the decades following the Conquest, the victorious English proposed a well devised school model to the French, a model that would have provided French Canada with a school system ranging from elementary school to university. But as Tomkins explains, “these initiatives were resisted by the [French] clergy who feared both anglicization and secularization.” So here we witness the refusal of a proposed innovation for fear of assimilation. Makes sense if one hopes to maintain/safeguard one’s culture, language, and traditions in the New World. To my great surprise, we are also told that Québec’s nationalism could count on Bishop Bailly’s progressiveness and open-mindedness and whose “advanced views on the place of science in the curriculum extended to primary schools.” The mention of Bishop Bailly alludes to the fact that even in nationalist Québec there were elements open to innovation and novelty. This chapter discusses something that is dear to me, French Canada, and I am glad to discover some broad-mindedness on the part of the clergy of the epoch. It comforts me to think that, at that time, Québec demonstrated some “ouverture” even to American progressive ideas.

However, from this point onwards, what I notice is what I initially called cross-pollination and by this I intend the external influence naturally stemming from the two founding nations (Great Britain and France) and the United States, a neighbour that by way of its proximity was bound to exercise a distinct influence. As society evolved, changes in the curriculum were driven by social change and the participation of educationalists in world fairs or universal expositions prompted comparisons with other participating countries. This was an excellent way of gauging where the Canadian curriculum stood quality- and content-wise. Essentially, occasions such as travel abroad, enlightening encounters with education representatives from other countries and the participation in universal expositions are seen as excellent occasions for the cross-pollination/influence of the Canadian curriculum.

In reading a few of my peer’s posts on this article, I learn that there still seems to be a question as to whether Canada has been able to develop its own content- and identity-driven curriculum, but I am skeptical. If education is like any other field of interest in Canada, I fear there will always be an influence stemming from the United States, Canada’s dominant and sometimes uncomfortable neighbor, and other influences from other parts of the world. Suffice it to say that at the beginning of the 20th century “Canadian educational theory and practice were gradually becoming professionalized, which in essence meant Americanized.” An inevitable influence given the sheer vastness and proximity of the United States and its worldwide dominance. The American Dream is still going strong.

My question to the author: In today’s day and age of rampant globalization and multiethnicity, do you believe that the Canadian curriculum should be nationalistic and identity-based? What does it mean to be Canadian in your view?

REFERENCE

Tomkins, G. (1981). Foreign influences on curriculum and curriculum policy making in Canada: Some impressions in historical and contemporary perspective. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1981.11075245