As I browsed my way through the course readings, I found myself drawn to the works developed by Roland Case in The Anthology of Social Studies. I have observed firsthand the benefits from The Critical Thinking Consortium established by Case and Clark, and I was eager to learn more of about historical thinking. Through the chapters entitled, The Teaching of History and Democratic Citizenship, written by Ken Osborne, and Teaching for Hope by Walt Werner, I was able to better understand the historical context and the relationship between innovation, creativity, teaching and learning.
First, Osborn “explores how history teachers can, within the constraints of existing curricula, contribute to the education of democratic citizens in a Canadian context” (Osborne, 2016). However, there is much mentioned about what teaching history looked like earlier on in the 20th century. According to Osborne, “democratic citizenship, however, does not mean conformity or subordination, but informed and reflective participants in the affairs of one’s society, consistent with democratic principles and procedures” (Osborne, 2016). In years past, history teaching was to develop almost devotee citizens, but not through inquiry, analysis or reflection. In fact, even the resources provided to inform citizens were not depicting the important events that had shaped the country. Osborne mentions, “textbook narratives were not designed to be questioned. They were intended to entertain, excite, and above all, to instruct” (Osborne, 2016). Unfortunately, there were many key pieces of a national history that were left out. As well, it is mentioned that this form of teaching of history is much to blame for some of the most devastating global issues. As stated by H.G. Well, written in The Teaching of History and Democratic Citizenship, “he argued that history teachers must take good part of the blame for World War 1, since it had been resulted in large part from an excess of national and patriotic fervour on all sides, the result of the poison called history that had been taught in schools” (Osborne, 2016). Fortunately, we have seen a recent change in teaching and learning, where more of an opportunity for historical thinking through social studies is offered and not the former. Osborne states, “the history of education changed from being a celebration of social progress to an analysis of the role of schools as instruments of cultural reproduction, social control and ideological hegemony” (Osborne, 2016). With this belief, pedagogy and resources have begun to catch up. Osborne clarifies, “textbooks have finally begun to pay attention to those aspects of the Canadian past that have long been neglected, including the treatment of the First Nations, the history of labor, episodes of discrimination against minorities, and the like” (Osborne, 2016). The great purpose of historical thinking can be summed up quite easily. Osborne says, “The point is to treat history as a problem-solving subject” (Osborne, 2016) to avoid the unquestioned, patriotic passion.
As much of this article provides a glimpse into historical and philosophical thinking, it is the recognition of innovation and teaching through social studies that stands out to me. It is interesting how innovation was used to develop new strategies for teaching using a problem-solving focus and not neglecting key parts of Canada’s past, and utilizing a new use of resources. For example, Osborne’s focuses on five key strategies for teaching democratic citizenship, but emphasizes, “students use not one textbook, but a variety of readings containing contradictory and controversial viewpoints” (Osborne, 2016), to create an innovative teaching and creative learning environment.
As I continue to ponder Osborne’s key strategies, I wonder how teachers will develop programs with such a vast array of resources? One quick answer would be the use of The Critical Thinking Consortium resources, but also, I see a great value in collaborative inquiry. The “working day” for teachers can be brief if one does not stay to work together to develop innovative teaching and learning opportunities for students.
As Osborne focused more on the development of historical thinking over time, Werner focused more on shaping a healthy, optimistic future for our students by teaching with hope. Werner states, “students glean bits of information from which they construct their personal views, often of crisis-ridden and confusing world created by adults who seem unwilling or unable to change it” (Werner, 2016). Unfortunately, this form of a bleak future can be troubling for our youth. Werner identifies this as unacceptable, “schools are in the business of strengthening hope in the future” (Werner, 2016). Werner also identifies key components that lie in developing hope for the future. These components are emotion, information, vision and efficacy. As these are not all necessarily forms of teaching, they are tied to good learning opportunities. For instance, Werner identifies “expression of feeling . . .. engage the interest and imagination of students, extend their involvement with the subject matter; and imbue the curriculum with the kind of personal significance that impels rather than hinders learning” (Werner, 2016). Additionally, Werner continues to utilize information as a major form of teaching. He identifies that it is important to expose students to the important big ideas and world-wide issues. As well, he states “if children hear little acknowledgement of these realities, they conclude that educators do not care or are not being honest” (Werner, 2016). Werner also touches on the notion of vision. This piece connects brilliantly to my working definition of creativity. Many of these global problems have not been solved or even experienced in prior generations. This form of creativity needed to come from vision of our learners. In fact, I see this quite similar to that of Osborne’s earlier statement that original teaching was almost creating patriots or nationals and not problem solvers. However, Werner relates more to the importance of having hope and the ability to solve real world issues. He explains, “hope cannot rest only upon understanding of what is or will be the case, but also upon imagined alternatives and how these may be achieved” (Werner, 2016). And finally, Werner emphasizes the importance of efficacy; a vital factor to education and self-regulated learning. Werner says, “hope is indistinguishable from a belief that individuals and groups influence and shape their futures through action. A strong sense of personal efficacy is a driving force behind any achievement” (Werner, 2016). As I agree with much of these articles, there is one piece that stands out to me. Often when we as educators open our students’ minds to global issues or pieces of history that may have been neglected in the past, we can possibly have to navigate tricky situations with parents and community members personal opinions. How can we continue to fully support our teachers in helping communities understand this is what is best for our learners?
As there are clear connections between the work of Case, Clark, Osborne, and Werner and innovation, creativity, teaching and learning, I find the most obvious link is the importance to shape our youth in a way that exposes them to big ideas with a sense of hope; however, we must also learn the lessons from the past and use a wider array of teaching strategies.
Case, R., & Clark, P. (2013). The Anthology of Social Studies: Issues and Strategies for
Elementary Teachers (Updated Edition) (Updated edition). Pacific Educational Press.
Two separate readings
Chapters:
Teaching of history and democratic citizenship
Teaching for hope
First, Osborn “explores how history teachers can, within the constraints of existing curricula, contribute to the education of democratic citizens in a Canadian context” (Osborne, 2016). However, there is much mentioned about what teaching history looked like earlier on in the 20th century. According to Osborne, “democratic citizenship, however, does not mean conformity or subordination, but informed and reflective participants in the affairs of one’s society, consistent with democratic principles and procedures” (Osborne, 2016). In years past, history teaching was to develop almost devotee citizens, but not through inquiry, analysis or reflection. In fact, even the resources provided to inform citizens were not depicting the important events that had shaped the country. Osborne mentions, “textbook narratives were not designed to be questioned. They were intended to entertain, excite, and above all, to instruct” (Osborne, 2016). Unfortunately, there were many key pieces of a national history that were left out. As well, it is mentioned that this form of teaching of history is much to blame for some of the most devastating global issues. As stated by H.G. Well, written in The Teaching of History and Democratic Citizenship, “he argued that history teachers must take good part of the blame for World War 1, since it had been resulted in large part from an excess of national and patriotic fervour on all sides, the result of the poison called history that had been taught in schools” (Osborne, 2016). Fortunately, we have seen a recent change in teaching and learning, where more of an opportunity for historical thinking through social studies is offered and not the former. Osborne states, “the history of education changed from being a celebration of social progress to an analysis of the role of schools as instruments of cultural reproduction, social control and ideological hegemony” (Osborne, 2016). With this belief, pedagogy and resources have begun to catch up. Osborne clarifies, “textbooks have finally begun to pay attention to those aspects of the Canadian past that have long been neglected, including the treatment of the First Nations, the history of labor, episodes of discrimination against minorities, and the like” (Osborne, 2016). The great purpose of historical thinking can be summed up quite easily. Osborne says, “The point is to treat history as a problem-solving subject” (Osborne, 2016) to avoid the unquestioned, patriotic passion.
As much of this article provides a glimpse into historical and philosophical thinking, it is the recognition of innovation and teaching through social studies that stands out to me. It is interesting how innovation was used to develop new strategies for teaching using a problem-solving focus and not neglecting key parts of Canada’s past, and utilizing a new use of resources. For example, Osborne’s focuses on five key strategies for teaching democratic citizenship, but emphasizes, “students use not one textbook, but a variety of readings containing contradictory and controversial viewpoints” (Osborne, 2016), to create an innovative teaching and creative learning environment.
As I continue to ponder Osborne’s key strategies, I wonder how teachers will develop programs with such a vast array of resources? One quick answer would be the use of The Critical Thinking Consortium resources, but also, I see a great value in collaborative inquiry. The “working day” for teachers can be brief if one does not stay to work together to develop innovative teaching and learning opportunities for students.
As Osborne focused more on the development of historical thinking over time, Werner focused more on shaping a healthy, optimistic future for our students by teaching with hope. Werner states, “students glean bits of information from which they construct their personal views, often of crisis-ridden and confusing world created by adults who seem unwilling or unable to change it” (Werner, 2016). Unfortunately, this form of a bleak future can be troubling for our youth. Werner identifies this as unacceptable, “schools are in the business of strengthening hope in the future” (Werner, 2016). Werner also identifies key components that lie in developing hope for the future. These components are emotion, information, vision and efficacy. As these are not all necessarily forms of teaching, they are tied to good learning opportunities. For instance, Werner identifies “expression of feeling . . .. engage the interest and imagination of students, extend their involvement with the subject matter; and imbue the curriculum with the kind of personal significance that impels rather than hinders learning” (Werner, 2016). Additionally, Werner continues to utilize information as a major form of teaching. He identifies that it is important to expose students to the important big ideas and world-wide issues. As well, he states “if children hear little acknowledgement of these realities, they conclude that educators do not care or are not being honest” (Werner, 2016). Werner also touches on the notion of vision. This piece connects brilliantly to my working definition of creativity. Many of these global problems have not been solved or even experienced in prior generations. This form of creativity needed to come from vision of our learners. In fact, I see this quite similar to that of Osborne’s earlier statement that original teaching was almost creating patriots or nationals and not problem solvers. However, Werner relates more to the importance of having hope and the ability to solve real world issues. He explains, “hope cannot rest only upon understanding of what is or will be the case, but also upon imagined alternatives and how these may be achieved” (Werner, 2016). And finally, Werner emphasizes the importance of efficacy; a vital factor to education and self-regulated learning. Werner says, “hope is indistinguishable from a belief that individuals and groups influence and shape their futures through action. A strong sense of personal efficacy is a driving force behind any achievement” (Werner, 2016). As I agree with much of these articles, there is one piece that stands out to me. Often when we as educators open our students’ minds to global issues or pieces of history that may have been neglected in the past, we can possibly have to navigate tricky situations with parents and community members personal opinions. How can we continue to fully support our teachers in helping communities understand this is what is best for our learners?
As there are clear connections between the work of Case, Clark, Osborne, and Werner and innovation, creativity, teaching and learning, I find the most obvious link is the importance to shape our youth in a way that exposes them to big ideas with a sense of hope; however, we must also learn the lessons from the past and use a wider array of teaching strategies.
Case, R., & Clark, P. (2013). The Anthology of Social Studies: Issues and Strategies for
Elementary Teachers (Updated Edition) (Updated edition). Pacific Educational Press.
Two separate readings
Chapters:
Teaching of history and democratic citizenship
Teaching for hope
In our previous assignment, I explored two articles in the Anthology of Social Studies developed by Roland Case and Peggy Clark. For this activity, I chose two articles by the same publisher but different authors. I selected George Tomkins’ Foreign Influences on Curriculum and Policy Making in Canada and Larry Cuban’s Can Historians Help School Reformers?
The argument being explored in Foreign Influences on Curriculum and Curriculum Policy Making in Canada is clearly, “how foreign or external influences might have contributed to Canadian curriculum stability and change over more than three centuries” (Tomkins, 1981). Initially, there was much influence over the curriculum in Canada by “external” nations. This occurred as Canada was a new nation and had great influence from Britain, France and our neighbour to the south. According to Tomkins, “with the coming of the Jesuits as the fathers of Canadian Education there was an introduction at the very beginning of Canadian schooling of a highly centralized curriculum, the famous Ratio Studiorum or “plan of studies,” arguably the most systematic program of school ever devised” (Tomkins, 1981). However, at the time educational plans were not always supported by important leaders of the nation. Tomkins asserts, “with the modernization of education and the replacement of church control by state control, foreign curricular influences from France, Great Britain, and the Unites States became explicit” (Tomkins, 1981). From this, we saw a change in the English-speaking parts of Canada. Ryerson, a well-known superintendent of Ontario schools was seen to develop a system using a variety of international influences, but did not necessarily want US guidance. Tomkins mentions, “[Ryerson] replaced many American readers with the famous Irish National Readers, an event which may conveniently be seen as the beginning of a British “imperial” curriculum, that would be influential in anglophone Canada for upwards of a century, into the 1950s” (Tomkins, 1981). Still, this influence that continued in Canada was not merely from Great Britain, and much of the curriculum has been consistently inspired by others. However, milestones in history that changed how the curriculum was taught came with great change in society. Tomkins says, “after 1867, social change could be described as the major force influencing curriculum differentiation” (Tomkins, 1981). One form of change in society, not policy crisis, stemmed from industrialization and the social movement resulted in having education systems prepare the youth for the workforce. Therefore, it appears there were different tracks of education or different forms of learning opportunities that was the first form of differentiation. Tomkins explained, “curriculum differentiation was joined in the form of policy debates about the relative emphasis to be given to the traditional academic curriculum and a more practical education suited to a new age” (Tomkins, 1981).
Additional change continued to take place, as it appears a US influence grew in Canada. Tomkins says, “Canadian Educational Theory and practice were gradually becoming professionalized, which in essence meant Americanized” (Tomkins, 1981). University students from Canada were studying abroad and acquiring knowledge that would lead to change in Canada. Therefore, much of the influence of academia was from foreign educational systems. It was mentioned by Tomkins, even educational practices gained from US was developed from American’s who had been trained in Germany (Tomkins, 1981).
Tomkins identified crisis policy and how it began to take place later on in our short history. After World War 1, we experienced an influx of immigrants attending schools, especially in America. These students were not always English speaking and required a change in the education system too. Canada had similar experiences, but the Tomkins often notes the slow progression Canada was making.
Much of this article relates to our working definitions. I see great connection between creativity and innovation. As indicated earlier, there is mention in the article about the beginnings of an education system. This creative pursuit had never occurred before in our great country and perhaps appeared novel and uncertain at the time. Additionally, the founding of an education system developed through the influence of other nations. Through this influence and perhaps guidance, Canada was able to develop a more uniform, systematic curriculum.
As Tomkins mentions much about influence by other nations, often implying that Canada has not really a foundation that is of its own, I wonder why the negative associations about influence from already experienced nations? There was much to be learned about innovative education systems and creativity associated with crisis policy in this article, and new creative curricula from neighbouring and countries abroad. I recognize that much of our history in education often reflects that of the US, despite experiencing different forms of social change. There were similar connections to the work of Roland Case, in that much of the curriculum after World War 1 was about developing national and patriot pride.
Larry Cuban’s, “Can Historians Help School Reformers?” can be connected to the work of Tomkins. This review does have a link to social change and policy making within education. However, the key argument in this article is “that scholars using a range of archival and other sources can aid contemporary policy makers in pointing out the similarities and differences between previous and current situations. Moreover, the historical method of constructing a chronological narrative can be immensely helpful to policy makers pressed for quick solutions to ambiguously defined problems” (Cuban, 2001). However, Cuban cautions policy makers of misinterpreting history and applying resemblances to contemporary events. Cuban mentions a “golden age” of education in the early 20th century in which there was much more of a focus on intensive curriculum and academics. Cuban states, “students were academic achievers and teachers were qualified and taught well” (Cuban, 2001). As well, Cuban identifies moral education in the US and a movement entitled vocational education. This became a major shift from the so-called “golden age” of education which was more focused on quality of teacher education and achievement of learners to a more preparation for the workforce education. This change came on the heels of the second World War. Cuban explains, “training boys and girls for work triumphed as an educational ideal for public schools . . . that actively learning through doing was far better than sitting, listening, and reading” (Cuban, 2001). Therefore, a social shift began to occur where schools became the centers to prepare students for the workforce. Good jobs were assured to graduates and the subgroups were offered opulence. Cuban mentioned, “schools now responsible for preparing all students for the workplace, they also promised that preparation for the workplace would lead to good jobs for individuals, including historically oppressed poor and minority youth, and economic prosperity for the nation” (Cuban, 2001). Unfortunately, the success that was promised did not occur. Vocationalism did; however, see some benefits and shifts in educational practice, but Cuban asserts that it wasn’t all that fruitful. Cuban says, “the victory of vocationalism in the curriculum meant that other civic and moral purposes for compelling children to attend school and requiring everyone to pay taxes to support institution whether or not they had children attending were subordinated to preparing students to be workers” (Cuban, 2001). Interestingly enough, vocationalism did provide one of the first moments in educational history of not a uniform program, offering options to students. This may be the first form of differentiated instruction and learning experienced in North America. Cuban says, “this belief “curricular differentiation” one held dearly and enthusiastically by professional educators who championed the comprehensive high school with its varied curricular choices” (Cuban, 2001). This piece of Cuban’s review stood out to me quite noticeably, as I see major comparisons to the previous article written by Tomkins. Cuban’s article is similarly focused on social change and forms of education and reforms (i.e., moral education, vocationalism, etc.), where Tomkins identifies social change in relation the timeline of education in Canada and the influence from other nations. Regardless, both articles emphasize the significance of history and its importance in contemporary education. But Cuban states, “historians can help school reformers – if, and only if – those reformers are open-minded and willing to abandon their previous, often incomplete and fractured, images of the past” (Cuban, 2001).
Cuban’s review did clearly relate to our working definitions as well. For instance, Cuban identifies curricular differentiation within vocationalism. Although a different definition of differentiated instruction from a contemporary stand point, it displays the onset of a change in teaching that attempted to reach a range of learners to learn useful skills to become skilled citizens. Additionally, the innovation of differing forms of education is identified throughout the article correlating with an understanding that innovative teaching and learning are connected to social change and big ideas. These methods of teaching and learning may not have occurred without the reform mention by Cuban. Roland Case even mentions the value of teaching about these changes in society. Case and Clark, writers of Teaching with Hope, state “if [students] hear little acknowledgement of these realities, they conclude that educators either do not acre or are not being hones; neither case instills confidence in learning about [society’s] issues” (Werner: 2016).
As I continue to look back at the vocational movement in education, it is clear there weren’t many successes in Cuban’s eyes, but what was the employment climate like at the time of graduation for these students? Were jobs not being offered because of a dip in the economoy? Or were students not fully trained for the workforce? As well, were students asked to participate in a track of education from a young age determining their life’s career?
After examining both articles, it is clear there is much related to social change and policy making. Additionally, there has great influence on our education system by Great Britain, France and the United States.
Case, R., & Clark, P. (2013). The Anthology of Social Studies: Issues and Strategies for
Elementary Teachers (Updated Edition) Teaching with Hope. Pacific Educational Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Can Historians Help School Reformers? (No. 4). Taylor & Francis.
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179706
The argument being explored in Foreign Influences on Curriculum and Curriculum Policy Making in Canada is clearly, “how foreign or external influences might have contributed to Canadian curriculum stability and change over more than three centuries” (Tomkins, 1981). Initially, there was much influence over the curriculum in Canada by “external” nations. This occurred as Canada was a new nation and had great influence from Britain, France and our neighbour to the south. According to Tomkins, “with the coming of the Jesuits as the fathers of Canadian Education there was an introduction at the very beginning of Canadian schooling of a highly centralized curriculum, the famous Ratio Studiorum or “plan of studies,” arguably the most systematic program of school ever devised” (Tomkins, 1981). However, at the time educational plans were not always supported by important leaders of the nation. Tomkins asserts, “with the modernization of education and the replacement of church control by state control, foreign curricular influences from France, Great Britain, and the Unites States became explicit” (Tomkins, 1981). From this, we saw a change in the English-speaking parts of Canada. Ryerson, a well-known superintendent of Ontario schools was seen to develop a system using a variety of international influences, but did not necessarily want US guidance. Tomkins mentions, “[Ryerson] replaced many American readers with the famous Irish National Readers, an event which may conveniently be seen as the beginning of a British “imperial” curriculum, that would be influential in anglophone Canada for upwards of a century, into the 1950s” (Tomkins, 1981). Still, this influence that continued in Canada was not merely from Great Britain, and much of the curriculum has been consistently inspired by others. However, milestones in history that changed how the curriculum was taught came with great change in society. Tomkins says, “after 1867, social change could be described as the major force influencing curriculum differentiation” (Tomkins, 1981). One form of change in society, not policy crisis, stemmed from industrialization and the social movement resulted in having education systems prepare the youth for the workforce. Therefore, it appears there were different tracks of education or different forms of learning opportunities that was the first form of differentiation. Tomkins explained, “curriculum differentiation was joined in the form of policy debates about the relative emphasis to be given to the traditional academic curriculum and a more practical education suited to a new age” (Tomkins, 1981).
Additional change continued to take place, as it appears a US influence grew in Canada. Tomkins says, “Canadian Educational Theory and practice were gradually becoming professionalized, which in essence meant Americanized” (Tomkins, 1981). University students from Canada were studying abroad and acquiring knowledge that would lead to change in Canada. Therefore, much of the influence of academia was from foreign educational systems. It was mentioned by Tomkins, even educational practices gained from US was developed from American’s who had been trained in Germany (Tomkins, 1981).
Tomkins identified crisis policy and how it began to take place later on in our short history. After World War 1, we experienced an influx of immigrants attending schools, especially in America. These students were not always English speaking and required a change in the education system too. Canada had similar experiences, but the Tomkins often notes the slow progression Canada was making.
Much of this article relates to our working definitions. I see great connection between creativity and innovation. As indicated earlier, there is mention in the article about the beginnings of an education system. This creative pursuit had never occurred before in our great country and perhaps appeared novel and uncertain at the time. Additionally, the founding of an education system developed through the influence of other nations. Through this influence and perhaps guidance, Canada was able to develop a more uniform, systematic curriculum.
As Tomkins mentions much about influence by other nations, often implying that Canada has not really a foundation that is of its own, I wonder why the negative associations about influence from already experienced nations? There was much to be learned about innovative education systems and creativity associated with crisis policy in this article, and new creative curricula from neighbouring and countries abroad. I recognize that much of our history in education often reflects that of the US, despite experiencing different forms of social change. There were similar connections to the work of Roland Case, in that much of the curriculum after World War 1 was about developing national and patriot pride.
Larry Cuban’s, “Can Historians Help School Reformers?” can be connected to the work of Tomkins. This review does have a link to social change and policy making within education. However, the key argument in this article is “that scholars using a range of archival and other sources can aid contemporary policy makers in pointing out the similarities and differences between previous and current situations. Moreover, the historical method of constructing a chronological narrative can be immensely helpful to policy makers pressed for quick solutions to ambiguously defined problems” (Cuban, 2001). However, Cuban cautions policy makers of misinterpreting history and applying resemblances to contemporary events. Cuban mentions a “golden age” of education in the early 20th century in which there was much more of a focus on intensive curriculum and academics. Cuban states, “students were academic achievers and teachers were qualified and taught well” (Cuban, 2001). As well, Cuban identifies moral education in the US and a movement entitled vocational education. This became a major shift from the so-called “golden age” of education which was more focused on quality of teacher education and achievement of learners to a more preparation for the workforce education. This change came on the heels of the second World War. Cuban explains, “training boys and girls for work triumphed as an educational ideal for public schools . . . that actively learning through doing was far better than sitting, listening, and reading” (Cuban, 2001). Therefore, a social shift began to occur where schools became the centers to prepare students for the workforce. Good jobs were assured to graduates and the subgroups were offered opulence. Cuban mentioned, “schools now responsible for preparing all students for the workplace, they also promised that preparation for the workplace would lead to good jobs for individuals, including historically oppressed poor and minority youth, and economic prosperity for the nation” (Cuban, 2001). Unfortunately, the success that was promised did not occur. Vocationalism did; however, see some benefits and shifts in educational practice, but Cuban asserts that it wasn’t all that fruitful. Cuban says, “the victory of vocationalism in the curriculum meant that other civic and moral purposes for compelling children to attend school and requiring everyone to pay taxes to support institution whether or not they had children attending were subordinated to preparing students to be workers” (Cuban, 2001). Interestingly enough, vocationalism did provide one of the first moments in educational history of not a uniform program, offering options to students. This may be the first form of differentiated instruction and learning experienced in North America. Cuban says, “this belief “curricular differentiation” one held dearly and enthusiastically by professional educators who championed the comprehensive high school with its varied curricular choices” (Cuban, 2001). This piece of Cuban’s review stood out to me quite noticeably, as I see major comparisons to the previous article written by Tomkins. Cuban’s article is similarly focused on social change and forms of education and reforms (i.e., moral education, vocationalism, etc.), where Tomkins identifies social change in relation the timeline of education in Canada and the influence from other nations. Regardless, both articles emphasize the significance of history and its importance in contemporary education. But Cuban states, “historians can help school reformers – if, and only if – those reformers are open-minded and willing to abandon their previous, often incomplete and fractured, images of the past” (Cuban, 2001).
Cuban’s review did clearly relate to our working definitions as well. For instance, Cuban identifies curricular differentiation within vocationalism. Although a different definition of differentiated instruction from a contemporary stand point, it displays the onset of a change in teaching that attempted to reach a range of learners to learn useful skills to become skilled citizens. Additionally, the innovation of differing forms of education is identified throughout the article correlating with an understanding that innovative teaching and learning are connected to social change and big ideas. These methods of teaching and learning may not have occurred without the reform mention by Cuban. Roland Case even mentions the value of teaching about these changes in society. Case and Clark, writers of Teaching with Hope, state “if [students] hear little acknowledgement of these realities, they conclude that educators either do not acre or are not being hones; neither case instills confidence in learning about [society’s] issues” (Werner: 2016).
As I continue to look back at the vocational movement in education, it is clear there weren’t many successes in Cuban’s eyes, but what was the employment climate like at the time of graduation for these students? Were jobs not being offered because of a dip in the economoy? Or were students not fully trained for the workforce? As well, were students asked to participate in a track of education from a young age determining their life’s career?
After examining both articles, it is clear there is much related to social change and policy making. Additionally, there has great influence on our education system by Great Britain, France and the United States.
Case, R., & Clark, P. (2013). The Anthology of Social Studies: Issues and Strategies for
Elementary Teachers (Updated Edition) Teaching with Hope. Pacific Educational Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Can Historians Help School Reformers? (No. 4). Taylor & Francis.
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179706