Is Historical Illiteracy For Real?

I would firstly like to thank Angelica Radjenovic for contributing to the THEN/HiER blog. In the spirit of debate and respectful criticism there are also several contentions provided in the article that I would like to comment on.

Radjenovic contends that the way to combat historical illiteracy is to, "provide a united account of Canada’s story within the classroom" and, "create a national identity instead of our fragmented and disjointed history."  Furthermore she states that, "Our story should be united and bold! We should be proud and excited to tell our history." For the author, the root problem of historical illiteracy is twofold: that school history offers a fragmented history of Canada rather than a united and triumphant story, and that teachers focus too much on rote learning and memorization rather than a historical thinking approach. In other words, the problem is the narrative that is offered and the pedagogy that is employed to teach the narrative to students. The solution according to the author is to take a historical thinking approach in order to "foster a national united history story."  

While I would agree that a history pedagogy focused on rote learning and memorization is problematic, the author's solution to the problem of historical illiteracy is contradictory. A historical thinking approach is a critical approach to history that attempts to teach students the disciplinary tools to analyze existing historical accounts and construct their own accounts and arguments about the past, not be passive consumers of a single narrative. Teachers cannot employ a historical thinking approach while also providing a united account of Canadian history. If the focus of history teaching is to improve their historical thinking competencies and dispositions, then surely they cannot be taught one definitive grand narrative of the past that is "united and bold."  

One of the problems with history curriculum and teaching in the past is that teachers tried to teach "a" united narrative of the past rather than introducing students to the multitude of historical interpretations and historical actors/groups that were involved in our national history. This narrative was often exclusive and failed to include the multiple perspectives of different groups involved (First Nations, women, immigrant and minority groups etc..) which lead students and others to disengage with history.

The author also misinterprets the thrust of Morton's argument in his 2000 (not 2010) chapter. Morton argued that greater national cohesion will not be accomplished by creating rigorous content standards for history education. Instead he pushed for a historical thinking approach to Canadian history that will help students assess competing accounts of events in order to build a deeper understanding of the Canadian past.

Lastly, I disagree with the author's assumption that the majority of history teachers across Canada teach history through rote learning and memorization. While this may be the case in several classrooms, there are also myriads of teachers that have adopted a historical thinking approach to history teaching. Furthermore, many curricula across Canada (Manitoba, Ontario and BC's new draft curricula) now include the six historical thinking concepts identified by Dr. Peter Seixas as part of the Historical Thinking Project, and the movement for improving the teaching of historical thinking continues to grow both in Canada and internationally.

I look forward to any comments or responses you might have.