Module 2- Historical Foundations of Thinking and Learning

I really enjoyed this unit. It opened avenues of thinking that I did not consider before as to the actual make up of our concept of education. It never occurred to me that so much debate was going on as to the makeup of curriculums and the integrity of particular faculties and their academic standing. It allowed me to see education itself as a malleable concept that can be formed to serve society in a plethora of different ways. In many ways, like most studies of history- it was a liberating affair. I feel that I am open to think about change and the relationships within the institution as well as the ways in which adaptability can take place in the 21st century. Here are my questions so far:

For K. Osborne

“As a Winnipeg resident for most of your life, how do you feel about the geographically biased education on Louis Riel and the Red River rebellion? Shouldn’t the provinces present each interpretation of his legacy and ask the students to be the judges?”

“What, in your opinion, is the best way to make a case for the necessity of history for the modern classroom? Is it doomed to shape itself into a vocationalist’s skill-set curriculum, or become a national narrative propaganda piece or is there a way to defend its authenticity and the importance of its study in an attractive and receptive way?”

For C. Broom,

How can we integrate the philosophical aspect of thinking into more classes like history? How can we adapt the institution to look at it as a part of thought process and not a subject in its own right?

If history is holistic, is there a clear method for arguing its necessity in school programs?

With so many new disciplines and interpretations, how in the world are we to create history curriculums? The weight of so many histories and genealogies is staggering, how can overwhelmed teachers cope with such immense responsibilities?