This paper examines Ken Osborne's 2000 article on the history of history teaching in Canadian schools. It traces two distinct phases of pedagogical practice: the Traditional mode (1930s–1950s), characterized by rote factual transmission and passive student learning, and the Progressive mode (1960s–present), which introduced inquiry-based methods, interdisciplinary social science frameworks, and multiculturalism. The paper argues, following Osborne, that the ability to think historically is central to cultivating national identity, patriotism, and citizenship among Canadian youth. It concludes that younger, innovative educators played a pivotal role in transforming history from a perceived exercise in memorization into an engaging, critically oriented subject.
Canada's history as a nation stretches back to the 10th–16th centuries, encompassing prehistoric civilization and the eventual colonization of its peoples. After the colonial period, Canada finally achieved independence from British and French rule in the 19th century, a process influenced by events in the United States such as the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
As the 20th century arrived, Canada was rebuilding itself as a nation. Social institutions were established, including the educational system, which was considered an essential tool for developing Canadian citizens into future leaders and contributors to national progress. After two world wars that left the entire world crippled, Canadians rebuilt their nation during the 1930s and 1940s, a period in which significant social changes occurred. These changes involved themes such as Canadian nationalism, emphasizing the role of each citizen in knowing the country's historical heritage, and the vital responsibility of both the individual and society to fulfil their duties as citizens of the nation.
Developing a sense of nationality, citizenship, and patriotism in every Canadian citizen is the central issue that Ken Osborne tackles in his article, "'Our History Syllabus Has Us Gasping': History in Canadian Schools — Past, Present, and Future." In this article, Osborne analyzes the nation's struggle to propagate and teach Canadian history to its students through educational institutions. The author posits that, more than any other factor influencing perceptions of Canadian history teaching, the ability to think historically is society's capacity to apply Canada's history to past and current issues that are significant and relevant to the development of nationalism, patriotism, and citizenship in the minds of every Canadian.
Early in his discourse, Osborne presents the challenge facing the Canadian government as it tries to promote a nationalistic and patriotic character among its citizens by educating them about Canada's history. He questions whether national identity and citizenship can, in fact, be developed through an education in Canadian history: "[s]hould the teaching of history be related to the practice of citizenship? … should history be … a vehicle for the formation of national identity? … The best way to explore these questions in a Canadian context is to examine the teaching of history historically."
Osborne's discussion of the history of history teaching in Canada's educational system is organized into two phases. The first phase covers the years 1930–1950s and is characterized as the Traditional mode of teaching history. Each mode employed various techniques that brought about significant changes in how key ideas were conveyed through classroom lecture and discussion. The two modes, however, had markedly different effects: the Progressive mode resulted in a more positive reception of Canadian history as a subject compared to the more technical and, for many students, tedious Traditional mode.
In the Traditional mode, "history was … consisting only of 'a recital of facts in chronological order' … saying nothing about the reasons and motives underlying events, and totally failing to fulfil 'its proper functions of giving one background for a better present and future citizenship.'" This mode focused primarily on the technical aspects of teaching history, which involved the simple transmission of information from instructor to student. As a result, "Canadian history … has been and is 'factualized' to the point of boredom." Osborne further argues that this method of "information transmission" rendered history "a static recital of facts," causing boredom and passive participation on the part of students.
Another important issue during the Traditional phase was the prevailing assumption that the ability to think historically belonged exclusively to adults and professionals. There was a general public consensus that young people were incapable of critically analyzing issues in terms of their country's history. Consequently, students were treated as passive receivers of historical information, which explains why the mode of teaching during this period was so technical and factual. The perception that history was boring and insignificant to the school curricula prevailed not only among the student body but across Canadian society as well.
"Inquiry-based methods and interdisciplinary social sciences"
"Demographics, ethnicity, and real-world history applications"
"Young teachers transforming history into dynamic subject"
It is evident that the Progressive mode of teaching has helped innovate and transform the state of history education in Canada, where knowledge of the nation's history is considered an essential requirement for developing national identity, patriotism, and a sense of citizenship — particularly among the youth. This achievement is especially attributable to Canada's younger generation of educators, who made it possible to present history as an interesting and significant subject despite its reputation for factual dryness and technical complexity.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.