Critical Review of "Curriculum in the Age of Globalization"

Broom, Catherine. (2010).  Curriculum in the Age of Globalization.  Canadian Social Studies,

Canada’s National Social Studies Journal, 43, 1, Retrieved from:

http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/css/Css_43_1/Curriculum_in_the_Age_of_Globalization.htm on January 29, 2012.

Reviewed by Lisa Rotkin, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Catherine Broom’s article, Curriculum in the Age of Globalization, voices a call for change surrounding British Columbia’s Social Studies curriculum.  It examines BC’s “absent curricula”, the lack of World History, and critiques the narrow view in which current Canadian content is being taught.  Specifically, the article calls for the need to teach a true and honest history of colonialism, and to connect it to today’s society through curriculum change.  Broom purports that the knowledge of World History is essential as it provides the context for the global culture in which students do, and will continue to, reside.  She maintains that a curriculum change focusing on increased World History content will impart students with a better understanding of the world.  She believes the change will foster critical thinking and develop empathetic students. 

Broom presumes that the BC curriculum is overtly Canada-centred, and that more World History would allow students to positively affect change within the global construct.  It is true that we are becoming more and more entrenched in a global society and that to fully participate in this society we need context.  However, first and foremost we need to learn how to participate in our own society: to make local, community based decisions, to affect change within the community in which we live, and to witness the change we affect.  As citizens of Canada it is important to identify and care for issues within the nation.  The curriculum supports the growth and understanding of the Canadian multicultural identity, and as a result allows for the development of empathy that can be transferred to a global context.

Broom states, “if the present is the past and the world has been full of actors interacting in the past to create the present, students can’t understand our world today unless they have knowledge of this history.”  The validity of this statement is strong, and the BC curriculum recognizes its strength.  Throughout the curriculum there are references to comparing histories of societies, governments, and the arts of differing nations with Canadian culture.  The BC curriculum integrates World History within the context of Canadian themes to provide an authentic context for learning.  A forum already exists within the framework of the BC curriculum for the discussion of World History.  It is the educators who need to seize the opportunity to introduce the actors so that students can become active participants in their story.

Broom’s dissatisfaction in the teaching of an incomplete history, and the ramifications of “reinforcing stereotypes”, is a founded concern.  She claims the reason for and consequence of this type of teaching is due to a curriculum that is Canada-centred with some European History added for context.  By conveying limited viewpoints of history, educators are inserting their bias on the realities of others histories.  However, the IRP’s clearly indicate that students are to “apply critical thinking skills…  to a wide range of problems and issues.”  Critical thinking skills include examining viewpoints from multiple perspectives.  Broom’s article neglects to consider the possibility that the teaching of an incomplete history is a result of the ignorance within the education profession itself.  Broom mentions the prospect of a Professional Development Day Conference to dispel the myths in the curricula regarding Canadian History that educators are teaching to their students.  Perhaps a conference like this could be held to educate teachers on the different viewpoints of Canada’s History so they will be equipped to tell the whole story.

Broom suggests that an overview of key world events, selected by an international group of scholars, be inserted into the curriculum.  There is a danger in teaching a brief world overview of key events.  The brevity discounts the stories of others, just as the lack of multiple perspectives in Canadian History, according to Broom, “delegitimizes the stories” and creates myths.  Would it not be inherently oppressive to tell the stories of select nations? Which nations should be chosen?  What ancestry would the international scholars creating this snapshot of history be from?  Certainly the answers to these questions will reveal a different World History depending on who was chosen to answer them.

The other pedagogical strategies that Broom cites are sound and effective.  Having students conduct research projects on a country of interest to them and to explore how global forces are currently transforming that country would lend to increased knowledge of World History.  Taking “real action” with groups like Amnesty International is a way to address inequity and human rights issues while affecting change.  A current events board is another way to explore World History.  By posting current global political, geographical, ethical, and cultural events in the classroom and having discussions about them, students cannot help but learn World History in context. The discussions will undoubtedly require background information, which can lend to the importance of gathering information from different sources, again reiterating the necessity of multiple perspectives.

Broom’s awareness of the need for students to become engaged on a global scale is astute and noble.  However, her demand for a re-haul of the BC curriculum will not support this awareness.  The disconnect between students’ lack of knowledge and the curriculum lies with the facilitator of information.  When educators are awakened to the curriculum and are able to see the freedom, the responsibility, the potential that lies within it, then and only then will students graduate as critical, empathetic, active, global citizens.

This article has empowered me to teach the “lived” experience of her/his, their, and our story.  I will employ Broom’s pedagogical strategy of a current events board in my classroom.  I will motivate my students to do a research project on a country of their choice.  I will introduce students to different sources of media and print to gain multiple perspectives on issues.  I will challenge my students to think critically.  I will demand that together we take action in our community.  In these ways, the “stereotypes and silences” of the past and present will be broken, and students’ empathy will not hault at the Canadian border.