Article Review: What is "historical significance"?

Article Summary

‘Historical significance’ is often ill conceived among today’s Canadian students. In an attempt to address this issue, Stéphane Lévesque introduces ‘historical significance’ as a second-order concept. While first-order concepts involve the content of history (e.g. events and figures), second-order concepts arise during inquiry and investigation into the past. In particular, the application of ‘significance’ is necessary for students to engage in historical content and learn “to make informed decisions [and] understand different perspectives.” It is therefore problematic that second-order concepts are largely omitted from social studies textbooks and classrooms.

While the idea of significance allows us to distinguish ‘relevant’ from ‘trivial’, we still rely heavily on established criteria to help us determine that significance. According to Lévesque, criteria have evolved independently within three different domains: the history community (of professional historians), the students’ community (of cultural context), and the education community (of ministries and educators). However, none of these criteria have been identified as standards for determining significance in the classroom.

The history community uses criteria of “disciplinary significance” (e.g. importance and relevance) while the education community employs criteria of “memory significance” (e.g. intimate interests), the latter relying on personal connections and contemporary justifications to determine historical significance. This divide indicates the dynamic and complex nature of historical significance, and demonstrates the difficulty in understanding how students “relate and connect to the past.” Given the many sources of influence existing in the students’ community (e.g. disciplinary, political, cultural, and educational), it makes sense that students in different cultural contexts encounter different versions of history.

To illustrate how different school communities and different personal contexts (e.g. family, language, culture) influence historical thinking, Lévesque surveyed Anglophone and Francophone students’ conceptions of historical significance. In asking 78 Ontario high school students to each identify the most significant event in Canadian history, he found that a variety of events were selected, with Francophones being more likely than Anglophones to suggest events of significance within French culture (and vice versa). Furthermore, French students used criteria of memory significance to explain their selections more often than English students, who relied more heavily on disciplinary criteria. These differences were apparently related to “school and cultural/linguistic divides.”

According to Lévesque, these results imply that education and history communities are less influential than students’ cultural communities when it comes to understanding and justifying historical significance. For example, Francophone students evaluate historical significance in terms of intimate interests because their minority status promotes connectedness.

In short, historical significance is a concept that is defined differently by different people at different points in time, largely due to the varying cultural contexts and communities that surround us. In conclusion, Lévesque speaks to the importance of educating Canadian students about historical significance as a second-order concept, so that they can critically evaluate the “interpretative frames and collective values used to make sense of the past.”

Evaluation and Exploration of Results

Personally, I have conflicting opinions of this article. Overall, I think Lévesque provides an intriguing and valuable lens through which to view social studies education. However, I feel criticism can (and should) be made of the author’s research strategies and derived conclusions.

There is certainly evidence within our current education system to support the need for a new approach to learning about the past. As adolescents, high school students are continuously battling a host of developmental, social, and personal issues, making it difficult for them to see beyond their immediate lives and current environments. Thus, the past holds no inherent meaning or value for them. Given that the subject of social studies is so firmly rooted in the past, it is critically important to emphasize relevance and connection in the learning process. Without direction, students will passively define historical significance within their own limited (and unrecognized) cultural contexts, and further, will precariously internalize “misconceptions and misunderstandings of the past.” But with the guidance of active educators, students can learn to identify the influence of the “collective past” and, in turn, re-evaluate the criteria they employ in determining historical significance. This type of second-order engagement with course content facilitates students in developing greater knowledge and understanding in the area of history.

From a critical standpoint, however, the findings of Lévesque’s research are not substantial enough to support his assumptions. While it was logical to select Anglophone and Francophone students from the same province (Ontario) to control for the influence of curriculum, this choice was also problematic in that it increased the chances that students would share similar cultural contexts and influences. In addition, with a sample group of only 78 students, the observed differences between French and English students might be easily attributed to other possible explanations, such as gender or scholastic standing. Without more thorough research to support his claims, Lévesque’s proposed changes are somewhat a priori.

That said, I believe there is still a place for innovative teaching and learning strategies to be tested in the classroom. Lévesque’s endorsement of second-order concepts in the study of history is compelling, since connection and engagement with the material would enhance the learning experience for students. In fact, second-order concepts are reminiscent of higher-level intellectual skills, such as analysis and evaluation, included in Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956). When considered in this context, Lévesque is not necessarily advocating anything new; instead, he is re-considering an established approach to learning and providing justification for its use in today’s education system. Educators must remember that it is not merely content that holds value for students – ultimately, it is the learning process that is crucial. Only by developing tools for learning, thinking, and evaluating will students see their educations truly serve them in life.

Reference

Stéphane Lévesque. “Teaching Second-Order Concepts in Canadian History: The Importance of ‘Historical Significance’.” Canadian Social Studies 39.2 (2005). Online.