Curriculum in the Age of Globalization

Article Review: Broom, Catherine. “Curriculum in the Age of Globalization.” Canadian Social
       Studies: Canada’s National Social Studies Journal. Spring 2010, 43(1).

Reviewed by Jessica Hanna

Catherine Broom provides a critical examination of British Columbia’s social studies curriculum in her article “Curriculum in the Age of Globalization.” The results of Broom’s study reveals an overt Canadian and Eurocentric tone in the social studies classroom from elementary to high school, which she suspects is a result of government policy aiming to expand national sentiment of “nationhood and pride in Canadians” (Broom). This is criticized by Broom who worries that focusing on the histories of colonial powers creates the potential for students to graduate with little or no understanding of other nations and the unique roles they have played in world history. This dearth of world perspectives in curriculum is referred to by Broom as B.C’s “absent curricula,” a term used to posit her argument regarding why changes are necessary if students are to understand their role as global citizens. She wonders “why global history is not considered necessary for students to study, when it is such a vital component to understanding globalization and inequality in our world today” (Broom). Though not explicit, Broom generates her argument to overhaul the curriculum, using ideas that reflect the fundamental values of social studies – empathy, equality, a broader understanding of cultural diversity and the connections between nations throughout history. Her writing highlights the adverse effects of the curriculum in relation to the goals of the social studies classroom– that instead of generating global awareness, students “might view the Non-Western world only as a “third world,” thinking of these nations merely in relation to their own sociocentric understandings of the world (Broom). As a result, students are deprived an opportunity to appreciate the distinction between the wealth of cultural fulfillment and western ideals of material attainment, a point noted by Broom in relation to her experiences in Mexico.

Although Broom does note the few cases in which the curriculum investigates histories outside of the Canadian-Euro content, she critiques these instances as being mere opportunities to evaluate only the positive aspects of Canada’s involvement in world affairs, and to compare Canadian standards of living to the ‘developing’ world (Broom). Looking at unit studies from  K-12, it is evident the curriculum is partial towards Canadian content, which, to a degree is expected, but superfluous when considering world history and the potential it has to further students’ critical thinking and understanding of world affairs through the evaluation of nations outside the western hemisphere.

Like Broom, I see the potential or perpetuation (depends on how you look at it) for egocentric attitudes to follow an education that’s primary focus is to create a definition of Canada and its relation to European history. In this way, I agree with the basic premise of Broom’s argument – that if students are to be active global citizens, they need to have a better understanding of what is happening outside of their country and why. On the contrary, I also respect the significance of knowing the history and societal issues of one’s own nation before trying to understand what is happening next door. I acknowledge and respect Broom’s critique about the B.C curriculum telling an “incomplete story of Canada,” and feel if we can address this issue first, we can be more honest about Canada’s participation in world history (Broom).

My critique of Broom’s curricular evaluation is that her focus relies too heavily on “renovating” the curriculum, when the Prescribed Learning Outcomes in these documents seem to allow for plenty of academic freedom in terms of how the material is taught. For this reason, the opportunities to incorporate world history into classes designated for Canadian content are endless. Canada’s past, like all other national histories, is integrated with world history, meaning there is occasion to prevent the lack of worldwide historical education by shifting the way educators approach the curriculum. To her credit, Broom does mention the role colonialism has in Canadian history and how this should be examined more closely to fully understand our nations past; but instead of rewriting documents that take enormous funds and years to recreate, why not look to educators to accommodate world history in the social studies curriculum. The effects of colonialism in Canadian history are one way that could, and ought to explore worldwide impacts of Canadian choices throughout history, both the good and bad. Social studies is about teaching students to be critical thinkers, and what better opportunity to do so then to expose them to historical perspectives from all of those involved. By examining history through this lens, students will develop further awareness of their nation’s position in the global community, while simultaneously learning about developments in other countries. This would be an ideal platform in which to explore how choices made in the past often have long lasting effects on all nations and individuals involved, as well as provide educators with ways to make more connections in their social studies classrooms.

I realize that perhaps my remedy for this deficiency in world histories may be idealistic in some ways, but I think if teachers were more informed about the misconceptions of Canadian histories, they may be more likely to incorporate and compare Canada’s past in ways that are more significant for students living in the age of globalization. I agree with Broom that it is important for students to have the ability to consider alternative perspectives of how their lives relate to individuals worldwide, and in order to do so, they must have the knowledge to think critically about the events they hear in the media – something that can only be done with the knowledge of worldwide historical connectedness; however, I think this type of teaching and learning can happen with the current curriculum. If instead, the focus was on professional development for social studies teachers, alternative worldviews may become a more common theme within the classroom.