This analysis reveals conflicting methodological approaches to history education in Canada, emphasizing multiculturalism and national narratives.
The article examines characteristics and peculiarities of teaching history in secondary education in Canada. During the late 20th – early decades of the 21st century, the competition between supranational modernist and national-patriotic methodological approaches can be traced. The former is characterized by schematization, sociologization of history, and alternative approaches to shaping students' historical consciousness, while the latter is focused on the pivotal role of the traditional national grand narrative in history lessons. Since Canada is one of the most prominent examples of a multinational state, the current trend is to adhere to the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance in the process of teaching history to school children. The focus is not only on the history of French and British colonization of Canada, but also on the social development of indigenous peoples (Inuit, Indians, Aleuts) and other national immigrant groups of African, Asian, and European descent. The equal place in school history education of all members of the modern Canadian political nation is emphasized. The achievements of Canadian methodologists in developing practical proposals for organizing history lessons are significant. Their initiatives are aimed at raising general interest and developing students' historical empathy, and formulating research tasks. A positive background is also created by the activities of a number of state and public centers and educational projects that provide methodological materials and primary sources on various historical topics. The Ontario history curriculum demonstrates that modernist methodological tools are preferred in working with students. Instead, the study of history by schoolchildren in Quebec is based on the traditional national-patriotic model with compulsory study of history at all stages of secondary education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kopylov et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: