History is a subject with such diverse sub-sections. In essence, everything has a history. Although, it can be argued that what someone may believe is history is just a series of memories (Ducharme, 2009). Hence, some believe that there is a specific distinction between history and memory (Ducharme, 2009). History is more akin to a scientific process (Ducharme, 2009). Historians (i.e. scientists) use primary sources (i.e. experimental results) to understand the events of the past and through this understanding, they are able to link and “create a dialogue between the past and present” (Ducharme, 2009, p.142-143). In comparison, memory, more specifically public memory, is based on someone’s own experiences and does not always promote a “dialogue
…show more content…
In “Four Defining Purposes of Citizenship Education”, Clark and Case (2008) discuss a “citizenship education matrix” (Clark & Case, 2008). In this matrix, someone can determine in which quadrant they fall under based on their rationale for teaching citizenship education (Clark & Case, 2008). For example, a teacher who believes the classroom should focus on “personal development” and “social reformation” would tend to favour free schools (Clark & Case, 2008) such as Summerhill (Neil, 1996). I thoroughly believe that history and citizenship education should be taught such that students’ “intellectual development” is exercised to the fullest extent as well as their “social initiation” (Clark & Case, 2008). While this rationale falls toward the “social acceptance” side of the matrix (i.e. typical high school teacher) (Clark & Case, 2008), students need to develop a foundation before they are able to think critically about past events. If not, their understanding would be purely superficial. Therefore, history education should begin by teaching students all the necessary material such that once they are comfortable enough to think critically about how the world functions, then their learning would be directed toward the “social change” (Clark & Case, 2008) side of the spectrum. In
In “Four Defining Purposes of Citizenship Education”, Clark and Case (2008) discuss a “citizenship education matrix” (Clark & Case, 2008). In this matrix, someone can determine in which quadrant they fall under based on their rationale for teaching citizenship education (Clark & Case, 2008). For example, a teacher who believes the classroom should focus on “personal development” and “social reformation” would tend to favour free schools (Clark & Case, 2008) such as Summerhill (Neil, 1996). I thoroughly believe that history and citizenship education should be taught such that students’ “intellectual development” is exercised to the fullest extent as well as their “social initiation” (Clark & Case, 2008). While this rationale falls toward the “social acceptance” side of the matrix (i.e. typical high school teacher) (Clark & Case, 2008), students need to develop a foundation before they are able to think critically about past events. If not, their understanding would be purely superficial. Therefore, history education should begin by teaching students all the necessary material such that once they are comfortable enough to think critically about how the world functions, then their learning would be directed toward the “social change” (Clark & Case, 2008) side of the spectrum. In