[et_pb_section fb_built=\u00a0\u00bb1″ admin_label=\u00a0\u00bbSalon Article\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.0″ da_disable_devices=\u00a0\u00bboff|off|off\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb da_is_popup=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb da_exit_intent=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb da_has_close=\u00a0\u00bbon\u00a0\u00bb da_alt_close=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb da_dark_close=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb da_not_modal=\u00a0\u00bbon\u00a0\u00bb da_is_singular=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb da_with_loader=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb da_has_shadow=\u00a0\u00bbon\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_row _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb theme_builder_area=\u00a0\u00bbpost_content\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb theme_builder_area=\u00a0\u00bbpost_content\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_post_nav in_same_term=\u00a0\u00bbon\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb theme_builder_area=\u00a0\u00bbpost_content\u00a0\u00bb][\/et_pb_post_nav][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=\u00a0\u00bb2_5,3_5″ admin_label=\u00a0\u00bbrow\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ background_size=\u00a0\u00bbinitial\u00a0\u00bb background_position=\u00a0\u00bbtop_left\u00a0\u00bb background_repeat=\u00a0\u00bbrepeat\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb2_5″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.24.2″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bbtitle\/author\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb min_height=\u00a0\u00bb22.8px\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Dr. Lindsay Gibson<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bbDescription\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb||0px|||\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Au cours des 50 derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es, la pens\u00e9e historique est devenue la norme dans la th\u00e9orie et pratique de l\u2019enseignement de l\u2019histoire en Europe de l\u2019Ouest et en Am\u00e9rique du Nord, pour ensuite s\u2019\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chelle de la plan\u00e8te. Depuis la mise sur pied du Projet de la pens\u00e9e historique en 2006, ses d\u00e9finitions, concepts et cadres ont \u00e9t\u00e9 inclus dans les programmes d\u2019histoire et de sciences sociales de la majorit\u00e9 des provinces et territoires du Canada. Tous les grands \u00e9diteurs canadiens de manuels scolaires ont publi\u00e9 des livres qui incluent les concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique, et de nombreux instituts d\u2019\u00e9t\u00e9 et d\u2019hiver et d\u2019ateliers de perfectionnement professionnel \u00e0 ce sujet ont eu lieu virtuellement et en personne partout au pays.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb3_5″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.24.2″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_image src=\u00a0\u00bbhttps:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/historical-thinking.png\u00a0\u00bb title_text=\u00a0\u00bbhistorical thinking\u00a0\u00bb show_bottom_space=\u00a0\u00bboff\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=\u00a0\u00bbrow\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.16″ background_size=\u00a0\u00bbinitial\u00a0\u00bb background_position=\u00a0\u00bbtop_left\u00a0\u00bb background_repeat=\u00a0\u00bbrepeat\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.16″ custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb|||\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding__hover=\u00a0\u00bb|||\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bbDescription\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb-25px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb||0px|||\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
J\u2019ai d\u00e9couvert la pens\u00e9e historique en 2006 lorsqu\u2019on m\u2019a donn\u00e9 un exemplaire de Teaching about Historical Thinking (j\u2019ai encore ma copie originale, avec ses pages \u00e9corn\u00e9es et ses papillons adh\u00e9sifs) r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par Mike Denos et Roland Case et fond\u00e9 sur le cadre con\u00e7u par Peter Seixas. Depuis, j\u2019ai travaill\u00e9 avec les concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique comme enseignante d\u2019histoire et de sciences sociales au secondaire, \u00e9tudiante au doctorat, mentore de candidates et candidats \u00e0 l\u2019enseignement et d\u2019\u00e9tudiantes et \u00e9tudiants de cycle sup\u00e9rieur dans une facult\u00e9 d\u2019\u00c9ducation, conceptrice de programmes et de ressources p\u00e9dagogiques et pr\u00e9sentatrice \u00e0 des ateliers et instituts d\u2019enseignement. Ces diff\u00e9rentes exp\u00e9riences m\u2019ont permis de constater que les gens ont plusieurs fausses id\u00e9es sur la pens\u00e9e historique pour lesquelles je vais fournir les prochains \u00e9claircissements.\u00a0<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=\u00a0\u00bb3_5,2_5″ disabled_on=\u00a0\u00bbon|on|off\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin_tablet=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin_phone=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin_last_edited=\u00a0\u00bbon|phone\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb3_5″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb|40px|||false|false\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb1″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb0px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
De nombreux chercheurs ont d\u00e9montr\u00e9 que m\u00eame les plus jeunes \u00e9l\u00e8ves ont des connaissances sur ce qui s\u2019est produit dans le pass\u00e9 et des id\u00e9es sur comment nous savons ce que nous savons, certaines desquelles sont exactes et d\u2019autre non. Pet Lee (2005) est d\u2019avis qu\u2019il est essentiel pour les enseignantes et enseignants de conna\u00eetre les id\u00e9es qu\u2019ont les \u00e9l\u00e8ves sur le contenu historique, mais aussi sur les fa\u00e7ons qui nous permettent de savoir ce que nous savons sur le pass\u00e9 afin d\u2019aborder les fausses id\u00e9es qu\u2019ils peuvent avoir.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb3″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Les enseignantes et enseignants d\u00e9crivent souvent les concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique comme des habilet\u00e9s, mais je crois qu\u2019il s\u2019agit plut\u00f4t de comp\u00e9tences. Selon Roland Case (2020), la comp\u00e9tence se rapporte \u00e0 la capacit\u00e9 d\u2019ex\u00e9cuter efficacement une plus vaste gamme d\u2019activit\u00e9s plut\u00f4t que la simple exhibition d\u2019habilit\u00e9s. Il existe des dizaines d\u2019habilet\u00e9s particuli\u00e8res en communication et litt\u00e9ratie, mais par comp\u00e9tence, on entend la capacit\u00e9 de livrer avec succ\u00e8s un ensemble de produits ou de r\u00e9sultats connexes. De fa\u00e7on semblable, chaque concept de la pens\u00e9e historique est constitu\u00e9 de connaissances, inclinations et habilet\u00e9s disciplinaires interreli\u00e9es. Par exemple, Seixas et Morton (2013) d\u00e9crivent cinq balises qui encadrent les disciplines et habilet\u00e9s pour chacun des six concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique inclus dans le mod\u00e8le. La comp\u00e9tence met aussi l\u2019accent sur l\u2019ex\u00e9cution authentique des t\u00e2ches qui exigent que les \u00e9l\u00e8ves prennent une d\u00e9cision au sujet des habilit\u00e9s, inclinations et connaissances qui sont les plus pertinentes et utiles pour aborder les v\u00e9ritables probl\u00e8mes historiques. Si on demande aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves, par exemple, de trouver la r\u00e9ponse la plus appropri\u00e9e \u00e0 une controverse entourant une statue historique dans leur r\u00e9gion, ils doivent puiser dans une vaste gamme de connaissances, habilet\u00e9s, valeurs et inclinations bas\u00e9es sur diff\u00e9rents concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique. Ils devront donc consulter des sources primaires et les interpr\u00e9ter, ainsi qu\u2019utiliser la perspective historique et le jugement \u00e9thique.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb5″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Le concept de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective en histoire est une question \u00e9pineuse et contest\u00e9e. On dit qu\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 historique est objectivement vrai lorsqu\u2019il satisfait aux conditions de v\u00e9racit\u00e9 sans subjectivit\u00e9s individuelles (p.ex., perceptions, \u00e9motions ou imagination). Il existe des faits historiques incontestables, mais l\u2019assimilation de l\u2019histoire est bien plus que l\u2019\u00e9tablissement de faits historiques et leur organisation en r\u00e9cits. Le pass\u00e9 est fini et ne peut pas \u00eatre recr\u00e9\u00e9; les r\u00e9cits historiques sont cr\u00e9\u00e9s par des humains ayant diverses subjectivit\u00e9s. Il est impossible de prouver incontestablement qu\u2019une interpr\u00e9tation quelconque du pass\u00e9 constitue la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective \u00bb. La pens\u00e9e historique veut qu\u2019on enseigne aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves comment analyser et interpr\u00e9ter les preuves historiques pour construire, d\u00e9construire et reconstruire les r\u00e9cits historiques. Le but n\u2019est pas d\u2019\u00e9tablir la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective, mais de trouver des solutions plausibles aux tensions, difficult\u00e9s et probl\u00e8mes inh\u00e9rents \u00e0 l\u2019assimilation de l\u2019histoire et soulev\u00e9s par les concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique. Quels \u00e9v\u00e9nements et personnes du pass\u00e9 doit-on conna\u00eetre aujourd\u2019hui? Qu\u2019est-ce qui a caus\u00e9 un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique et quelle en est la cons\u00e9quence? Quelles interpr\u00e9tations du pass\u00e9 sont les plus plausibles? Quelles le\u00e7ons tirons-nous des similitudes et diff\u00e9rences au f il du temps? Comment comprenons-nous ce que les gens pensaient et croyaient dans le pass\u00e9? Comment devrions-nous r\u00e9agir aux injustices et aux gestes h\u00e9ro\u00efques du pass\u00e9?<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb7″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Lorsqu\u2019on parle d\u2019injustices historiques, certaines personnes sont d\u2019avis qu\u2019on ne devrait pas juger les gens dans le pass\u00e9 selon les normes actuelles. De fa\u00e7on int\u00e9ressante, on n\u2019applique pas la m\u00eame logique lorsqu\u2019il s\u2019agit de juger les personnes dans le pass\u00e9 qui m\u00e9ritent d\u2019\u00eatre honor\u00e9es aujourd\u2019hui. \u00c9videmment, il est important de comprendre le 7contexte historique, les perspectives, les valeurs, la vision du monde et les croyances des personnes dans le pass\u00e9 avant de porter un jugement. Or, il ne faut pas oublier que nous vivons in\u00e9luctablement dans le pr\u00e9sent et qu\u2019il est impossible de ne pas porter de jugement sur le pass\u00e9. Lorsque les enseignantes et enseignants choisissent ce qu\u2019ils enseigneront (et ce qu\u2019ils n\u2019enseigneront pas), ils portent un jugement sur le pass\u00e9. Lorsque nous portons un jugement \u00e9thique sur les b\u00e9vues du pass\u00e9, il est important de comprendre qu\u2019elles se sont produites avant, durant ou apr\u00e8s un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique. Il faut aussi conna\u00eetre les normes sociales, politiques, culturelles et \u00e9thiques qui existaient \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque; les circonstances, contraintes et options qui ont motiv\u00e9 ou limit\u00e9 les actions des gens dans le pass\u00e9; ainsi que les valeurs, croyances, attitudes et cadres intellectuelles de diff\u00e9rentes personnes par rapport \u00e0 ce qu\u2019elles consid\u00e9raient \u00eatre un comportement \u00e9thique. (Gibson et al., 2022).<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb9″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Les sources primaires sont originales ou de premi\u00e8re main en termes de temps et d\u2019acc\u00e8s au sujet historique qui fait l\u2019objet de l\u2019enqu\u00eate. Les sources secondaires sont des sources de seconde main qui sont produites \u00e0 partir de preuves tir\u00e9es d\u2019autres sources primaires ou secondaires. Nous pouvons d\u00e9terminer si une source est primaire ou secondaire en fonction de la question qui est pos\u00e9e. Une statue ou une plaque au sujet d\u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique est une source secondaire si la question qu\u2019on se pose porte sur ce qui s\u2019est pass\u00e9 durant une bataille, mais une source primaire si on se pose des questions sur ce que les personnes qui ont cr\u00e9\u00e9 la statue pensaient au sujet de l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement historique. Durant mes ateliers de perfectionnement professionnel, je demande souvent aux enseignantes et enseignants si les sources primaires sont plus utiles que les sources secondaires en ce qui a trait \u00e0 la pens\u00e9e historique. Dans la plupart des cas, les personnes pr\u00e9sentes sont d\u2019avis que les sources primaires sont plus utiles, car elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9es durant la p\u00e9riode et pr\u00e8s de l\u2019endroit o\u00f9 a eu lieu l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude. Parfois, les participantes et participants r\u00e9pondent qu\u2019aucune source n\u2019est plus utile que l\u2019autre ou que les deux types de sources ont la m\u00eame importance. Ce sont aussi deux bonnes r\u00e9ponses. On doit examiner et analyser minutieusement les sources primaires et secondaires requises dans le contexte de la question historique et de l\u2019objet de notre enqu\u00eate. En ce sens, aucune source n\u2019est fondamentalement plus utile qu\u2019une autre. Alternativement, les deux types de sources sont utiles, car pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une question de recherche historique, nous devons analyser les sources primaires, ainsi que la fa\u00e7on dont les sources secondaires sont interpr\u00e9t\u00e9es et les r\u00e9cits qui en d\u00e9coulent.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb2_5″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb2″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb0px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
La pens\u00e9e historique est de nature complexe et contest\u00e9e. Il existe plusieurs mod\u00e8les conceptuels de la pens\u00e9e historique qui incluent des concepts identiques et divergents. Sam Wineburg (1999) a cern\u00e9 quatre approches heuristiques \u2014 la s\u00e9lection des sources, la contextualisation, la corroboration et la lecture attentive \u2013 qui fournissent des outils pratiques pour l\u2019enseignement et l\u2019\u00e9valuation de la litt\u00e9ratie historique des \u00e9l\u00e8ves et de leur pens\u00e9e historique au sujet des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve. Au Canada, Peter Seixas (2009) a d\u00e9fini la pens\u00e9e historique en termes de six concepts : la pertinence historique, les preuves, la continuit\u00e9 et le changement, les causes et les cons\u00e9quences, les perspectives historiques et la dimension \u00e9thique. Les \u00e9rudits demandent l\u2019ajout de concepts suppl\u00e9mentaires sur la pens\u00e9e historique, dont l\u2019empathie historique (Endacott et Brooks, 2018), ainsi que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation ou les \u00ab r\u00e9cits \u00bb historiques (Chapman, 2017).<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Il y a un d\u00e9bat interminable parmi les enseignantes et enseignants d\u2019histoire et de sciences sociales sur l\u2019acquisition d\u2019habilet\u00e9s plut\u00f4t que du contenu historique. Les partisans de la transmission d\u2019habilet\u00e9s sont d\u2019avis que les \u00e9l\u00e8ves peuvent trouver des renseignements historiques sur leur t\u00e9l\u00e9phone. On doit donc montrer aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves comment trouver et analyser des renseignements historiques, plut\u00f4t que de les forcer \u00e0 les m\u00e9moriser. Ceux qui d\u00e9fendent l\u2019importance du contenu historique soutiennent que les \u00e9l\u00e8ves doivent acqu\u00e9rir des connaissances de base avant de pouvoir appliquer la pens\u00e9e historique. Ce d\u00e9bat se fonde sur une fausse dichotomie. Il est insignifiant, voire impossible, de penser historiquement sans contenu historique. Dans le m\u00eame ordre d\u2019id\u00e9es, apprendre du contenu historique sans comprendre comment il est produit nuit \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont les \u00e9l\u00e8ves comprennent la nature de l\u2019histoire et son contenu.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb6″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
De nombreux \u00e9rudits disent que la pens\u00e9e historique adopte une approche d\u00e9politis\u00e9e et d\u00e9pourvue d\u2019analyse critique en ce sens qu\u2019elle n\u2019aborde pas la relation entre le pouvoir, le savoir, les fa\u00e7ons de savoir et les relations sociales, identit\u00e9s et subjectivit\u00e9s qu\u2019elle favorise et normalise (Cutrara, 2009; Parkes, 2009; Segall, 2006). Ces savants reprochent aussi aux concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique de ne pas tenir compte de l\u2019effet de l\u2019identit\u00e9 culturelle, ethnique, religieuse, de genre et des handicapes des \u00e9l\u00e8ves sur la fa\u00e7on dont ils comprennent les \u00e9v\u00e9nements historiques (Crocco, 2018; Segall et al., 2018). La pens\u00e9e historique peut sans aucun doute \u00eatre utilis\u00e9e d\u2019une fa\u00e7on non critique pour renforcer les injustices et in\u00e9galit\u00e9s actuelles, mais a aussi le potentiel de contribuer grandement \u00e0 la conceptualisation des outils, processus et fa\u00e7ons de penser qui aident les \u00e9l\u00e8ves \u00e0 approfondir qui ils sont, ce qu\u2019ils pensent et ce qu\u2019ils peuvent faire \u2013 en tant qu\u2019individus, membres de multiples groupes entrecrois\u00e9s et citoyens ayant des r\u00f4les et des responsabilit\u00e9s en lien avec des nations et des \u00c9tats dans un monde complexe, conflictuel et en constante \u00e9volution.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb8″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Par preuves historiques, on entend les conclusions pertinentes et cr\u00e9dibles tir\u00e9es \u00e0 partir des sources primaires et secondaires utilis\u00e9es pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une question sur le pass\u00e9. Les renseignements historiques deviennent des preuves lorsqu\u2019ils sont utilis\u00e9s pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une question historique. Lorsque les \u00e9l\u00e8ves \u00e9num\u00e8rent des dates ou se rappellent des faits, ils pr\u00e9sentent des renseignements, et non des preuves. Les renseignements historiques deviennent des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve lorsque les \u00e9l\u00e8ves les interpr\u00e8tent pour fournir une conclusion ou une explication ou pour poser un jugement. Par exemple, l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 suivant : \u00ab Le gouvernement canadien a pr\u00e9lev\u00e9 23 millions de dollars en imp\u00f4ts de capitation aupr\u00e8s d\u2019environ 81 000 immigrants chinois \u00bb constitue des renseignements historiques. L\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 devient une preuve lorsqu\u2019il est utilis\u00e9 pour arriver \u00e0 une conclusion ou former un argument. Lorsqu\u2019on affirme, par exemple, que les descendants d\u2019immigrants chinois m\u00e9ritent d\u2019\u00eatre d\u00e9dommag\u00e9s par le gouvernement canadien, car 23 millions de dollars d\u2019imp\u00f4ts de capitation ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9lev\u00e9s de leurs anc\u00eatres, le dernier \u00e9nonc\u00e9 est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment de preuve.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row disabled_on=\u00a0\u00bbon|on|off\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb10″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
L\u2019analyse du biais des sources primaires et secondaires pr\u00e9sente deux principaux probl\u00e8mes. D\u2019abord, \u00ab biais \u00bb est souvent synonyme de \u00ab point de vue \u00bb, \u00ab perspective \u00bb et \u00ab opinion \u00bb. Le biais se d\u00e9finit comme \u00e9tant un pr\u00e9jug\u00e9 en faveur ou contre une chose, une personne ou un groupe. La perspective repr\u00e9sente notre attitude particuli\u00e8re vis-\u00e0-vis une chose ou notre fa\u00e7on de l\u2019envisager, tandis que notre point de vue est la position \u00e0 partir de laquelle on consid\u00e8re ou \u00e9value cette chose. Les opinions des gens sont fa\u00e7onn\u00e9es par leur vision du monde, leurs perspectives, croyances, attitudes et valeurs. Ce ne sont pas des biais, \u00e0 moins qu\u2019il existe aussi des pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s n\u00e9gatifs ou positifs envers l\u2019objet \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude. Le fait d\u2019avoir des opinions ne signifie pas qu\u2019on est biais\u00e9, \u00e0 moins que les preuves soient consid\u00e9r\u00e9es injustement ou que certaines perspectives ou opinions soient \u00e9cart\u00e9es. La seconde probl\u00e9matique qui se pr\u00e9sente lorsqu\u2019on demande aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019analyser le biais des preuves est que cette d\u00e9marche nuit \u00e0 leur capacit\u00e9 de pens\u00e9e historiquement, 8en ce sens que \u00e7a permet de croire qu\u2019il existe des sources non biais\u00e9es, et que les sources biais\u00e9es doivent \u00eatre \u00e9vit\u00e9es \u00e0 tout prix. Dans de nombreux cas, les sources les plus biais\u00e9es sont souvent les plus int\u00e9ressantes et utiles, car elles offrent un aper\u00e7u des attitudes, croyances et visions du monde des gens qui les ont cr\u00e9\u00e9es. En outre, il est souvent insens\u00e9 de demander aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019identifier le biais de certains types de sources primaires. Par exemple, on ne peut pas poser la question \u00e0 savoir si certaines traces de sources primaires, des vestiges du pass\u00e9 qui n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9s pour d\u00e9crire ou expliquer le pass\u00e9, comme les reliques naturelles (fossiles, arbres culturellement modifi\u00e9s, etc.) ou certains documents ou art\u00e9facts (outils, horaires de train, etc.) sont biais\u00e9s. Au lieu d\u2019enseigner aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves \u00e0 identifier le biais, il est plus utile de les inviter \u00e0 trouver et contextualiser des sources afin de tirer des conclusions sur les personnes qui les ont cr\u00e9\u00e9es.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row disabled_on=\u00a0\u00bboff|off|on\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb1″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb0px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
De nombreux chercheurs ont d\u00e9montr\u00e9 que m\u00eame les plus jeunes \u00e9l\u00e8ves ont des connaissances sur ce qui s\u2019est produit dans le pass\u00e9 et des id\u00e9es sur comment nous savons ce que nous savons, certaines desquelles sont exactes et d\u2019autre non. Pet Lee (2005) est d\u2019avis qu\u2019il est essentiel pour les enseignantes et enseignants de conna\u00eetre les id\u00e9es qu\u2019ont les \u00e9l\u00e8ves sur le contenu historique, mais aussi sur les fa\u00e7ons qui nous permettent de savoir ce que nous savons sur le pass\u00e9 afin d\u2019aborder les fausses id\u00e9es qu\u2019ils peuvent avoir.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb2″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
La pens\u00e9e historique est de nature complexe et contest\u00e9e. Il existe plusieurs mod\u00e8les conceptuels de la pens\u00e9e historique qui incluent des concepts identiques et divergents. Sam Wineburg (1999) a cern\u00e9 quatre approches heuristiques \u2014 la s\u00e9lection des sources, la contextualisation, la corroboration et la lecture attentive \u2013 qui fournissent des outils pratiques pour l\u2019enseignement et l\u2019\u00e9valuation de la litt\u00e9ratie historique des \u00e9l\u00e8ves et de leur pens\u00e9e historique au sujet des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve. Au Canada, Peter Seixas (2009) a d\u00e9fini la pens\u00e9e historique en termes de six concepts : la pertinence historique, les preuves, la continuit\u00e9 et le changement, les causes et les cons\u00e9quences, les perspectives historiques et la dimension \u00e9thique. Les \u00e9rudits demandent l\u2019ajout de concepts suppl\u00e9mentaires sur la pens\u00e9e historique, dont l\u2019empathie historique (Endacott et Brooks, 2018), ainsi que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation ou les \u00ab r\u00e9cits \u00bb historiques (Chapman, 2017).<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb3″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Les enseignantes et enseignants d\u00e9crivent souvent les concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique comme des habilet\u00e9s, mais je crois qu\u2019il s\u2019agit plut\u00f4t de comp\u00e9tences. Selon Roland Case (2020), la comp\u00e9tence se rapporte \u00e0 la capacit\u00e9 d\u2019ex\u00e9cuter efficacement une plus vaste gamme d\u2019activit\u00e9s plut\u00f4t que la simple exhibition d\u2019habilit\u00e9s. Il existe des dizaines d\u2019habilet\u00e9s particuli\u00e8res en communication et litt\u00e9ratie, mais par comp\u00e9tence, on entend la capacit\u00e9 de livrer avec succ\u00e8s un ensemble de produits ou de r\u00e9sultats connexes. De fa\u00e7on semblable, chaque concept de la pens\u00e9e historique est constitu\u00e9 de connaissances, inclinations et habilet\u00e9s disciplinaires interreli\u00e9es. Par exemple, Seixas et Morton (2013) d\u00e9crivent cinq balises qui encadrent les disciplines et habilet\u00e9s pour chacun des six concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique inclus dans le mod\u00e8le. La comp\u00e9tence met aussi l\u2019accent sur l\u2019ex\u00e9cution authentique des t\u00e2ches qui exigent que les \u00e9l\u00e8ves prennent une d\u00e9cision au sujet des habilit\u00e9s, inclinations et connaissances qui sont les plus pertinentes et utiles pour aborder les v\u00e9ritables probl\u00e8mes historiques. Si on demande aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves, par exemple, de trouver la r\u00e9ponse la plus appropri\u00e9e \u00e0 une controverse entourant une statue historique dans leur r\u00e9gion, ils doivent puiser dans une vaste gamme de connaissances, habilet\u00e9s, valeurs et inclinations bas\u00e9es sur diff\u00e9rents concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique. Ils devront donc consulter des sources primaires et les interpr\u00e9ter, ainsi qu\u2019utiliser la perspective historique et le jugement \u00e9thique.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Il y a un d\u00e9bat interminable parmi les enseignantes et enseignants d\u2019histoire et de sciences sociales sur l\u2019acquisition d\u2019habilet\u00e9s plut\u00f4t que du contenu historique. Les partisans de la transmission d\u2019habilet\u00e9s sont d\u2019avis que les \u00e9l\u00e8ves peuvent trouver des renseignements historiques sur leur t\u00e9l\u00e9phone. On doit donc montrer aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves comment trouver et analyser des renseignements historiques, plut\u00f4t que de les forcer \u00e0 les m\u00e9moriser. Ceux qui d\u00e9fendent l\u2019importance du contenu historique soutiennent que les \u00e9l\u00e8ves doivent acqu\u00e9rir des connaissances de base avant de pouvoir appliquer la pens\u00e9e historique. Ce d\u00e9bat se fonde sur une fausse dichotomie. Il est insignifiant, voire impossible, de penser historiquement sans contenu historique. Dans le m\u00eame ordre d\u2019id\u00e9es, apprendre du contenu historique sans comprendre comment il est produit nuit \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont les \u00e9l\u00e8ves comprennent la nature de l\u2019histoire et son contenu.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb5″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Le concept de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective en histoire est une question \u00e9pineuse et contest\u00e9e. On dit qu\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 historique est objectivement vrai lorsqu\u2019il satisfait aux conditions de v\u00e9racit\u00e9 sans subjectivit\u00e9s individuelles (p.ex., perceptions, \u00e9motions ou imagination). Il existe des faits historiques incontestables, mais l\u2019assimilation de l\u2019histoire est bien plus que l\u2019\u00e9tablissement de faits historiques et leur organisation en r\u00e9cits. Le pass\u00e9 est fini et ne peut pas \u00eatre recr\u00e9\u00e9; les r\u00e9cits historiques sont cr\u00e9\u00e9s par des humains ayant diverses subjectivit\u00e9s. Il est impossible de prouver incontestablement qu\u2019une interpr\u00e9tation quelconque du pass\u00e9 constitue la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective \u00bb. La pens\u00e9e historique veut qu\u2019on enseigne aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves comment analyser et interpr\u00e9ter les preuves historiques pour construire, d\u00e9construire et reconstruire les r\u00e9cits historiques. Le but n\u2019est pas d\u2019\u00e9tablir la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective, mais de trouver des solutions plausibles aux tensions, difficult\u00e9s et probl\u00e8mes inh\u00e9rents \u00e0 l\u2019assimilation de l\u2019histoire et soulev\u00e9s par les concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique. Quels \u00e9v\u00e9nements et personnes du pass\u00e9 doit-on conna\u00eetre aujourd\u2019hui? Qu\u2019est-ce qui a caus\u00e9 un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique et quelle en est la cons\u00e9quence? Quelles interpr\u00e9tations du pass\u00e9 sont les plus plausibles? Quelles le\u00e7ons tirons-nous des similitudes et diff\u00e9rences au f il du temps? Comment comprenons-nous ce que les gens pensaient et croyaient dans le pass\u00e9? Comment devrions-nous r\u00e9agir aux injustices et aux gestes h\u00e9ro\u00efques du pass\u00e9?<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb6″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
De nombreux \u00e9rudits disent que la pens\u00e9e historique adopte une approche d\u00e9politis\u00e9e et d\u00e9pourvue d\u2019analyse critique en ce sens qu\u2019elle n\u2019aborde pas la relation entre le pouvoir, le savoir, les fa\u00e7ons de savoir et les relations sociales, identit\u00e9s et subjectivit\u00e9s qu\u2019elle favorise et normalise (Cutrara, 2009; Parkes, 2009; Segall, 2006). Ces savants reprochent aussi aux concepts de la pens\u00e9e historique de ne pas tenir compte de l\u2019effet de l\u2019identit\u00e9 culturelle, ethnique, religieuse, de genre et des handicapes des \u00e9l\u00e8ves sur la fa\u00e7on dont ils comprennent les \u00e9v\u00e9nements historiques (Crocco, 2018; Segall et al., 2018). La pens\u00e9e historique peut sans aucun doute \u00eatre utilis\u00e9e d\u2019une fa\u00e7on non critique pour renforcer les injustices et in\u00e9galit\u00e9s actuelles, mais a aussi le potentiel de contribuer grandement \u00e0 la conceptualisation des outils, processus et fa\u00e7ons de penser qui aident les \u00e9l\u00e8ves \u00e0 approfondir qui ils sont, ce qu\u2019ils pensent et ce qu\u2019ils peuvent faire \u2013 en tant qu\u2019individus, membres de multiples groupes entrecrois\u00e9s et citoyens ayant des r\u00f4les et des responsabilit\u00e9s en lien avec des nations et des \u00c9tats dans un monde complexe, conflictuel et en constante \u00e9volution.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb7″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Lorsqu\u2019on parle d\u2019injustices historiques, certaines personnes sont d\u2019avis qu\u2019on ne devrait pas juger les gens dans le pass\u00e9 selon les normes actuelles. De fa\u00e7on int\u00e9ressante, on n\u2019applique pas la m\u00eame logique lorsqu\u2019il s\u2019agit de juger les personnes dans le pass\u00e9 qui m\u00e9ritent d\u2019\u00eatre honor\u00e9es aujourd\u2019hui. \u00c9videmment, il est important de comprendre le 7contexte historique, les perspectives, les valeurs, la vision du monde et les croyances des personnes dans le pass\u00e9 avant de porter un jugement. Or, il ne faut pas oublier que nous vivons in\u00e9luctablement dans le pr\u00e9sent et qu\u2019il est impossible de ne pas porter de jugement sur le pass\u00e9. Lorsque les enseignantes et enseignants choisissent ce qu\u2019ils enseigneront (et ce qu\u2019ils n\u2019enseigneront pas), ils portent un jugement sur le pass\u00e9. Lorsque nous portons un jugement \u00e9thique sur les b\u00e9vues du pass\u00e9, il est important de comprendre qu\u2019elles se sont produites avant, durant ou apr\u00e8s un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique. Il faut aussi conna\u00eetre les normes sociales, politiques, culturelles et \u00e9thiques qui existaient \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque; les circonstances, contraintes et options qui ont motiv\u00e9 ou limit\u00e9 les actions des gens dans le pass\u00e9; ainsi que les valeurs, croyances, attitudes et cadres intellectuelles de diff\u00e9rentes personnes par rapport \u00e0 ce qu\u2019elles consid\u00e9raient \u00eatre un comportement \u00e9thique. (Gibson et al., 2022).<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb8″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Par preuves historiques, on entend les conclusions pertinentes et cr\u00e9dibles tir\u00e9es \u00e0 partir des sources primaires et secondaires utilis\u00e9es pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une question sur le pass\u00e9. Les renseignements historiques deviennent des preuves lorsqu\u2019ils sont utilis\u00e9s pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une question historique. Lorsque les \u00e9l\u00e8ves \u00e9num\u00e8rent des dates ou se rappellent des faits, ils pr\u00e9sentent des renseignements, et non des preuves. Les renseignements historiques deviennent des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve lorsque les \u00e9l\u00e8ves les interpr\u00e8tent pour fournir une conclusion ou une explication ou pour poser un jugement. Par exemple, l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 suivant : \u00ab Le gouvernement canadien a pr\u00e9lev\u00e9 23 millions de dollars en imp\u00f4ts de capitation aupr\u00e8s d\u2019environ 81 000 immigrants chinois \u00bb constitue des renseignements historiques. L\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 devient une preuve lorsqu\u2019il est utilis\u00e9 pour arriver \u00e0 une conclusion ou former un argument. Lorsqu\u2019on affirme, par exemple, que les descendants d\u2019immigrants chinois m\u00e9ritent d\u2019\u00eatre d\u00e9dommag\u00e9s par le gouvernement canadien, car 23 millions de dollars d\u2019imp\u00f4ts de capitation ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9lev\u00e9s de leurs anc\u00eatres, le dernier \u00e9nonc\u00e9 est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment de preuve.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb9″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Les sources primaires sont originales ou de premi\u00e8re main en termes de temps et d\u2019acc\u00e8s au sujet historique qui fait l\u2019objet de l\u2019enqu\u00eate. Les sources secondaires sont des sources de seconde main qui sont produites \u00e0 partir de preuves tir\u00e9es d\u2019autres sources primaires ou secondaires. Nous pouvons d\u00e9terminer si une source est primaire ou secondaire en fonction de la question qui est pos\u00e9e. Une statue ou une plaque au sujet d\u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique est une source secondaire si la question qu\u2019on se pose porte sur ce qui s\u2019est pass\u00e9 durant une bataille, mais une source primaire si on se pose des questions sur ce que les personnes qui ont cr\u00e9\u00e9 la statue pensaient au sujet de l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement historique. Durant mes ateliers de perfectionnement professionnel, je demande souvent aux enseignantes et enseignants si les sources primaires sont plus utiles que les sources secondaires en ce qui a trait \u00e0 la pens\u00e9e historique. Dans la plupart des cas, les personnes pr\u00e9sentes sont d\u2019avis que les sources primaires sont plus utiles, car elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9es durant la p\u00e9riode et pr\u00e8s de l\u2019endroit o\u00f9 a eu lieu l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude. Parfois, les participantes et participants r\u00e9pondent qu\u2019aucune source n\u2019est plus utile que l\u2019autre ou que les deux types de sources ont la m\u00eame importance. Ce sont aussi deux bonnes r\u00e9ponses. On doit examiner et analyser minutieusement les sources primaires et secondaires requises dans le contexte de la question historique et de l\u2019objet de notre enqu\u00eate. En ce sens, aucune source n\u2019est fondamentalement plus utile qu\u2019une autre. Alternativement, les deux types de sources sont utiles, car pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une question de recherche historique, nous devons analyser les sources primaires, ainsi que la fa\u00e7on dont les sources secondaires sont interpr\u00e9t\u00e9es et les r\u00e9cits qui en d\u00e9coulent.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\u00a0\u00bb10″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_font=\u00a0\u00bb|700|||||||\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.4em\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb25px||5px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||0px||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_css_free_form=\u00a0\u00bb.et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
L\u2019analyse du biais des sources primaires et secondaires pr\u00e9sente deux principaux probl\u00e8mes. D\u2019abord, \u00ab biais \u00bb est souvent synonyme de \u00ab point de vue \u00bb, \u00ab perspective \u00bb et \u00ab opinion \u00bb. Le biais se d\u00e9finit comme \u00e9tant un pr\u00e9jug\u00e9 en faveur ou contre une chose, une personne ou un groupe. La perspective repr\u00e9sente notre attitude particuli\u00e8re vis-\u00e0-vis une chose ou notre fa\u00e7on de l\u2019envisager, tandis que notre point de vue est la position \u00e0 partir de laquelle on consid\u00e8re ou \u00e9value cette chose. Les opinions des gens sont fa\u00e7onn\u00e9es par leur vision du monde, leurs perspectives, croyances, attitudes et valeurs. Ce ne sont pas des biais, \u00e0 moins qu\u2019il existe aussi des pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s n\u00e9gatifs ou positifs envers l\u2019objet \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude. Le fait d\u2019avoir des opinions ne signifie pas qu\u2019on est biais\u00e9, \u00e0 moins que les preuves soient consid\u00e9r\u00e9es injustement ou que certaines perspectives ou opinions soient \u00e9cart\u00e9es. La seconde probl\u00e9matique qui se pr\u00e9sente lorsqu\u2019on demande aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019analyser le biais des preuves est que cette d\u00e9marche nuit \u00e0 leur capacit\u00e9 de pens\u00e9e historiquement, 8en ce sens que \u00e7a permet de croire qu\u2019il existe des sources non biais\u00e9es, et que les sources biais\u00e9es doivent \u00eatre \u00e9vit\u00e9es \u00e0 tout prix. Dans de nombreux cas, les sources les plus biais\u00e9es sont souvent les plus int\u00e9ressantes et utiles, car elles offrent un aper\u00e7u des attitudes, croyances et visions du monde des gens qui les ont cr\u00e9\u00e9es. En outre, il est souvent insens\u00e9 de demander aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019identifier le biais de certains types de sources primaires. Par exemple, on ne peut pas poser la question \u00e0 savoir si certaines traces de sources primaires, des vestiges du pass\u00e9 qui n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9s pour d\u00e9crire ou expliquer le pass\u00e9, comme les reliques naturelles (fossiles, arbres culturellement modifi\u00e9s, etc.) ou certains documents ou art\u00e9facts (outils, horaires de train, etc.) sont biais\u00e9s. Au lieu d\u2019enseigner aux \u00e9l\u00e8ves \u00e0 identifier le biais, il est plus utile de les inviter \u00e0 trouver et contextualiser des sources afin de tirer des conclusions sur les personnes qui les ont cr\u00e9\u00e9es.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb0px||||false|false\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb header_4_line_height=\u00a0\u00bb1.3em\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb text_font_size=\u00a0\u00bb12px\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
Case, R. (2020). Teaching for competency. In R. Case & P. Clark (Eds.), Learning to Inquire in History, Geography, and Social Studies: An Anthology for Secondary Teachers (4th ed., pp. 121\u2013135). The Critical Thinking Consortium.<\/p>\n
Chapman, A. (2017). Historical interpretation. In I. Davies (Eds.), Debates in history teaching. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in History Teaching (Second, pp. 100\u2013112). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.<\/p>\n
Crocco, M. S. (2018). Gender and sexuality in history education. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 335\u2013364). Wiley-Blackwell.<\/p>\n
Cutrara, S. (2009). To Placate or Provoke? A Critical Review of the Disciplines Approach to History Curriculum. Journal of the Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 7(2), 86\u2013109.<\/p>\n
Endacott, J. L., & Brooks, S. (2018). Historical empathy: Perspectives and responding to the past. In L. M. Harris & S. A. Metzger (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 203\u2013225). Wiley-Blackwell.<\/p>\n
Gibson, L., Milligan, A., & Peck, C. L. (2022). Addressing the elephant in the room: Ethics as an organizing concept in history education. Historical Encounters, 9(2), 45\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.52289\/hej9.205<\/p>\n
Lee, P. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history (S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford, Eds.; pp. 79\u2013178). National Academies Press.<\/p>\n
Parkes, R. J. (2009). Teaching history as historiography: Engaging narrative diversity in the curriculum. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching, and Research, 8(2), 118\u2013132.<\/p>\n
Segall, A. (2006). What\u2019s the purpose of teaching the disciplines, anyway? The case of history. In A. Segall, E. E. Heilman, & C. H. Cherryholmes (Eds.), Social studies\u2014The next generation: Researching in the postmodern (pp. 125\u2013139). Peter Lang.<\/p>\n
Segall, A., Trofanenko, B. M., & Schmitt, A. J. (2018). Critical theory and history education. In L. M. Harris & S. A. Metzger (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 281\u2013309). Wiley Blackwell.<\/p>\n
Seixas, P. (2009). A modest proposal for change in Canadian history education. Teaching History, 137, 26\u201330.<\/p>\n
Wineburg, S. S. (1999). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 488\u2013501.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
10 id\u00e9es erron\u00e9es sur la pens\u00e9e historique Dr. Lindsay GibsonAu cours des 50 derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es, la pens\u00e9e historique est devenue la norme dans la th\u00e9orie et pratique de l\u2019enseignement de l\u2019histoire en Europe de l\u2019Ouest et en Am\u00e9rique du Nord, pour ensuite s\u2019\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chelle de la plan\u00e8te. Depuis la mise sur pied du Projet […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":2696,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"
[et_pb_section fb_built=\"1\" admin_label=\"Salon Article\" _builder_version=\"4.27.0\" da_disable_devices=\"off|off|off\" global_colors_info=\"{}\" da_is_popup=\"off\" da_exit_intent=\"off\" da_has_close=\"on\" da_alt_close=\"off\" da_dark_close=\"off\" da_not_modal=\"on\" da_is_singular=\"off\" da_with_loader=\"off\" da_has_shadow=\"on\"][et_pb_row column_structure=\"2_5,3_5\" admin_label=\"row\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" background_size=\"initial\" background_position=\"top_left\" background_repeat=\"repeat\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_column type=\"2_5\" _builder_version=\"4.24.2\" _module_preset=\"default\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_text admin_label=\"title\/author\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" min_height=\"22.8px\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Dr. Lindsay Gibson<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=\"Description\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_padding=\"||0px|||\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Over the past fifty years, historical thinking has become a standard in the theory and practice of history education in Western Europe and North America before spreading globally. Since the inception of the Historical Thinking Project in 2006, historical thinking definitions, concepts, and frameworks have been included in history and social studies curriculums in most provinces and territories in Canada. All major Canadian textbook publishers have published textbooks that include historical thinking concepts, numerous history and social studies organizations have developed learning resources that focus on historical thinking, and countless Historical Thinking Summer and Winter Institutes and professional learning workshops have been held online and in person across the country.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=\"3_5\" _builder_version=\"4.24.2\" _module_preset=\"default\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_image src=\"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/historical-thinking.png\" show_bottom_space=\"off\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" hover_enabled=\"0\" global_colors_info=\"{}\" title_text=\"historical thinking\" sticky_enabled=\"0\"][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=\"row\" _builder_version=\"4.16\" background_size=\"initial\" background_position=\"top_left\" background_repeat=\"repeat\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_column type=\"4_4\" _builder_version=\"4.16\" custom_padding=\"|||\" global_colors_info=\"{}\" custom_padding__hover=\"|||\"][et_pb_text admin_label=\"Description\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_margin=\"-25px||||false|false\" custom_padding=\"||0px|||\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
I was first introduced to historical thinking in 2006 when I was given a copy of Teaching about Historical Thinking (I still have my original copy filled with post-it notes and dog-eared pages), which was written by Mike Denos and Dr. Roland Case and based on the historical thinking framework conceived by Dr. Peter Seixas. Since this initial introduction, I have worked with historical thinking concepts as a secondary school history and social studies teacher, a PhD student, a teacher educator working with teacher candidates and graduate students in a Faculty of Education, a curriculum and learning resources developer, and a presenter at teacher professional learning workshops and institutes. In these varied experiences, I have encountered several common misconceptions about historical thinking, which I hope to clarify below.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=\"3_5,2_5\" disabled_on=\"on|on|off\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_margin=\"||0px||false|false\" custom_margin_tablet=\"0px||||false|false\" custom_margin_phone=\"0px||||false|false\" custom_margin_last_edited=\"on|phone\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_column type=\"3_5\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_padding=\"|40px|||false|false\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"0px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Numerous researchers have shown that even the youngest school age students have knowledge about what happened in the past and ideas about how we know what we know about the past, some of which is accurate, and some is not. Peter Lee (2005) argues that it\u2019s essential that educators know what ideas students have about both the content of history, but also how we know about the past so that any misconceptions they might have can be addressed.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Teachers often describe historical thinking concepts as skills, but I think they are better described as competencies. According to Roland Case (2020) competencies refer to the ability to perform effectively in a broader range of activities than skills. There are dozens of specific communication and literacy skills, but competencies refer to the ability to successfully complete an interconnected cluster of products or performances. Similarly, each historical thinking concept is comprised of interrelated disciplinary knowledge, dispositions, and skills. For example, Seixas and Morton (2013) identify five or more \u201cguideposts\u201d that outline the disciplinary and skills for each of the six historical thinking concepts included in the model. Competencies also emphasize authentic performance tasks that require students to make decisions about the skills, knowledge, and dispositions that are most relevant and useful for addressing real-world historical problems and issues. For example, asking students to decide the most appropriate response to a controversial historical statue in their community requires them to draw on a wide range of knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions focused on different historical thinking concepts including evidence and interpretations, historical perspective, and ethical judgments.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Objective truth in history is a slippery and contested idea. A historical statement or assertion is believed to be objectively true if it meets truth conditions free from individual subjectivities (e.g., perceptions, emotions, or imagination). There are indisputable historical facts, but doing history requires more than establishing historical facts and organizing them into narratives. The past is gone and cannot be recreated, and historical narratives are constructed by humans with diverse subjectivities. It is impossible to definitively prove that any interpretation of the past is the \u201cobjective truth.\u201d Historical thinking focuses on teaching students to analyze and interpret historical evidence to construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct historical narratives. The goal is not to establish objective truth, but to negotiate plausible solutions to the problems, tensions, and difficulties that are inherent in doing history and raised by historical thinking concepts. What events and people from the past are important to learn about? What caused historical events to occur and what are the consequences? Which interpretations of the past are most plausible? How do we make sense of similarities and differences over time? How do we understand what people thought and believed in the past? How should we respond to injustices and heroic actions in the past?<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
When discussing historical injustices, some people argue that we shouldn\u2019t judge those in the past using standards of the present. Interestingly, the same argument is not applied when discussing people in the past who deserve to be honoured in the present. Surely it\u2019s important to understand the historical context, perspectives, values, worldviews, and beliefs of people in the past before making judgments. At the same time, we are inescapably located in the present, and it is impossible to avoid making judgments about the past. Every time teachers make a decision about what to teach about (or not to teach about) they are making judgments about the past. When we make ethical judgments about past transgressions, it is important to understand what occurred before, during, and after the historical event; the social, political, cultural, and ethical norms that existed at the time; the circumstances, constraints, options, and motivations that initiated or limited historical people\u2019s actions; and the values, beliefs, attitudes, and intellectual frameworks that different people held about what was considered ethical (Gibson et al., 2022).<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Primary sources are original or first-hand in terms of time and access to the historical topic being investigated. Secondary sources are second-hand in that they are produced from evidence drawn from other primary and secondary sources. Determining whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the question being asked. A statue and plaque built to commemorate a significant historical event is a secondary source if the question is focused on what happened during the battle, but a primary source if the question is focused on what the people who created the statue thought about the historical event. During professional learning sessions I regularly ask pre- and in-service teachers if primary sources are more useful than secondary sources for teaching historical thinking? In most cases participants say that primary sources are more useful because they were created at or close to the time and location of the topic being investigated. Occasionally participants respond with \u201cneither\u201d or \u201cboth,\u201d which are both plausible answers. All primary and secondary sources need to be closely scrutinized and analyzed in relation to the historical question and purpose of our investigation, and so neither is fundamentally more useful. Alternatively, both types of sources are useful because responding to a historical research question requires analysis of both primary sources and the interpretations and narratives included in secondary sources.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=\"2_5\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_padding=\"0px||||false|false\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"0px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Historical thinking has a complex and contested nature, and there are several conceptual models and approaches to historical thinking that include some of the same but also different historical thinking concepts. Sam Wineburg (1999) identified four heuristics\u2014sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, and close-reading to provide teachers with practical tools for teaching and assessing students\u2019 historical literacy and historical thinking about evidence. In Canada, Peter Seixas\u2019 (2009) defined historical thinking in terms of six historical thinking concepts: historical significance, evidence, continuity and change, cause and consequence, historical perspectives, and the ethical dimension. Scholars have also called for more focus on additional historical thinking concepts, including historical empathy (Endacott & Brooks, 2018) and historical interpretations\/narratives (Chapman, 2017).<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
There has been an interminable debate amongst history and social studies educators about skills versus content. Advocates of teaching skills argue that historical information can be looked up on their phones, and students should be taught the skills to identify and analyze historical information rather than learn historical information. Those who argue for the importance of content knowledge maintain that students need to learn foundational knowledge before they can think historically about it. This debate is based on a false dichotomy. Thinking historically without historical content is meaningless, if not impossible, and learning historical content without understanding how it is produced can undermine students\u2019 understanding of both the nature of history and historical content.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Several scholars have criticized historical thinking for being depoliticized and uncritical in that it fails to address the relationships between power, knowledge, ways of knowing and the social relations, identities, and subjectivities they help foster and normalize (Cutrara, 2009; Parkes, 2009; Segall, 2006). Critical scholars have also challenged historical thinking approaches for not being sufficiently attentive to the ways that students\u2019 cultural, ethnic, gender, religious, and disability identities shape their historical understandings (Crocco, 2018; Segall et al., 2018). Historical thinking can undoubtedly be used in an uncritical way that reinforces current inequalities and injustices, but it also has the potential to make important contributions in terms of conceptualizing the tools, processes, and ways of thinking that help students make sense of who they are, where they stand, and what they can do\u2014as individuals, as members of multiple, intersecting groups, and as citizens with roles and responsibilities in relation to nations and states in a complex, conflict- ridden, and rapidly changing world.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Historical evidence refers to the relevant, credible inferences that are made from primary and secondary sources that are used to answer a question about the past. Historical information only becomes evidence when it is used to respond to a historical question. If students list dates, or recall facts about past events they are presenting information, not evidence. Historical information becomes evidence when students employ it to offer an interpretive conclusion, explanation, or judgment. For example, the statement that the Canadian government collected $23 million in head taxes from approximately 81,000 Chinese immigrants is historical information. The statement becomes evidence when it is used to make a conclusion or argument. For example, claiming that descendants of Chinese immigrants deserve compensation from the Canadian government because $23 million in head taxes were collected transforms information into evidence.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row disabled_on=\"on|on|off\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_margin=\"0px||||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||||false|false\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_column type=\"4_4\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
There are two main problems with analyzing primary and secondary sources for bias. Firstly, bias is often used synonymously with perspective, point of view, and opinion, which is problematic. Bias is defined as \u201cprejudice in favour of or against one thing, person, or group, usually in a way considered to be unfair.\u201d Perspective is a particular attitude or way of regarding something, and point of view is the position from which something is considered or evaluated. People\u2019s opinions are shaped by their point of view, perspectives, beliefs, attitudes, and values, but they are not biased unless they unfairly prejudge or favor something over another. Having an opinion does not indicate bias, unless evidence is unfairly judged or particular perspectives and opinions are excluded. The second issue with having students analyze evidence for bias is that it impedes their historical thinking in that it reinforces the problematic understanding that there are unbiased sources available, and biased sources should be avoided or discarded. In many cases, the most \u201cbiased\u201d (prejudicial) sources are often the most interesting and useful sources because they provide important insights to the attitudes, beliefs, and worldviews of those who created them. Additionally, asking students to identify bias in some types of primary sources makes no sense. For example, one cannot ask whether primary source traces, remnants of the past that were not created to describe or explain the past) such as natural records (e.g., fossils and culturally-modified trees) and artifacts and documents (e.g., tools, and train schedules) are biased. Rather than teach students to identify bias, a more helpful approach is to invite students to source and contextualize the source to make inferences about who created it.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row disabled_on=\"off|off|on\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_margin=\"0px||||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||||false|false\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_column type=\"4_4\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"0px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Numerous researchers have shown that even the youngest school age students have knowledge about what happened in the past and ideas about how we know what we know about the past, some of which is accurate, and some is not. Peter Lee (2005) argues that it\u2019s essential that educators know what ideas students have about both the content of history, but also how we know about the past so that any misconceptions they might have can be addressed.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Teachers often describe historical thinking concepts as skills, but I think they are better described as competencies. According to Roland Case (2020) competencies refer to the ability to perform effectively in a broader range of activities than skills. There are dozens of specific communication and literacy skills, but competencies refer to the ability to successfully complete an interconnected cluster of products or performances. Similarly, each historical thinking concept is comprised of interrelated disciplinary knowledge, dispositions, and skills. For example, Seixas and Morton (2013) identify five or more \u201cguideposts\u201d that outline the disciplinary and skills for each of the six historical thinking concepts included in the model. Competencies also emphasize authentic performance tasks that require students to make decisions about the skills, knowledge, and dispositions that are most relevant and useful for addressing real-world historical problems and issues. For example, asking students to decide the most appropriate response to a controversial historical statue in their community requires them to draw on a wide range of knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions focused on different historical thinking concepts including evidence and interpretations, historical perspective, and ethical judgments.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"0px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Historical thinking has a complex and contested nature, and there are several conceptual models and approaches to historical thinking that include some of the same but also different historical thinking concepts. Sam Wineburg (1999) identified four heuristics\u2014sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, and close-reading to provide teachers with practical tools for teaching and assessing students\u2019 historical literacy and historical thinking about evidence. In Canada, Peter Seixas\u2019 (2009) defined historical thinking in terms of six historical thinking concepts: historical significance, evidence, continuity and change, cause and consequence, historical perspectives, and the ethical dimension. Scholars have also called for more focus on additional historical thinking concepts, including historical empathy (Endacott & Brooks, 2018) and historical interpretations\/narratives (Chapman, 2017).<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
There has been an interminable debate amongst history and social studies educators about skills versus content. Advocates of teaching skills argue that historical information can be looked up on their phones, and students should be taught the skills to identify and analyze historical information rather than learn historical information. Those who argue for the importance of content knowledge maintain that students need to learn foundational knowledge before they can think historically about it. This debate is based on a false dichotomy. Thinking historically without historical content is meaningless, if not impossible, and learning historical content without understanding how it is produced can undermine students\u2019 understanding of both the nature of history and historical content.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Objective truth in history is a slippery and contested idea. A historical statement or assertion is believed to be objectively true if it meets truth conditions free from individual subjectivities (e.g., perceptions, emotions, or imagination). There are indisputable historical facts, but doing history requires more than establishing historical facts and organizing them into narratives. The past is gone and cannot be recreated, and historical narratives are constructed by humans with diverse subjectivities. It is impossible to definitively prove that any interpretation of the past is the \u201cobjective truth.\u201d Historical thinking focuses on teaching students to analyze and interpret historical evidence to construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct historical narratives. The goal is not to establish objective truth, but to negotiate plausible solutions to the problems, tensions, and difficulties that are inherent in doing history and raised by historical thinking concepts. What events and people from the past are important to learn about? What caused historical events to occur and what are the consequences? Which interpretations of the past are most plausible? How do we make sense of similarities and differences over time? How do we understand what people thought and believed in the past? How should we respond to injustices and heroic actions in the past?<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Several scholars have criticized historical thinking for being depoliticized and uncritical in that it fails to address the relationships between power, knowledge, ways of knowing and the social relations, identities, and subjectivities they help foster and normalize (Cutrara, 2009; Parkes, 2009; Segall, 2006). Critical scholars have also challenged historical thinking approaches for not being sufficiently attentive to the ways that students\u2019 cultural, ethnic, gender, religious, and disability identities shape their historical understandings (Crocco, 2018; Segall et al., 2018). Historical thinking can undoubtedly be used in an uncritical way that reinforces current inequalities and injustices, but it also has the potential to make important contributions in terms of conceptualizing the tools, processes, and ways of thinking that help students make sense of who they are, where they stand, and what they can do\u2014as individuals, as members of multiple, intersecting groups, and as citizens with roles and responsibilities in relation to nations and states in a complex, conflict- ridden, and rapidly changing world.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
When discussing historical injustices, some people argue that we shouldn\u2019t judge those in the past using standards of the present. Interestingly, the same argument is not applied when discussing people in the past who deserve to be honoured in the present. Surely it\u2019s important to understand the historical context, perspectives, values, worldviews, and beliefs of people in the past before making judgments. At the same time, we are inescapably located in the present, and it is impossible to avoid making judgments about the past. Every time teachers make a decision about what to teach about (or not to teach about) they are making judgments about the past. When we make ethical judgments about past transgressions, it is important to understand what occurred before, during, and after the historical event; the social, political, cultural, and ethical norms that existed at the time; the circumstances, constraints, options, and motivations that initiated or limited historical people\u2019s actions; and the values, beliefs, attitudes, and intellectual frameworks that different people held about what was considered ethical (Gibson et al., 2022).<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Historical evidence refers to the relevant, credible inferences that are made from primary and secondary sources that are used to answer a question about the past. Historical information only becomes evidence when it is used to respond to a historical question. If students list dates, or recall facts about past events they are presenting information, not evidence. Historical information becomes evidence when students employ it to offer an interpretive conclusion, explanation, or judgment. For example, the statement that the Canadian government collected $23 million in head taxes from approximately 81,000 Chinese immigrants is historical information. The statement becomes evidence when it is used to make a conclusion or argument. For example, claiming that descendants of Chinese immigrants deserve compensation from the Canadian government because $23 million in head taxes were collected transforms information into evidence.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Primary sources are original or first-hand in terms of time and access to the historical topic being investigated. Secondary sources are second-hand in that they are produced from evidence drawn from other primary and secondary sources. Determining whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the question being asked. A statue and plaque built to commemorate a significant historical event is a secondary source if the question is focused on what happened during the battle, but a primary source if the question is focused on what the people who created the statue thought about the historical event. During professional learning sessions I regularly ask pre- and in-service teachers if primary sources are more useful than secondary sources for teaching historical thinking? In most cases participants say that primary sources are more useful because they were created at or close to the time and location of the topic being investigated. Occasionally participants respond with \u201cneither\u201d or \u201cboth,\u201d which are both plausible answers. All primary and secondary sources need to be closely scrutinized and analyzed in relation to the historical question and purpose of our investigation, and so neither is fundamentally more useful. Alternatively, both types of sources are useful because responding to a historical research question requires analysis of both primary sources and the interpretations and narratives included in secondary sources.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_font=\"|700|||||||\" header_4_line_height=\"1.4em\" custom_margin=\"25px||5px||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||0px||false|false\" custom_css_free_form=\".et-dropcap {|| margin: 0px 0px 0 0;|| color: #fff;|| background: #962f93;|| border-radius: 10px;|| padding: 8px;||}\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
There are two main problems with analyzing primary and secondary sources for bias. Firstly, bias is often used synonymously with perspective, point of view, and opinion, which is problematic. Bias is defined as \u201cprejudice in favour of or against one thing, person, or group, usually in a way considered to be unfair.\u201d Perspective is a particular attitude or way of regarding something, and point of view is the position from which something is considered or evaluated. People\u2019s opinions are shaped by their point of view, perspectives, beliefs, attitudes, and values, but they are not biased unless they unfairly prejudge or favor something over another. Having an opinion does not indicate bias, unless evidence is unfairly judged or particular perspectives and opinions are excluded. The second issue with having students analyze evidence for bias is that it impedes their historical thinking in that it reinforces the problematic understanding that there are unbiased sources available, and biased sources should be avoided or discarded. In many cases, the most \u201cbiased\u201d (prejudicial) sources are often the most interesting and useful sources because they provide important insights to the attitudes, beliefs, and worldviews of those who created them. Additionally, asking students to identify bias in some types of primary sources makes no sense. For example, one cannot ask whether primary source traces, remnants of the past that were not created to describe or explain the past) such as natural records (e.g., fossils and culturally-modified trees) and artifacts and documents (e.g., tools, and train schedules) are biased. Rather than teach students to identify bias, a more helpful approach is to invite students to source and contextualize the source to make inferences about who created it.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_margin=\"0px||||false|false\" custom_padding=\"0px||||false|false\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_column type=\"4_4\" _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" header_4_line_height=\"1.3em\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.27.4\" _module_preset=\"default\" text_font_size=\"12px\" global_colors_info=\"{}\"]<\/p>
Case, R. (2020). Teaching for competency. In R. Case & P. Clark (Eds.), Learning to Inquire in History, Geography, and Social Studies: An Anthology for Secondary Teachers (4th ed., pp. 121\u2013135). The Critical Thinking Consortium.<\/p>
Chapman, A. (2017). Historical interpretation. In I. Davies (Eds.), Debates in history teaching. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in History Teaching (Second, pp. 100\u2013112). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.<\/p>
Crocco, M. S. (2018). Gender and sexuality in history education. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 335\u2013364). Wiley-Blackwell.<\/p>
Cutrara, S. (2009). To Placate or Provoke? A Critical Review of the Disciplines Approach to History Curriculum. Journal of the Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 7(2), 86\u2013109.<\/p>
Endacott, J. L., & Brooks, S. (2018). Historical empathy: Perspectives and responding to the past. In L. M. Harris & S. A. Metzger (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 203\u2013225). Wiley-Blackwell.<\/p>
Gibson, L., Milligan, A., & Peck, C. L. (2022). Addressing the elephant in the room: Ethics as an organizing concept in history education. Historical Encounters, 9(2), 45\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.52289\/hej9.205<\/p>
Lee, P. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history (S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford, Eds.; pp. 79\u2013178). National Academies Press.<\/p>
Parkes, R. J. (2009). Teaching history as historiography: Engaging narrative diversity in the curriculum. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching, and Research, 8(2), 118\u2013132.<\/p>
Segall, A. (2006). What\u2019s the purpose of teaching the disciplines, anyway? The case of history. In A. Segall, E. E. Heilman, & C. H. Cherryholmes (Eds.), Social studies\u2014The next generation: Researching in the postmodern (pp. 125\u2013139). Peter Lang.<\/p>
Segall, A., Trofanenko, B. M., & Schmitt, A. J. (2018). Critical theory and history education. In L. M. Harris & S. A. Metzger (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 281\u2013309). Wiley Blackwell.<\/p>
Seixas, P. (2009). A modest proposal for change in Canadian history education. Teaching History, 137, 26\u201330.<\/p>
Wineburg, S. S. (1999). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 488\u2013501.<\/p>
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[974,108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-fr","category-salon-fr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6397"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6397\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6530,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6397\/revisions\/6530"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2696"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssencressc.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}