UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Global content in Canadian social studies curriculum guides Haskett, Roger Andrew 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_haskett_roger_andrew.pdf [ 2.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054896.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054896-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054896-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054896-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054896-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054896-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054896-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054896-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054896.ris

Full Text

GLOBAL CONTENT INCANADIAN SOCIAL STUDIESCURRICULUM GUIDESbyROGER ANDREW HASKETTB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1985B.F.A.,, The University of British Columbia, 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinThe Faculty of Graduate Studies(Department of Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJune 1992çRoger Andrew Haskett, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of /CvjcThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate /QZDE-6 (2/88)11ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to determine how Canadiansocial studies curriculum guides portray global education,broadly defined as the study of foreign countries, cultures andlandscapes; universal or international issues; and connectionsor comparisons of Canada/Canadians with othercountries/citizens. Forty-seven provincial and territorialdocuments, current in 1988 for grades one through 12, wereanalyzed around the following questions:1. What rationales and goals are used to justify andguide the pursuit of global education?2. What is the recommended content (concepts, topics,geographic coverage, global problems, extent ofglobal/local connections, disciplinary orientations,and overall amount) of global education?3. What characteristics of a global perspective areadvanced?To pursue these questions, a 16 page analysis instrument wasdeveloped in light of the varying definitions, rationales, andconcepts evident in the global education literature, and toallow for a wide-ranging analysis of the nature and extent ofglobal education recommended in the curricula.According to the analysis there is considerable space forthe pursuit of global education within classrooms across Canada.There is little indication of a lack of overall support for suchendeavours. If a teacher has the knowledge and inclination, asignificant amount of global studies could be pursued in theclassroom, as there are few constraints imposed by mostcurricula. Overwhelmingly, positive rather than negativecharacteristics of a global perspective are evident. However,the rationales and goals used to justify and guide the pursuitof global education, as well as the range of recommendedconcepts, topics and geographic regions, differ considerablyacross curricula. Current controversial topics are ignored ingeneral, and value reasoning, while identified as a goal by manyprovinces, is not adequately supported with instructions orexamples.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ivLIST OF TABLES viiLIST OF’ FIGURES viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ixCHAPTERI. INTRODUCTION 1Research Focus 1Methodology 4Selection of Curriculum Documents 4Development and Use of Instrument 5Reporting of Data 8II. CURRICULAR ISSUES 11Descriptions of Global Education 11Broad Definition 12Content Emphases 22Foreign Language Study 23Multicultural Education 24International Education 26Global Issues 29Rationales 31VScope and Sequence 37Challenges to Global Education 41Empirical Research 44Summary 49III. ANALYSIS OF CURRICULUM DOCUMENTS 52Rationales and Goals for Global Studies 54Rationales 54Goals for Global Content 60Content of Global Studies 67Concepts 68Global Topics 79GeographicCoverage 90Global Problems 98Global/Local Connections 99The Scope of Global Studies 102Global Presence in the Curriculum 102Source of Global Content 105Global Perspective 107S umnmnary’ 122IV. SUMMARYANDIMPLICATIONS 125S uminary 125Implications for Curriculum Design 133FurtherResearch 141viBIBLIOGRAPHY 142APPEI A 150APPEI B 151APPENDIX C 153viiLIST OF TABLESTABLE PAGE1. Reasons for Global Studies 562. Concepts Relevant to Global Studies 693. Concepts Across Elementary and Secondary 744. Concepts and Their Context 765. Treatment of Concepts 776. Topics Relevant to Global Education 807. Topics Across Elementary and Secondary 828. Topics and Their Treatment 859. Topics and Their Context 8710. Range in the Coverage of World Regions 9011. Regions and Their Prominent Countries 9312. Common Topics by Regions 9613. Global Problems 9914. Provinces Making Global/Local Connections 10015. Defeasance Characteristics of a Global Perspective 108viiiLIST OF FIGURESFIGURE PAGE1. Goals for Global Content: Provincial Support 622. Goals for Global Content: Instructions for Teachers . 663. Geographic Representation: National Average 924. Global Presence: National Average Across Grades ..... 1035. Global Presence: National Average . .. ..... 1046. Pedagogic Approach to Global Content 1067. Global Perspective: Characteristics By Provinces .... 1208. Global Perspective: National Characteristics 121ixACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMy sincerest gratitude to Walter Werner, without whom thisthesis would never have been completed and who also contributedmuch of the wisdom contained in these pages.My appreciation also extend to my committee members, RolandCase, who was there at the beginning, and Peter Sexias, whohopped on at the end, both of whom contributed their insightsand enriched this thesis.Finally, thanks to Katie, and my family and friends wholent me support and suffered through this experience (much moresilently than I).1CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONGlobal education is of growing interest to educators acrossCanada. Provincial teacher associations are currently funded bythe Canadian International Development Agency to developappropriate student materials and teacher training. Despite thisactivity, however, there is little information regarding thestatus of global education in Canadian public school curricula.No comprehensive data are available on the extent or quality ofthe officially prescribed global studies in any of the provincesor territories. An analysis of curriculum guides across Canadawould provide a view of what is expected to be taught inclassrooms. A relevant place to start such an analysis is withthe social studies because this subject deals so explicitly withthe world’s peoples, places and issues.RESEARCH FOCUSThe major question addressed by this study is as follows:During 1988, how did Canadian provincial and, territorial socialstudies curriculum guides, both elementary and secondary,2collectively portray global education? This question includes anumber of sub-questions:1. What rationales and goals are used to justify andguide the pursuit of global education?2. What content is related to global education?a. What concepts are identified and how are theydiscussed?b. What topics are identified and how are theydiscussed?c. What geographic regions and countries areidentified and how are they discussed?d. What global problems are identified and how arethey depicted?e. What linkages between global and local issues andproblems are identified?f. What percentage of the content is related to globalstudies?g. What disciplinary perspectives (single, multi-, orinterdisciplinary) are recommended?3. What characteristics of a global perspective areadvanced?Questions one and two, by focusing on purposes and content,allow for a descriptive analysis of the nature and extent ofglobal education recommended within curriculum guides. Questionthree is more interpretive, and focuses on how global studies is3presented; ten criteria for the development of a globalperspective are used to evaluate the purposes and content ofcurriculum guides.Although definitions of global education are open to debate(Chapter 2 examines two leading definitions), it is definedbroadly here as the study of one or more of the followingtopics:1) foreign countries, cultures and landscapes;2) universal or international issues related to humanrights, the United Nations, nuclear war, internationallaw, etc.;3) connections or comparisons of Canada/Canadians withother countries/citizens.This general definition is adopted because it allows for a broadexamination of curricular content, the goals and rationales thatjustify it, and the perspectives that permeate it. Throughoutthe study, the terms “global education” and “global studies” areused interchangeably.The focus is on curricular policy documents because theyprovide a relatively concise means of examining what isprescribed and recommended for study in each province. However,although they provide the “official” position in a subject areaand outline parameters for guiding classroom activities, thereis no guarantee that the contents of the curriculum are beingtaught in each classroom.4METHODOLOGYResearch design decisions were related to the selection ofcurricular documents, the development of an instrument foranalyzing those documents, and the best way to report the data.Selection of Curricular DocumentsIn the summer of 1987, a letter was sent to the 12provincial and territorial ministries of education asking fortheir current social studies curriculum guides (Appendix A). Notall of the jurisdictions responded to this first request. Afollow-up phone call was made early in 1988 to secure thoseguides that were still missing, and another call was made acouple of months later for the same purpose. Although all of theprovinces and territories responded, complete sets of guideswere not made available by Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia becausesome documents were under revision. These initial omissions didnot prove to be serious because these gaps were filled byanalyzing microfiche copies of current curriculum guides kept bythe library at the University of British Columbia. A total of 47curriculum guides current during 1988 were analyzed from the tenprovinces and the Northwest Territories (the Yukon Territoryused British Columbia’s curriculum). Appendix B lists thedocuments analyzed. All of the documents relate to social5studies, elementary (grades one through seven) and secondary(eight through 12); at the secondary level, the social studiesin some provinces are referred to as history and geography.Although some provinces also offer a diversity of electivecourses such as political science, economics, or law at thesecondary level under the heading of social studies, these werenot analyzed in favour of core, non-elective courses. In theinterest of consistency across the provinces, optional courses,most often offered in the higher grades (eleven and twelve),were avoided. To further keep the object of analysis consistentand standardized across provinces, whenever a province offereddifferent levels within a course (e.g., basic, average, andadvanced) the middle or “average” course for a grade level wasanalyzed (e.g., Ontario’s History and Contemporary Studiesoutlines three levels for each grade and course; the middlelevel was the only one analyzed). Thus, this analysis onlyexamines the treatment of global studies within the non-elective, core courses of social studies.Development and Use of InstrumentAn analysis instrument of 16 pages (Appendix C) was adaptedfrom an earlier instrument developed by Case, Werner and Daniels(1988) for evaluating curricular units and materials concernedwith global studies. Their published instrument, entitledDevelopment Education Materials Analysis Scheme, was the only6one available that focused specifically on global education,having been originally used to analyze curriculum materialsrelated to development education. Modifications were madeutilizing feedback from the original authors; the new instrumentexpanded on the previous one by including areas of concernrelevant to the research questions of the present study.Although there was some concern over the length of theinstrument, the desire to adopt a broad definition of globaleducation in order to be responsive to the literature and toachieve a wide-ranging analysis of curriculum guides, was deemedmore important than a more narrow focus on limited information.Consequently, the instrument explores global education in termsof a wide range of interrelated factors such as rationales,goals, nature and extent of geographical coverage, key conceptsand topics/issues, major disciplinary perspectives, andcharacteristics of a global perspective. The instrument itselfis divided into three sections: rationale and goals, content,and perspectives. These sections reflect areas of concern withinthe broader literature (as will be discussed in Chapter 2).The modified instrument was piloted on two provincialcurricula, using two surveyors: the researcher and one of theauthors of the original instrument (Case, Werner and Daniels,1988). Data compiled by the two surveyors were compared,differences discussed, and revisions of the instrument made inorder to enhance its clarity and validity. A second pilot was7conducted, similar to the first, which resulted in the finalrevisions to the instrument.Enhancing the reliability of the researcher’s analysis wasalso the focus of the pilot tests. The two surveyors analyzedthe same curricula independently and then compared data in orderto discuss reasons for any differences of interpretation, and tosearch for ways to increase inter-rater reliability. Further,after half of the provinces were examined, a third inter-raterreliability check was conducted on the curriculum analysis forone province. It was found that the curriculum guides were beinginterpreted in a similar and consistent manner.After the documents were analyzed and the data reported ina first draft of Chapter 3, the researcher read through thecurricula again in order to clarify points of concern andfurther check on reliability. The same process occurred afterthe second draft of Chapter 3 as well. It was found, in bothinstances, that the curricula had been interpreted consistentlyacross the provinces and through time.In summary, the unit of analysis was a province orterritory. The instrument was used to collect data across thedocuments for each jurisdiction. There were 11 analyses (tenprovincial and one territory) at the completion of this datagathering phase of the study.8Reporting of DataProvincial comparisons were difficult to make because alldocuments did not provide the same level of detail and depth ofdiscussion. Consequently, the validity and fairness of detailedcomparisons would have been suspect. It was prudent, therefore,to provide a more general national picture together withexamples selected from provincial documents. Consequently,general comparisons are drawn between provinces only whereappropriate.There are three important limitations to this portrayal ofthe data, and these account for why it is only an approximationof the current state of officially sanctioned global educationacross Canada in 1988. First, comparing documents acrossdifferent provinces was difficult at times because differentformats for curriculum guides hindered an equitable comparison.There was disparity in the amount of detail provided across theguides; variations in the amount of description and elaborationmade precise comparisons impossible. While one province outlinedits complete curriculum in 100 pages contained within one guide,another provided 500 pages in ten guides. (For example,Newfoundland’s guide was not as detailed as were the otherprovinces.) Also, provinces allowed for greater and lesseramounts of locally developed curricula. For these reasons, anynational picture and provincial comparisons must be treatedcautiously as “approximate.”9A second limitation arises because provinces have differentpolicies regarding required and optional courses, and the numberof courses a student may select for credit requirements. Someprovinces offer students little or no choice in their socialstudies courses; for example, students must take the subject upto grade 11, and then in grade 12 choose between geography orhistory. Other provinces allow choice as early as grade nine andmay provide five or six options in the higher grades.Third, no claims are made about the nature and extent ofglobal education occurring in classrooms. The content ofcurriculum guides cannot be equated with implementation.Authorized curricula do not depict how teachers interpret policyor what they actually do in their classrooms. Curriculum guidesonly provide a general prescription of what should be covered ina course; the extent to which a teacher chooses to follow theguide is another question. Moreover, even when following aguide, a teacher’s access to resources, preferred teachingmethods and subject perspective will shape the content. However,curriculum guides do provide some indication of what may bestudied in classrooms across a province. Teachers,administrators, local curriculum developers and teachereducators all look to curriculum guides for direction.The organization of this study is as follows: Chapter 2examines selected literature of global education, including itsgoals, rationales and content; components of a global10perspective; and the current status of global education. Chapter3 presents the data from the curriculum guides, whereas Chapter4 provides a summary and raises some implications.11CHAPTER 2CURRICULAR ISSUESVarious questions arise when considering global educationwithin curriculum policy documents: What is global education?Why should it be pursued? How does the scope and sequence of thecurriculum affect the placement of global education? What arethe challenges to global education in the curriculum? Whatresearch has been done on global education in the curriculum?This chapter briefly examines these questions from the broaderliterature of global education in order to provide a context forthe analysis and discussion of curriculum documents in Chapters3 and 4.DESCRIPTIONS OF GLOBAL EDUCATION“Global education is a bundle of ambiguities,” says Werner,in part because “definitions of global education are various andlack coherence” (1990: 77). conflicting goals, content12prescriptions and rationales are evident in the literature(Becker, 1982; Popkewitz, 1980; Tye, 1990[aj), and with anincrease of literature over the past ten years, there sometimesis a corresponding lack of clarity (Werner, 1990: 78-79).Consequently, questions about what is meant by global educationand why it should be promoted are important. This section of thechapter outlines a broad definition, some content emphases andthose rationales that encompass most of the discussion of globaleducation within the literature.Broad DefinitionHanvey’s (1976) prominent definition of global education isassumed in much of the literature. He considers the advancementof a “global perspective” to be the central goal of globaleducation, and defines this perspective in terms of fivedimensions or categories of “things we will need to know andunderstand if we are to cope with the challenges of anincreasingly interdependent world” (1976: 1). Teaching thatencourages student understanding along any of these fivedimensions is considered to be global education.Before we examine these five dimensions, though, it isimportant to recognize a key element of Hanvey’s argument. Hebelieves that a global perspective is a collective as opposed toan individual perspective. Every individual does not need to13attain all five dimensions to the same degree for a group tohave a global perspective:a global perspective may be a variable trait possessedin some form and degree by a population, with theprecise character of that perspective determined bythe specialized capabilities, predispositions, andattitudes of the group’s members.... every individualdoes not have to be brought to the same level ofintellectual and moral development in order for apopulation to be moving in the direction of a moreglobal perspective (Hanvey, 1976: 2).This is an important point for Hanvey because education for aglobal perspective need not be standardized; rather, dependingupon the diversified talents and strengths of any student body,suitable aspects of these five dimensions could be taught(Hanvey, 1976: 2).The first dimension is “perspective consciousness,” whichinvolves a recognition that one’s own perspective or woridviewis not universally shared, and that other people often havedifferent assumptions. He is not referring to differences ofopinion but to something much deeper and more stable: “opinionis the surface layer, the conscious outcropping of perspective.But there are deep and hidden layers of perspective that may bemore important in orienting behaviour” (1976: 4). These layerscontain unexamined assumptions, conceptions, and evaluationsthat guide our actions. For example, the feminist movementchallenged taken-for-granted assumptions of our collectiveperspective that allow sexism to flourish: “they labelled themost commonplace behaviours and attitudes ‘chauvinist,’ and thus14revealed the deeper layers of perspective in action” (Hanvey,1976: 5). Not only should education provoke a recognition ofperspective, but it should also teach us how to probe its deeplayers. As these unexamined aspects of a perspective are raisedfrom the unconscious to the conscious level, an understandingand alteration of assumptions and attitudes may be possible.The second dimension he refers to as “state of the planetawareness.” This includes awareness of prevailing and emergentworld conditions, developments and trends in such areas aspopulation growth, migrations, economic conditions, resourcesand physical environments, science and technology, law, health,inter-nation and intra—nation conflicts. Although the media aremost responsible for creating this awareness, the formal schoolsystem can provide a more balanced awareness amongst itsstudents by helping them to deal with distortions caused by themedia and political ideology. Collaboration between socialstudies and science departments within a school could helpstudents reduce the limits to understanding significantplanetary conditions imposed by the technical nature of worlddata.The third dimension, “cross-cultural awareness,” has twodistinct goals: 1) awareness of a diversity of values andpractices found in human societies around the world, and howthese diverse ideas and practices compare; and 2) some limitedrecognition of how one’s own society might be viewed from other15vantage points. Mere contact with other cultures does notnecessarily enhance the development of this understanding unlessthere is also a respect for, and some participation withinanother culture over an extended period. More desirable thanempathy (“the capacity to imagine oneself in another role withinthe context of one’s own culture”) is transspection (“thecapacity to imagine oneself in a role within the context of aforeign culture”), in which “a person temporarily believeswhatever the other person believes” (Hanvey, 1976: 12), althoughHanvey is not optimistic about the school’s capacity toencourage this disposition : “[it] is not likely to be producedby educational strategies” (1976: 12).The fourth dimension is “knowledge of global dynamics,” anunderstanding of the attributes and mechanisms of global systems(e.g., political, economic, ecological and social). Viewing theworld in terms of interacting systems curtails the tendency tosee events or issues in overly simple terms: “[students] replacesimplistic explanations and expectations with more sophisticatedexplanations and expectations” (Hanvey, 1976: 13) as theyunderstand that decisions in one system or region often affectother areas. The ramifications of innovation or political actionin one system, for instance, can have surprising impacts on thenature and quality of events elsewhere.The final dimension is “awareness of alternatives” and theimportance of choice:16I have talked of changes in awareness... of our owncultural perspective, awareness of how other peoplesview the world, awareness of global dynamics andpatterns of change. In this final section I wish toemphasize that such heightened awareness, desirable asit is, brings with it problems of choice (Hanvey,1976: 22).In our current understanding of alternative courses of action,Hanvey argues that we are increasingly moving from a pre-globalto a global cognition, from a reliance upon tradition to that ofreason. A pre-global cognition does not seek to understandchoices in terms of long term consequences, nor question theadequacy of current social goals and values, nor the primacy ofnational interests (1976: 24). Conversely, a global cognitionemphasizes a more critical evaluation, recognizing that mostproblems transcend national and regional boundaries.Surprisingly, although he argues for changes to studentawareness, knowledge and attitudes, Hanvey does not “proposethat students choose among alternatives - only that they know ofthem” (1976: 28). This is an ironic way of concluding anargument for perspective change.When one or more of these dimensions of a globalperspective are studied, Hanvey believes global education isbeing promoted. Although various institutions contribute to thedevelopment of this perspective (e.g., the media), schools areable to address all five dimensions and, thus, are a goodlocation for global education.Much of the literature assumes Hanvey’s definition or17extends his arguments (note, for example, that the contributorsto the ASCD 1991 Yearbook Global Education: From Thought ToAction uncritically adopt his perspective). Authors accept themain thrust of his conception which highlights the need forgreater awareness of issues and understanding of facts about theworld (e.g., technological change, different cultures).Few writers are critical of Hanvey’s ideas. In “Towards aDefensible Conception of a Global Perspective,” Coombs (1988)shows that Hanvey’s account of a global perspective isinadequate for guiding global education. Although “an increasein awareness is a solid and necessary base from which toproceed” (Hanvey, 1976: 28), Coombs shows that Hanvey’s accountdoes not include any discussion of the need to evaluate valuepositions. His main criticism is that it should be more“strongly normative” by promoting:a moral point of view which sees all persons as havingequal moral worth...[and incorporating] a theory ofthe good (development) that provides at least somebasic criteria for identifying human problems andsolutions to them; [and it does not provide] anyreasoned view about why . . .universal values are to beaccepted (1988: 5-6).Although he briefly outlines the requirements of a globalperspective that emphasize a rational, deliberate considerationof value issues, Coombs does little more than offer a generaland insightful critique of Hanvey’s work.On the other hand, Case (1991) critically extends theefforts of both Hanvey and Coombs to define a global18perspective. He does so by first clarifying Coombs’ assertionthat a perspective involves: “(1) a ‘point of view’ - a vantagepoint from which, or a lens through which, an observationoccurs, and (2) some ‘object’ of attention - an event, thing,person, place or state of affairs that is the focus of theobservation” (1988: 3). Based on this clarification, Casedelineates two major dimensions of a global perspective. Thesubstantive dimension corresponds to the “object” of aperspective, while the perceptual dimension relates to the“point of view - the matrix of concepts, orientations, values,sensibilities, and attitudes - through which we want students toperceive the world” (1991: 2). He then identifies five elementsthat are essential to the perceptual dimension of a globalperspective.The first, “open-mindedness,” is a “willingness to formone’s beliefs on the basis of impartial consideration ofavailable evidence” and is “the crucial feature of theperceptual dimension” (1991: 10). Open-mindedness is, of course,a matter of degree. One person may be more open-minded thananother, but also certain areas within a person’s consciousnessmay be more or less open to impartial evaluation. For example,deeply held convictions or one’s sense of personal identity areareas where a person may be less likely to be open-minded. Whileit may not be a simple process to change one’s foundationalbeliefs, it is not impossible if a person is open-minded (Case,191991: 11-12; Hare, 1983: 48-58). But if a person is not open-minded, there is little chance for any transformation in one’sthinking or belief structure. Although Hanvey’s “perspectiveconsciousness” is similar to open-mindedness,the key difference between Hanvey’s account ofperspective consciousness and open-mindedness is thatHanvey is satisfied merely to make students more awareof the variability among perspectives, while open-mindedness implies a willingness to reassess even themost fundamental aspects of one’s perspective (Case,1991: 11).The importance of open-mindedness to global education is clear.Student decisions may be flawed if there is an unwillingness toconsider relevant evidence, whereas conclusions based on a fulland impartial assessment are much more likely to be sound.The second element, “anticipation of complexity,” involvesthe avoidance of superficial or naive views; it is the“inclination to look beyond simplistic explanations of complexethical and empirical issues, and to look for ramificationsamong events - to see global phenomena as part of aconstellation of interrelated factors” (1991: 12). This issimilar to Hanvey’s (1976) discussion of “knowledge of globaldynamics” which seeks to accommodate complexity and encourageless simplistic and more sophisticated analyses. However, Casegives this dimension less of a substantive focus, arguing thatthe inclination to anticipate complexity is an importantdisposition to be acquired rather than just a means of treatingspecific content.20The third element is “resistance to stereotyping”, whethercultural stereotyping (where important features of a group orits heterogeneity are ignored) or the tendency to resort to “we-they” dualism (e.g., North—South, our nation vs. their nation).The preceding element, anticipation of complexity, “focuses onexplaining events with appropriate complexity, [whereas] thiselement [resistance to stereotyping] deals with describingpeople and groups of people with sufficient diversity” (Case,1991: 14). Stereotyping encourages us to see people or groups asless than human - less complicated than they are - and promotestheir marginalization, rather than enhancing a greaterappreciation of the extent of similarities and differences amongpeople.The fourth element is the “inclination to empathize” - “awillingness and a capacity to place oneself in the role orpredicament of others or at least to imagine issues from otherpersons’ or groups’ perspectives” (1991: 15). Case takes issuewith Hanvey’s limiting of empathy to cross-cultural contexts,arguing rather that it is possible and often desirable toempathize with “anyone whose position is different from one’sown” (1991: 16). He also disagrees with Hanvey’s contention thatwe must move beyond empathy into transspection:contrary to Hanvey’s suggestion that we should adopttemporarily the other’s way of life, it is sufficientto empathize with another that I know enough aboutthat person’s situation to sensitively imagine ananalogous set of circumstances within my own world.unless an attempt to empathize has been made, one21cannot be confident that the views and practices ofothers have been fully and fairly considered (1991:16).The final element is “non-chauvinism” which “refers to theinclination neither to prejudice our judgments of othersbecause we do not identify with them, nor to unfairly discountthe interest of others even if, on occasions, it means asacrifice of one’s own interests” (1991: 17). As an example,Case cites a study that analyzed articles about the Gulf War inthe Manchester Guardian, Britain’s prestigious newspaper. Thisstudy illustrates how prejudice can colour one’s perception:British forces were described as “cautious” and“loyal” while Iraqi troops were “cowardly” and“blindly obedient;” British missiles caused“collateral damage” while enemy missiles caused“civilian casualties;” and British sorties were “firststrikes” and “pre-emptive” while Iraq’s initiativeswere “sneak missile attacks” and “without provocation”(Case, 1991: 17)Two forms of chauvinism should be avoided: “ethnocentricism -the view that one’s own cultural group is superior to allothers,” and national chauvinism - the lack of “willingness whenappropriate to critically assess policies and positions adoptedby one’s country, and to recognize that on some occasionsnational best-interests should not be paramount over theinterests of other countries or peoples” (1991: 17). Thisability to maintain some critical distance from one’s owninterests (or that of one’s country) is essential to Case’sglobal perspective. He believes that there are moral obligationsthat people have to the global community that, at times,22outweigh self-interest: “attention to our own national interestsmust not obscure moral obligations to the global community. Itwould be morally wrong not to have some sensitivity to therights of others in the global community” (1991: 17).Hanvey (1976), Coombs (1988) and Case (1991) define globaleducation in terms of the goal of enhancing a global perspectivein students. For all three authors a global perspective includescertain dispositions and an understanding of content; thesesubstantive and perceptual dimensions both contribute to thedevelopment of a global perspective. Much of the literature,though, defines global education primarily in terms ofprescribed content.Content EmphasesOne of the best known descriptions of global education interms of content is provided by Kniep. In “Defining a GlobalEducation by its Content” (1986), he outlines four essentialareas of content for social studies. The first is the study ofboth universal human values “that transcend group identity,” anddiverse human values “that define group membership andcontribute to our unique perspectives and worldviews” (1986:437). The second content area is the study of global systems:“because we live simultaneously in a number of interactingglobal systems, we experience a cumulative sense of globalinterdependence” (1986: 438). He identifies four global systems23worthy of study: 1) economic, 2) political, 3) ecological and 4)technological. The third content involves the study of globalproblems in the following areas: 1) peace and security, 2)development, 3) environment, and 4) human rights. His finalelement is global history. By this he means a study of thehistorical roots of the previous three elements, that is, thehistory of human values, global systems and interdependence, andglobal problems.Other content emphases recommended in the literatureinclude: 1) language studies, 2) multicultural education, 3)international studies and 4) global issues.Foreign language study is recognized by some writers as anarea of global education (e.g., Access, 1988, 1989; WorldStudies Journal, 1989). It appears that any approach to languagestudies is acceptable, including language taught as a separatecourse within the curriculum, immersion programs which usevarious courses for language learning, or cultural exchangesthat tie language and cultural immersion more closely together.Whatever the approach, writers such as Byram (1989) argue forlanguage study “as a means of communication - rather than as anobject of study,” thereby providing the student with “theinsight that the foreign language is not simply a codificationof [another’s] language but rather the expression of a quitedifferent way of life, the realisation of another culture”(1989: 4-5). Studying language in this manner encourages the24student to develop an “intercultural communicative competence:the ability to establish a community of meanings across culturalboundaries.... [where] she/he can perceive their own and theother culture from the perspective of the other speaker” (Byram,1989:5).Appeals to national economic competitiveness are often madeto justify language studies (e.g., Access, 1988, 1989; Lonzetta,1988; Met, 1989; President’s Commission on Foreign Language andInternational Studies, 1979; Rosengren, 1983; SouthernGovernors’ Association, 1986). These sources argue that toremain competitive in international markets, the private andpublic sectors need to upgrade foreign language skills. Otherreasons less often offered for language study include: 1) thedesire to live in a multiethnic/multilingual society whichencourages acceptance of minority populations and their richlinguistic heritages, and 2) the intellectual and personalbenefits that can accrue to students through the study of aforeign language (Met, 1989).Although language has not been a traditional concern of thesocial studies, it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. The studyof heritage languages is sometimes combined with social studies,and it is usual in language immersion programs to study socialstudies in the immersion language.Multicultural education is another content emphasis. Thereseem to be two views of the relationship between multicultural25and global education. The first is that multicultural and globaleducation converge in many important respects. While theirorigins are distinct - “global education sprang from an overduerecognition of the growing interrelatedness of all peoples,whereas multiethnic [or multicultural] education developed froman overdue recognition of the expansion and significance ofethnic diversity within the U.S. [and Canada]” (Cortes, 1983:568) - various writers have commented on aspects of overlap(e.g., Burtonwood, 1986; Cole, 1984; Cortes, 1980, 1983; Haipt,1980; Lynch, 1986; Storm, 1981). For example, Bennett (1989)argues that multicultural education has traditionally emphasized“the study of the history and culture of various ethnicgroups... particularly ethnic minorities,” whereas morerecently, it has been “freed... from its earlier focus on ethnicdiversity within a single nation to include cultures and nationsacross the globe” (1989: 2). For Cortes (1983: 569), “bothreform movements [global and multicultural education] seek toimprove intergroup and global understanding and relations, toimprove intercultural communication, to reduce stereotyping, andto help students comprehend human diversity without losing sightof the traits that all peoples share.” Key concepts within bothglobal education and multicultural education include empathy,tolerance, diversity, cross-cultural awareness, racism, rights,inequity, prejudice, stereotype, and ethnocentrism.The other opinion concerning the relationship between the26two is that multicultural education is one component of globaleducation. Tye (1990[aj: 165) quotes an unidentified teacher whosums up this perspective: “Until now I thought of it (globaleducation) as multicultural studies. Now I’m beginning to see itas more holistic than that. It has to do with ecology and otherissues too.” Many writers assume that multicultural topics andissues are an integral part of global education. Hanvey (1976),for example, discusses “cross-cultural awareness” along withother objectives such as “state of the planet awareness” and“knowledge of global dynamics.” (c.f., Anderson, 1982; Peterat,1988; Selby, 1989.) Another major advocate of global educationoutlines “diverse human values” as a key component of globaleducation; because of cultural differences in “tastes,preferences, attitudes, lifestyles and woridviews,” globaleducation is designed in part to have students see “themselvesthrough the eyes of those with another worldview” (Kniep, 1986:438).International education, international studies, foreignaffairs or world studies, is the third content emphasis. Althoughthere are a substantial number of writers within this area, somecommon characteristics of their writing can be identified in thework of Steve Lamy (1988, 1990). First, he assumes that suchstudies are disciplinary or multidisciplinary. On the sameassumption, for example, Torney-Purta (1988) distinguishesbetween world studies courses that adhere to a disciplinary27orientation (e.g., world history, world geography, andinternational relations) and courses that use differentdisciplines successively (e.g., western civilization andcomparative historical culture) (c.f., Anderson 1990: 14-16;Becker, 1990: 74—80).Second, content in international education usuallyemphasizes area studies (e.g., the Pacific Rim) and formalinternational relations training (Lamy, 1983: 19), focusing onthe actions of nation states and governments as opposed to theefforts of individuals, small local groups or non-governmentalorganizations (Algers and Harf, 1986: 2; Lamy, 1988: 6).According to Lamy, these “international education advocates areself-described as the ‘academic heavyweights’” (1983: 19).Third, international education tends to avoid or evenreject the inclusion of values education, and there is littlediscussion of controversial topics (Lamy, 1988, 1990; Tye,1990[aj). Proponents of this approach, according to Werner(l988[aJ), “provide materials that try to be ‘neutral’ bypresenting information only (e.g., extent of African famine) andshun any mention of controversial issues (e.g., causes offamine)”. As Laiuy (1990: 53) puts it, “global education thatemphasizes substance over value-laden mush.... has proveneffective in avoiding controversy.” Although currently moreinterested in values education than previously, he is stillopposed to approaching global education from a moral viewpoint,28characterizing it as “[t]he utopian left seek[ing] to create amore equitable international system through the creation ofsocialist systems in which power is decentralized and economicwell being, social justice, and peace are dominant domestic andforeign policy goals” (1990: 57). However, where controversy isunavoidable and one cannot be “value-free in discussions ofcomplex international issues” (1990: 62), he then argues thatteachers must “encourage students of international affairs tosee an issue from a variety of value positions” (1990: 74), andought to describe rather than prescribe a spectrum of competingvalues in the face of controversy. In a critical vein, Coombs(1988: 4) refers to this lack of an explicit normative componentas an:instrumental conception of a global perspective.., itimplies nothing about what attitude one should taketoward human problems, that is to say, it incorporatesno normative outlook——neither a theory of the good nora moral theory.In summary, international education can be defined by itscontent focusing on disciplinary area studies, and formalinternational affairs training which stresses the study ofnation states and governments. It seeks to avoid valueseducation and attempts to preserve neutrality by describingcontroversial issues or competing values without elucidating ameans of adjudication in determining which side of an issueshould be supported. Although Lamy’s preference is for adisciplinary orientation (1988), he also adopts aspects of a29global issues stance, thereby illustrating how interwovenapproaches to global education have become. His recent articles(1990[a], 1990[bJ) seem to encourage a more interdisciplinaryapproach.Global issues is the last content emphasis of globaleducation. It is interdisciplinary, utilizes values educationand endorses student action on issues. Werner concisely outlinesthree goals of this approach:The first purpose, then, of global education is toraise awareness of issues and problems from theperspective of global interdependencies/interrelationships. A second purpose is to helpstudents articulate and reason about moralquestions... Students need to be taught how to makedefensible judgements about what is fair and just(e.g. AVER, 1983). The third purpose is to encouragereflection and responsible action... Global educationdoes not really leave one with the option of remainingneutral (1988[cJ: 2).According to Kniep (1986), four major issues shoulddominate the content of global education: peace (e.g., BritishColumbia Global Education Prolect, 1991; Greig, Pike, and Selby,1987; Roche, 1987; Strada, 1985), development (e.g., Case, 1984,1985, and 1987; Joy and Kniep 1987; Short, 1985; Werner,1988[a]), environment (e.g., British Columbia Global EducationPro-ject, 1991; Broadhead, n.d.; Greig, Pike and Selby, 1987) andhuman rights (e.g., Amnesty International, 1983; Hearty, 1987;Sandahl, 1987; World Studies Teacher Training Centre, 1985).Since issues are by their nature interdisciplinary (Becker,1990; Lamy, 1990; Tucker, 1990; Woyach and Remy, 1988),30geography, history, economics, political science and insightsfrom other disciplines may be necessary when analyzing, forexample, problems of world development.The study of issues involves teachers and students invalues education (including moral education). “I believe thatmost persons concerned with global education, myself included,”says Coombs (1988: 6), “want to impart some version of what I amcalling the universalist global perspective... [which] isstrongly normative... [and] view[sJ human affairs from a moralpoint of view which sees all persons as having equal moralworth.” However, he further argues that it is imperative thatsuch a perspective be educationally defensible, by which hemeans that it is “transmitted rationally”: there must be“responsible value deliberation and justification” and “theintellectual resources for approaching value conflict in aresponsible manner” (1988: 6). Without such deliberation, globalissues may be taught through indoctrination. (Examples ofdeliberation are provided by AVER, 1983, 1991; Beck, 1982; Hare,1982; Stenhouse, 1969; Werner and Nixon, 1990.)Another characteristic of a global issues approach is itsattention to student action: “the belief that understanding musttranslate into action, has guided the development of globaleducation since the early eighties” (Darling, 1988). Approachingissues from a moral point of view denies teachers and studentsthe comfort of neutrality, and thus responsible action may at31times become a part of global education’s content (e.g., BritishColumbia Global Education Prolect, 1991; Hanvey, 1974; Lamy,1990; Werner, 1988[cJ).In summary, while there are various and distinct contentemphases, many share of the same concepts (e.g., global systems,interdependence and human values) central to the substantivedimension of a global perspective. The second part of theanalysis instrument (Appendix C) is designed to be sensitive tothese various content emphases that may be evident in curricularpolicy documents.RationalesAlthough there are diverse and often conflicting rationalesused to justify the study of global education (Werner, 1990),they can be reduced to three. The first two justify globaleducation in terms of nationalism or internationalism, whereasthe third argues that global education is essential simplybecause the world is changing.Rationales based on national self-interest most often useprudential, as opposed to moral, arguments to promote globaleducation: “enhancing national or regional trade, our standardof living, spheres of influence in the world, or even nationalpride” (Werner, 1990: 79). For many writers in the UnitedStates, for example, enhancing national economic competitiveness32underlies their support of global education (e.g., Access, 1988;Met, 1989; National Governors’ Association, 1989; President’sCommission of Foreign Language and International Studies, 1979;Rosengren, 1983; Southern Governors’ Association, 1986). Globaleducation is promoted because it is deemed relevant to preparinga nation’s youth for competition in the global economy, and todeal with new realities in the world. According to Becker,The United States cannot deal effectively withinternational economic, political, and environmentalissues without developing greater internationalcompetence among our citizens. U.S. educationalinstitutions and organizations must broaden citizens’training in communicating with other people;understanding other cultures; and recognizingrelationships among population growth, risingstandards of living, and environmental problems.Because of the increasing internationalization ofsociety and interdependence among peoples and nations,citizenship education - a traditional and essentialcomponent of education in the United States - musthave a global dimension (1990:68).Just what this global dimension entails is a subject of debate.Lamy (1990: 56) notes that there is controversy over the reasonsfor and the content of global education “because individuals andgroups do not agree on an agenda for civic education.” Somegroups believe that “global education should prepare U.S.citizens for participation in an anarchic and competitiveinternational system.... our educational system should preparestudents to compete and to secure our national interests” (Lamy,1990: 56). Others argue more specifically “that the purpose ofglobal education is to promote U.S. interest and to builddomestic and international support for American ideals and33traditions.... For [these] more conservative interest groups,teaching patriotism is the primary purpose of schooling” (Lamy,1990: 57-59). Global education is rationalized on grounds thatit will enable students to help secure national interests in thechanging international marketplace.In contrast to economic arguments that feature nationalself-interest are moral rationales that highlightinternationalism. “The motivation here is not first our nationalor group interests, but concerns for social justice, notions offairness and our common humanity” (Werner, 1990: 80). This kindof global education, Ramler (1991: 45) states, “requires loyaltythat, while in the interest of one’s particular nation, is notexclusive to that nation: a loyalty that is a commitment beyondnational boundaries.” The commitment is based on such ideals asthe protection of international human rights, respect for therole of international law, and the promotion of economic andsocial justice. The concern is with moral questions:According to a story of uncertain origin andauthenticity, a hungry person in a Third World nationis supposed to have told an affluent American: “Wehave a survival problem. have a moral problem.”Whether apocryphal or not, this anecdote implies thatit is immoral for so many people to be hungry in aworld of plenty. What ethical system would not agree?(Short, 1985: 38).In commenting on the differences between these tworationales, Lamy notes that some groups use global education asa means of furthering a narrow notion of citizenship thatexplicitly promotes one nation’s interests over other nations.34They “believe that students should be prepared to be Americancitizens and to represent American interests in a competitiveinternational environment” (Lamy, 1990: 61). Conversely, thosewho argue from a broader internationalism believe that “theglobal system requires more emphasis on transnational values,critical thinking, and comparative analysis” (Lamy, 1990: 61) sothat students can assess global issues and act according to thebroader interests of the international community (Darling,1991). However, at times these seemingly polarized rationalescan be seen as complementary. For instance, an advocate ofinternationalism might also justify this perspective on thegrounds of national self-interest; that is, we need to supportthe broader interests of the global community if we also are tosatisfy some of our nation’s interests. For example, whenCanadian curricula promote action to combat the dangers ofglobal environmental degradation, our long-term nationalinterests are also served. However, although there is noexclusive linkage between moral rationales and internationalismor economic rationales and nationalism, there is a tendency formoral arguments to stress internationalism as well as forprudential arguments to emphasize self-interest.A third rationale needs to be mentioned. Global educationis here justified by appealing to the fact of a changing world.For example,[There is] a rationale for global education thatconsists of a three-fold argument: (1) that in the35past two decades... [many] changes in the socialstructure of the world have converged; (2) thatbecause of this conjuncture of historical trends,American society became more globalized in the 1970sand 1980s and will likely become even more so in the1990s and beyond; and (3) that education mirrorssociety in the sense that social change generateseducational change (Anderson, 1990: 14).There is little appeal to nationalism or internationalism, or tothe use of prudential or moral arguments; for Anderson, it is afact that American society has become more globalized, and sinceeducation “mirrors” society, global education is inevitablebecause society is now more globalized. In response to Anderson,however, it is possible to use these same “facts” to argue foror against global education. Simply because something is thoughtto be a “fact” does not legitimize it as a topic for study.Cities are becoming more violent, but this fact does not meanthat we should include more study of violence in social studiescourses. A rationale includes an explicit normative componentthat allows one to say that such and such should be taught forcertain reasons. Anderson’s implicit normative assumption isthat global education has relevance because it reflects moreaccurately the changes occurring in our world.Similarly, because global interdependence is changing thereality of our world, and because “the world is a system (1976:13), Hanvey argues that systems analysis should be part of aglobal perspective. He states that there is a “clear trend...from tradition to reason, from the habitual to the questionedand calculated.... characterized by new knowledge and a more36deliberate use of it”; this trend “underlies the emergence of aglobal perspective” (1976: 24). In essence, he selects factsabout the world and uses them to justify global education. Thisargument’s weakness, of course, like Anderson’s, is that “thefacts” do not by themselves justify global education withoutbeing tied to a normative argument. For example, these samefacts could also be used to argue for the rejection of globaleducation. A person might argue that because the world isbecoming more interdependent, the school’s job is to strengthena student’s link to her immediate community and its traditionsin the face of change. Therefore, while it is certainly truethat the world is changing, such change does not by itselfjustify global education. Regardless, many authors choose, as doAnderson (1990) and Hanvey (1976), to justify the pursuit ofglobal education on the grounds that the world is changing.As might be expected, different rationales are sometimeslinked to various contents. Language studies and internationaleducation are often associated with prudential arguments thatstress national self-interest and, sometimes, factual rationales(e.g., Anderson, 1990; Hanvey, 1976; Lamy, 1990; Met, 1989;Rosengren, 1983; Southern Governors’ Association, 1986), whereasthe study of global issues usually rests on a moral rationalethat emphasizes the international community and criticalthinking (Carr, 1987; Coombs, 1988; Joy and Kniep, 1987;McGowan, 1987; Selby, 1989; Short, 1985; Werner, 1988[c]); a37multicultural emphasis may have either prudential (Cortes, 1983)or moral rationales (Lynch, 1986; Storm, 1981; Traitler, 1982).Whichever rationale is offered, though, the goal is thedevelopment of a global perspective. The first part of theanalysis instrument in Appendix C was devised to collectinformation about the presence of any or all of these rationaleswithin curricula.SCOPE AND SEQUENCEAnother issue that concerns global educators is commonlyreferred to as the scope and sequence of the curriculum.Decisions about what should be learned and when it should belearned (i.e., grade level) underlie content placement in thecurriculum. Since the 1930s, the leading theory used to organizethe content in social studies has been known as “expandinghorizons” or “expanding environments” (Ravitch, 1989: 90). Inshort, this theory holds that students learn best when theystart with the familiar and work to the unfamiliar, from thatwhich is spatially and temporally close at hand to the distant.In social studies, this scope and sequence begins with thechild’s family and community, before moving to his or her city,province, country, and finally to the larger world.38Expanding horizons is evident in curricula in both theUnited States (Ravitch, 1989) and Canada (Tomkins, 1986: 399).According to Becker (1990: 69), a dominant pattern for socialstudies in the United States includes (listed by grade level):1. Families2. Neighborhoods3. Communities4. State history/regions5. U.S. history6. World history/western hemisphere7. World history/cultures! geography8. U.S. history9. Civics/government or worldculture/history10 .World cultures/history11.U.S. history12.American government and economics orsociology/psychologyNote that this arrangement may not include global content untilgrade six. Becker comments on the archaic nature of such anapproach:Recent studies indicate that the dominant structure ofsecondary social studies today is remarkably similarto a pattern set in 1916.... The socials studiescurriculum in most secondary schools is organizedaround topics (places, continents, and subjects) thatwere established 60 years ago.... Generally... thetopics, courses, and textbooks are remarkably similaracross the nation.The most notable changes since 1916 include thebroadening of European history to world history, withmore emphasis on Africa, Asia, and other non-westernareas....A few social studies programs are being taught on thebasis of other themes, such as skills, studentdevelopment needs, or social issues.International studies receives scant attention, otherthan in world geography and world history courses,where the emphasis tends to be on geographic areas orregions or, as in the case of world history, achronology of major events in the western world.(Becker, 1990: 69)39This expanding horizons approach to social studies, whilehaving the weight of tradition, does little to provide allstudents with an understanding of the contemporary world and itsproblems and issues. The fact that many Canadian provincesadhere to this model does not encourage global education acrossall of the grades, although there are ways of introducing globalcontent before grade six. Other models of determining scope andsequence may be more amenable to global content and contemporaryissues (Apple, 1988; Degenhardt and McKay, 1988; Egan, 1979,1986, 1988[a], 1988[bJ; Hughes, 1988). For instance, Egan’smodel argues that children do not learn first the familiar andthen the distant, but rather both the familiar and the distant.He contends that a child uses her imagination to move beyond thefamiliar:Instead of focusing on such content, we might examinethose things that most engage children’s interest (forexample, fairy stories and games).... what childrenknow best when they come to school are love, hate,joy, fear, good, and bad. That is, they know best themost profound human emotions and the bases ofmorality.... This simple observation undermines thefoundation of the typical expanding horizonscurriculum, allowing us to see that children’s accessto the world need not be, as it were, along lines ofcontent associations moving gradually out fromfamilies, homes, communities, and daily experience, orfrom things judged relevant on grounds of some kind ofphysical proximity. Far from condemning ourselves toprovincial concerns in the early grades, we mayprovide direct access to anything in the world thatcan be connected with basic emotions and morality(1979: 10—11).With Egans’ model it is possible to teach global studies earlyin elementary school as long as it is connected to basic40emotions or the child’s sense of morality through imagination.Degenhardt and McKay (1988: 237) also attack the expandinghorizons principle because it:equates relevance with close proximity. Clearly thisis false, and in a way that both insults the youthfulintellect and licences a curriculum to restrict ratherthan extend mental horizons. Contrary to familiarfacts, it asserts that children can be interested inunderstanding only things close to their existingexperience. Acceptance of this view hinders thedevelopment of curricula that extend children’simaginations through studies of different and remotecultures.Taking their cue from Egan, these authors argue that imaginationand caring are essential to the development of empathy, andempathy is essential for intercultural understanding. Thedevelopment of imagination and caring and, thus, empathy shouldbe leading goals in children’s education, and an educationalmodel based on these goals would include global content at anearlier stage than would the expanding horizons model.In summary, the traditional form of organization providessome obvious limitations for global education. Although certainconcepts like interdependence may be introduced at early grades,global content would not be included until late in theelementary curriculum, and would increase as students moved tothe secondary grades. Consequently, it was important to make theanalysis instrument responsive to the issue of scope andsequence and its effect on the placement of global content incurricula. It is likely that those curricula that follow thetraditional expanding horizons approach will not evidence much41global content until late in the elementary years. The analysisinstrument seeks information about this organization.CHALLENGES TO GLOBAL EDUCATIONTwo political challenges have serious implications for thenature and amount of global education in the curriculum. Thefirst began as a backlash in the United States against globaleducation in the mid 1980s. Lamy (1990) argues that differentgroups — characterized at the extremities by ultraconservativesand utopian leftists - chose global education as a battlegroundover educational goals. The core assumption of the conservativeswas that “[tjhe American system is the best system and we havea mission to bring our ideals to the rest of the world”; anyeducational endeavour that does not seem to advance thisassumption is viewed as biased against the United States and isaccused of “indoctrinating students with ‘the falsehood thatother nations, governments, legal systems, cultures, andeconomic systems are essentially equivalent to us and entitledto equal respect’” (1990: 52). This nationalistic challenge toglobal education may have serious repercussions on itsacceptability, for if conservatives have their way, globaleducation would be barred from the curriculum or changed topromote patriotism. For example, Greg Cunningham’s (1986)42“Blowing the Whistle on Global Education”, with the support ofthe U.S. Office of Education, accused global education ofpromoting moral relativity, misrepresenting reality andcondemning patriotism (Lamy, 1990: 51-52).On the other hand, Lamy (1990) contends that the utopianleftists would use global education to promote socialist valuescritical of the current capitalist system in the United States.These “leftists” would seek to equate global education withanti-American sentiment and pro-socialist rhetoric. Such aperception, whether true or not, may encourage educators to shunany association with global education.A second challenge comes from those who seek to enhance thedominance of a certain kind of history in the social studiescurriculum. Diane Ravitch (1990, 1989, 1985, 1982) seems to havebecome the spokesperson for a movement concerned with“returning” history to its “rightful” (1985: 17) place as thebackbone of the social studies, and to its proper format:“history taught honestly, as history” (1989: 89-91). She arguesthat “history will never be restored as a subject of valueunless it is detached from the vulgar utilitarianism thatoriginally swamped it”; history, she argues, if “properlytaught” does not emphasize connections with contemporary eventsor issues (1985:17); this version of history might challenge theplacement of global content within curricula.Ravitch blames the decline of history on both the growth of43social studies, of which history is just one sub-category, andthe emphasis on process over content. California recentlyrevised its social studies curriculum, with Ravitch as one ofthe co-authors (referred to as the “California Framework for K-12 History-Social Studies”). History is here the core aroundwhich the social studies revolves.Evans criticizes Ravitch’s conception and argues that theCalifornia Framework:devotes little or no direct attention to competingideologies, to the difficult question of social classin America, to the role of government in the economyand social welfare, to treatment of the culturallydifferent and women, to the rights of labor, or to therole of America in the world (1989: 87).Although Ravitch denies this allegation and claims that “thecurriculum pays close attention to minorities, women and thosewho are ‘culturally different’” (1989: 90), Evans (1989: 87)contends that teaching history for its own sake does “little topromote social criticism and instead serves to perpetuate oursystem and its flaws.” He advocates an “issue- or problem-centered approach to the social studies and history, an approachin which historical content is organized around societal issuesand problems” (1989:87). Such an approach is favoured by wellknown global educators (e.g., Kniep, 1986; Selby, 1989).Although Becker (1990:73) grants that “an awareness of theimportance of global perspectives pervades” the CaliforniaFramework, he notes that “few of [the changes recommended instate guidelines and mandates] deal with the concept of global44systems in a manner that might shed light on what a Japaneseindustrialist has called the ‘borderless world economy’ orglobal environmental concerns, such as depletion of the ozonelayer, acid rain, or pollution of the oceans” (1990: 73).Ravitch’s views seem to conflict with much of theliterature in global education. The conflict, though, is notbecause she emphasizes history, but rather because she advocatesa certain type of history that seems to leave little room forglobal content. For instance, history that concentrates oncolourful stories of heros and villains, that seeks a return tothe United States’ glorious past as an undisputed world power,both moral and economic, deemphasizes topics and issues thatmany global educators seek to explore (e.g., Case, 1991; Hanvey,1976; Kniep, 1988; Werner, 1988).While both of these challenges to global education arecentred in the United States and, especially the first, may havelimited impact on curricula in Canada, they raise questionsabout the nature and content of global education that should notbe ignored in analyzing Canadian curricular documents. Theanalysis instrument is sensitive to these issues.EMPIRICAL RESEARCHThe literature of global education consists primarily ofconceptualizations, rationales and curricular materials, but45little empirical research. What research exists has beenconducted mostly in the United States. “It appears that researchon global education in Canada is almost nonexistent” says Dhand(1986), who cites two Canadian studies of the perceptions ofstudents and teachers, neither of which is related back to thecurriculum.Studies of the global content within Canadian curriculumguides are sketchy. Tomkins (1986: 398), in commenting on acurricular survey conducted in 1979-1980 by the Council ofMinisters in Canada, concluded that at the senior level“Canadian history still tended to be taught from a chronologicalcentralist perspective. World history courses were still Europe-centered, although more attention was being given to non-westerncultures by 1980; a course in modern world problems was offeredin four provinces.” This is in keeping with Becker’s (1990: 69)observation that in the United States, world history coursesoffer “a chronology of major events in the western world” (1990:69).Few studies offer any detail about how global education isdefined within established provincial curricula, aside fromindicating that there is a tendency to emphasize the westernworld. For example, Peterat (1988) made an effort to determinebriefly the form and content of global education in Canadianhome economics curriculum guides. Using an instrument devised byCissell (1987), she scanned 41 curriculum guides from the ten46provinces for nine “trigger terms” that may be indicators ofglobal concepts: “world, international, other culture(s), othernation(s), other geographical area(s), earth, developingcountries, global, and cultural interdependence” (Peterat, 1988:1). She also established the grade levels at which globalconcepts were present, and where evident, some of the reasonsgiven for including these concepts.Not surprisingly, Peterat found that global conceptsclustered in the higher grades. They tended “to be present asextras and add-ons (often in senior courses) or as optionalunits and topics. Thus, they have an ‘extra’ or ‘additional’rather than core status in courses” (1988: 6). Furthermore,global concepts were not used primarily “for the purpose ofunderstanding issues and questions in various cultural ornational contexts”, but rather “to arouse interest or proveimportance of content”; “the treatment of all concepts,including global concepts, has been consistently non-problematicin presentation” (1988: 6). This use of global concepts, Peteratclaims, may reinforce stereotypes and differences rather thanincrease understanding (1988: 6). She contends that teachersought to view “their curricula in a problematizing and issueoriented way” and then guide “students through such deliberativeprocesses” (1988: 7) if global education is to become viable.While Peterat makes some good observations, her analysishas limitations. Despite her argument that the “nine trigger47terms” are indicators of global concepts in curricula, otherconcepts - such as environment, diversity, stereotype, economicinterdependence - are also potential indicators. Further, thenine concepts may be treated globally at some times and not atothers. They do not necessarily indicate that global educationwill be pursued; Peterat recognizes the possibility that theseconcepts can be treated in such a way as to counter a globalperspective. For example, if the only time “other cultures” arementioned is through negative comparisons or to highlight theirdifferences then global education may not be advanced.There are other important questions about the nature ofglobal education in curricula that this analysis does notilluminate. The methodology does not provide much informationabout which areas of the world are emphasized and which areignored, or whether these curricula are oriented towards westerncivilization to the exclusion of other parts of the world. Theextent to which the nine trigger terms may be used largely inrelation to Europe could go unnoticed. For these reasons, thisanalysis scheme is unsatisfactory as a means of determining theextent and nature of global content in curricula.In contrast, Beckett and Darling (1988) reviewed fiveCanadian social studies textbooks published between 1979 and1985 in order to examine their “view of the world.” Used in atleast two provinces, each text intends “to present a global viewof issues and concerns” (1988: 1). The presentation of this48global view was determined by the extent to which each textadvanced the following positive dimensions of a globalperspective:A rich and positive, portrayal of the diversity of theworld’s peoples and cultures (i.e., one which valuesdiversity);Evidence of the commonality that exists among allhuman beings, including examples of universal needsand interests and instances of global cooperation;A variety of perspectives employed to present andinterpret histories and cultures from the standpointof those inside, as well as outside of them (e.g.,non-western perspectives);Issues, problems and events which are placed in theirproper contexts, with emphasis on theirinterrelationships and their complexity.Evidence of four negative dimensions was also sought:A presentation of other cultures and peoples as eitherexotic, bizarre or quaint;A lack of reference to those things all human beingshave in common;A polarized view of the world which separates “us”from “them” (whether along national, regional orcultural lines);A portrayal of events and problems in isolation and/orout of context or a view which oversimplifies theirnature (1988: 1-2).The authors provide detailed examples of adherence to ordivergence from these dimensions. Four of the textbooks hadexamples of both positive and negative dimensions of a globalperspective. Conversely, World Prospects (1979) supported eachpositive dimension without promoting any of the negativedimensions.49The dimensions of a global perspective that Beckett andDarling outline are similar to the global perspectives definedin the analysis scheme used for this study (see Appendix C). Forexample, their negative dimension which deals with “polarity”parallels “global polarity” and “national polarity”, and their“insider perspective” corresponds to “role exchange” on theanalysis scheme.There are no detailed analyses of global content in thesocial studies curriculum guides of Canada. Such an analysis isnecessary to determine how, when and why global education isprescribed. This study examines the rationales, goals, pedagogicapproaches, content (including scope and sequence), and globalperspectives outlined in social studies curriculum guides. Thefollowing chapter presents the data from this analysis.SUMMARYThe purpose of this chapter was to review selectedliterature of global education in order to provide a context forthe development of the analysis instrument and for thediscussion of curriculum documents. This review indicates thata broad definition of global education focuses on various goalsdeemed necessary for promoting a global perspective (Case, 1991;Coombs, 1989; Hanvey, 1976; Kniep, 1986), and allows for content50related to foreign language study, multicultural education,international education and global issues. Also, one of threerationales usually accompanies prescriptions for globaleducation: 1) prudential, 2) moral, or 3) factual - “the worldis changing” - arguments. Curricular issues related to globaleducation include the role of traditional scope and sequencemodels that delay the introduction of global content until aboutgrade six (e.g., Becker, 1990; Tomkins, 1985), although othermodels, less limiting, do exist (e.g., Degenhardt and McKay,1988; Egan, 1988; Evans, 1988). Further challenges to thepresence of global education in the curriculum include theaccusation that it promotes moral relativism and rejectspatriotism (The Ad Hoc Committee on Global Education, 1987;Caporosa and Mittelman, 1988), and that it does not give historythe centre place in social studies. Unfortunately, littleempirical research has been conducted on the global content ofcurriculum guides, and what has been done lacks both detail anddepth (e.g., Peterat, 1988).The analysis instrument created for this study has beendesigned to provide data about these issues. It allows for ananalysis of various dimensions of a global perspective, as wellas differing content emphases, rationales, scope and sequenceformats, and disciplinary orientations. The analysis scheme alsoallows for the study to be empirically based, thereby addressinga lack of available research.51Chapter 3 presents the data collected through theinstrument, and Chapter 4 summarizes the findings and discussesimplications.52CHAPTER 3ANALYSIS OF CURRICULUM DOCUMENTSThis chapter summarizes the data from each section of theanalysis scheme (Appendix C) as it was applied to 47 provincialsocial studies curriculum guides. Presented here is a nationalpicture with examples from individual provinces. Such a pictureis general, and any comparison of provincial curriculum guidesmust be tentative and cautious because there is considerablevariety to their structure and to the extent and depth ofcontent provided within documents. Some outline the socialstudies from grades one to twelve in approximately 100 pageswhereas others have ten separate guides with upwards of 500pages. Some provide detailed instructions and suggestions forthe teacher while others give little more than a general outlineand leave the details for the teacher to establish. Disparatedata across guides make any systematic attempt at a national orcomparative picture of global education only approximate.(Comments regarding “the provinces” actually refer to “theprovinces and the territories”.)Data presentation in this chapter is divided into foursections: 1) rationales and goals for global studies, 2) content53of global studies, 3) scope of global studies, and 4) globalperspective. Numerous figures and tables are used to summarizethe data concisely; only significant points are discussed in thetext, and clarified through examples selected from thecurricula. The chapter’s summary draws together generalizationsabout the national nature of global education across the socialstudies curriculum documents current in 1988.In many of the tables and figures in this chapter, theprovinces are represented by alphabetical letters A through K:Newfoundland (Nfld.) = APrince Edward Island (P.E.I.) = BNew Brunswick (N.B.) = CNova Scotia (N.S.) = DQuebec (Que.) = EOntario (Ont.) = FManitoba (Man.) = GSaskatchewan (Sask.) = HAlberta (Alta.) = IBritish Columbia (B.C.)(includes Yukon) = JNorthwest Territories (NWT.)= KNewfoundland is sometimes excluded from the analysis because ofthe paucity of detail in its curriculum guide. Any exclusion isclearly indicated on the appropriate tables in this chapter.Tables 2 through 14 tabulate the number of occurrences whereparticular content is “discussed” in any province’s curriculumguides. For example, if the concept of “interdependence” ismentioned in the following manner: “study the interdependenciesof all nations, emphasizing the interdependency of the globaleconomy, and concentrating on the economic interdependenciesbetween Canada and the United States”, then it would be counted54as having been discussed once, even though the word itself islisted three times; these three listings occur in one place andin relation to one issue. On the other hand, if a guidediscusses “international cooperation” in grade two and thentwice in grade eight, once early on in terms of Canadian effortsin international cooperation and then later in terms of thesuccess and failure of recent U.N. attempts at promotinginternational cooperation, then three distinct discussions areidentified.RATIONALES AND GOALS FOR GLOBAL STUDIESRationales and goal statements give direction for theteacher and explicitly indicate what is important. That is, theyprovide a framework for understanding the selection andorganization of the contents of the curriculum. Usually goalstatements indicate what is to be studied and rationales saywhy. This section first examines rationales offered by thecurriculum guides and then proceeds to goal statements.RationalesSome curricula have no explicit section outlining whysomething is to be taught; in such cases, either there is norationale offered, or reasons justifying global content are55embedded in general discussions elsewhere. Four provinces(Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba)do not provide any explicit section devoted to discussingrationales, whereas the other provinces do have discretesections labelled “rationale” in their guides. Often theserationales are very general in their claims concerning whatshould be taught and why. For example, in Curriculum GuidelineHistory and Contemporary Studies Part C: Senior Division Grades11 and 12 (1987: 33), Ontario says that students should:understand the changes and upheavals that havecharacterized life in this century and to deal withissues of primary concern as we approach the twenty-first century. Our world is examined in terms of theconcept of a “global village” characterized byinterrelationships, interdependence, conflict,cooperation, and rapid change.... The program highlightsthe major defining features of our contemporary world,among them the rapidity of technological advance, thegrowth of demands for a more equitable sharing of worldresources and for more equitable human relationships...As discussed in Chapter 2, there are various rationalesevident in the literature that provide justification forincluding particular content in global education. Table 1summarizes the reasons explicitly referred to in curriculumguides in order to justify goal statements or the pursuit ofglobal content in social studies. Although many of the reasonsoverlap, the focus of each is different enough to allowdifferentiation. Goal statements by themselves without anysupporting justification (i.e., “by the end of the program, thefollowing points should have been developed.., the56interconnectedness and interdependence of the world” [ManitobaSocial Studies K-12 Overview, 1985: 3]) are not included here.Table 1Reasons for Global StudiesExtensive Some MerelyDiscussion* Discussion MentionedInterdependent world** 2(C,H) 3(A,E,F)Shared problems/needs 2(C,D) 2(A,B)Global extinction 2(A,F)Solutions requirecooperation 1(H) 1(C)Changing world 1(E) 1(F) 1(A)Justice/fairness 1(C)Fundamental humanrights/dignity 2(A,C)Gross inequality 1(B)Shrinking world 1(B)Responsibility 2 (A,E)Multiculturalism 1(H)Total 7 4 13*“Extensive discussion” meant that there was a paragraph or moredevoted to explaining a particular reason for global content.“Some discussion” referred to one or two sentences, whereas“merely mentioned” meant that a reason was stated without anysupporting discussion.**Interdependent world: reasons for global content emphasize thelinkages (e.g., economic, political, social, technological,environmental) that tie the world more closely together.Shared problems/needs: reasons emphasize problems, issues orneeds that extend across national boundaries (e.g., acid rain,I underdevelopment).Global extinction: reasons emphasize issues that threaten lifeitself (e.g., nuclear holocaust, environmental degradation,depletion of the ozone layer).Solutions require cooperation: reasons recognize thatinternational cooperation is essential for the resolution ofmany global problems.Changing world: reasons emphasize changes in the world thatnecessitate changes in perception and action (e.g., decline ofCold War, rise of new technologies).57Justice/fairness: reasons recognize that justice and fairnessshould be guiding principles in our interactions with theworld’s peoples, especially in the face of such issues aspoverty, hunger, and development.Fundamental human rights/dignity: reasons recognize that humanrights and dignity should be guiding principles in our relationswith the world’s peoples, especially in the face of issues suchas poverty and hunger that degrade human dignity.Gross inequality: reasons recognize that inequality anddisparity are rampant across the world and that we have aresponsibility to attempt to diminish them.Shrinking world: reasons recognize that some events (e.g.,technological advances) are increasing international interactionand interdependence.Responsibility: reasons recognize that we have a responsibilityfor our actions in the world and to other peoples.Effective citizenship: reasons recognize that there areessential understandings and dispositions for living in a worldless characterized by national boundaries.Multiculturalism: reasons recognize that many nations areincreasingly multicultural.It is fair to say that curriculum guides do not provide muchargument for any of their prescribed topics and specific goals.Where they do exist, rationales tend to be stated briefly and ingeneral terms for entire social studies programs rather than fordifferent kinds of content. It is not surprising, then, thatparticular discussions justifying global topics are not commonor well developed. For example, Newfoundland “merely mentioned”some general reasons, such as global extinction (“the threat ofnuclear holocaust”), interdependence and responsibility, for thepursuit of global content: “In the face of such perplexities[global extinction], the need for understanding and appreciationof our interdependence with and responsibilities toward all whoshare this earth, is realized” (The Master Guide for Social58Studies, K-XII in Newfoundland and Labrador, n.d.: ii). A stepup from “merely mentioned” is “some discussion” which Ontariogives to the rationale of a changing world, as cited earlier:understand the changes and upheavals that havecharacterized life in this century.... Our world isexamined in terms of the concept of a ‘global village’characterized by interrelationships, interdependence,conflict, cooperation, and rapid change (CurriculumGuideline History and Contemporary Studies Part C:Senior Division Grades 11 and 12, 1987: 33).As an example of “extensive discussion”, Saskatchewan’s Themesfor Social Studies 1-12 briefly but consistently refers to“interdependence” and “solutions [that] require cooperation” asreasons for the content at each and every grade. For example,under the heading “rationale,” content in year three isjustified by “the need for co-operation and interdependencywithin a ‘global village’ context” (n.d.: 94), while in year 11“students will study those world issues which have affected, areaffecting and will continue to affect not only the spirit ofinterdependence and co-operation of humanity but also its verysurvival” (n.d.: 104). Prince Edward Island provides a rareillustration of “extensive discussion” around gross inequality:The ‘Developing World’ is the home of more than seventyfive percent - some three billion - of the people livingtoday. They are the poor, desperately poor who toilvigorously and receive little in return.It is not easy for a Canadian citizen to imagine, yes tounderstand, what life is like in the many poorcountries. Even the poorest people in Prince EdwardIsland are rich in comparison to most of the people inBangladesh, or northeast Brazil. For some three billionpeople, poverty means more than not having a car or atelevision set. It means being hungry for days at atime. It means suffering from all kinds of diseases with59little hope of receiving medical care. It means that themost basic needs of human life are not satisfied.There is overwhelming evidence that most of the poorpeople in the world are not content to stay in poverty.They want a better life. (The Developing World:Teacher’s Guide, 1979: 11.)Ignoring the possible underlying paternalism, and sense ofwe/they and rich/poor dichotomies, this rationale justifies thestudy of particular geographic content on the grounds ofunderstanding economic inequality.Information found in the curricula can be related to therationales offered in the global education literature. Threerationales dominate the literature: 1) prudential rationalesstressing national self-interest, 2) moral rationalesemphasizing internationalism, and 3) factual claims highlightingour changing world. Overwhelmingly within the curricula, factualclaims about our changing world dominate. For example,references to an “interdependent world”, “shared problems/needs”and a “changing world” are the top three reasons given by thecurricula, making up half of all reasons given. Moreover, thesethree reasons account for five of the seven times any reason isgiven extensive discussion, and three of the four times anyreason is given some discussion (see Table 1). All three aretreated factually (e.g., Curriculum Guideline History andContemporary Studies Part C: Senior Division Grades 11 and 12,1987: 33); the implication of this rationale is that because ourworld is changing and is becoming more interdependent, orbecause we have shared problems and needs, we should study60global content. An example of this very general argument isgiven by New Brunswick:Children must come to an understanding that people allover the world share basic human needs. Wherever theylive, people need clean air and water, food, shelter,clothing, work, security, government, communityservices, recreation, and culture. Although methods ofmeeting these needs vary greatly in different parts ofthe world, recognizing that similar needs affect thelives of people everywhere can enable a child in NewBrunswick to feel part of the world community(Elementary Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1987: 3-4).Moral rationales are also offered, although to a much lesserextent. Already quoted was Prince Edward Island’s lengthydiscussion about gross inequality (The Developing World:Teacher’s Guide, 1979: 11), whereas Newfoundland very brieflymentions “respect for the dignity and rights of others” (TheMaster Guide for Social Studies, K-XII in Newfoundland andLabrador, n.d.: 6) Canadian guides do not provide any rationalesthat stress prudential, national self-interest arguments for theinclusion of global content. Surprisingly, concerns forunderstanding the multicultural nature of our society, and forenhancing positive attitudes to diversity, are rarely extendedbeyond our borders, even though multiculturalism is a centralorganizing concept for many Canadian curricula. Saskatchewan isthe only province to justify some global content by brieflyrecognizing that other nations are increasingly multicultural.Goals for Global ContentThere are any number of goals a curriculum might endorse.61This section examines six goals that are prevalent across theprovinces when global content is being discussed and thenreviews the type and amount of support the curricula give toteachers. The goals are: 1) knowledge of facts, 2) understandingof concepts, and the ability to engage in 3) problem solving, 4)value reasoning, 5) empathy and 6) action. Many of these goalsdirectly correlate with goals discussed in Chapter 2. Forinstance, value reasoning, empathy, problem solving and actionare identified in the literature as important for thedevelopment of either a global perspective or specific contentrelated to a global perspective. Knowledge of facts andunderstanding of concepts are fundamental to the development ofany content.Although many of the guides outline their goals in adiscrete section, unless these explicit goals were also evidentin the content and activities dealing with a global topic, theywould be assigned “minor goal” status (Figure 1). For example,Manitoba discusses the development of both value reasoning andempathy in its section on goals (Social Studies K-12 Overview,1985: 9-14), but as it does not provide evidence of these goalswithin the recommended global content, they remain minor goalsfor this province.Figure 1 shows that knowledge of facts and understanding ofconcepts are goals stated or evident in all provincial guides.All ten provinces treat knowledge of facts and understanding of62Figure 1*NFLD is not included.**A goal is classified as “significant” when it is found to beevident in three or more topics or activities related to globalcontent. A minor goal is found in one or two topics oractivities, or is not evident at all even though it is listed asa goal.concepts as a significant goal in relation to global content.Two examples follow. Manitoba succinctly states the importanceof facts: “facts serve as the raw material upon whichinstruction and learning are grounded; they are the minutebuilding blocks of the social studies” (Social Studies K-12Overview, 1985: 9). New Brunswick organizes each unit of itsgrade nine curriculum around concepts. For instance, in its—.--.cI:::’—----4Goals for Global. ContentProvincial SupportU of’ proinces10S6420—Values Problens Concepts Eripatliy ActionSignificant Goal Minor’ Goal EZ] No Mention**63unit on Africa, some of the concepts identified are: “culturalecology, black nationalism, tribalism, apartheid and animism”(Grade Nine Social Studies Syllabus, 1987: 18).Nine of the provinces identify empathy as a goal, and sixtreat it as significant. A goal of Saskatchewan’s grade eightunit on “identity and roles” is for students to “begin toempathize with cultural and ethnic groups, past and present, intheir efforts to preserve their identity” (Social StudiesCurriculum Guide: The Individual in Society, 1985: 45). One-third of Alberta’s grade seven is devoted to an exploration ofpotential conflicts between empathy and ethnocentrism, andstudents are expected to develop “empathy for people in non-industrial cultures, by viewing contact with Westerntechnological society from their perspectives” (Alberta SocialStudies Curriculum, 1981: 56-57).As for problem solving, five provinces distinguish it assignificant and four as a minor goal. British Columbia refers ingeneral to problem solving as a “skill” that should be pursuedin every grade (Social Studies Curriculum Guide: grade one -grade seven, 1983: 45), whereas New Brunswick provides moreconcrete direction in grade 12: “Have students examine thedilemmas faced by our leaders as they deal with alliancepartners who come into disagreement on tactics and strategy.Have students assume a leader’s role and devise their ownstrategies” (World Issues 123, 1986: 20).64Two of the provinces treat value reasoning as significantand seven as a minor goal. Alberta identifies “development ofcompetencies in processes of value analysis, decision-making,and moral reasoning” as important in all grades, and is the mostexplicit about how teachers may be able to achieve such goals(Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 5). Each unitthroughout the curriculum isolates two competing values andsuggests instructional activities for dealing with these values.For example, one unit in grade twelve is organized aroundnationalism and internationalism, and one unit in grade elevenfocuses on relationships between global welfare and nationalprosperity (Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 82, 86).Student action is a significant goal for only two provinces,Alberta and Manitoba. However, Alberta cautions that socialaction must be treated carefully:While the concept of active involvement is encouraged asa significant aspect of education for activecitizenship, the role of the teacher in helping studentsorganize and implement social action projects is onerequiring a strong sense of responsibility. It requiressensitivity to the maturity of students, to theexpectations of parents, to institutional norms, and todemocratic processes. Because of the need forsensitivity in carrying out this type of learningexperience, social action is not prescribed but isencouraged where possible, given the above cautions(Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 8).Throughout the grades, Alberta suggests that students formulateplans of action. In grade ten, for example, the guide states:“apply the decision by creating a plan of action to implementthe chosen solution” (p. 78), and “apply the decision by65creating a plan for handling a violation of individual or grouprights” (p. 75).*NFLD is not included.Figure 2The data in Figure 1 are consistent with the globaleducation literature discussed in Chapter 2. Most provincessupport those goals that are generally considered to be noncontroversial. For example, facts, concepts, problem solving andempathy have a higher degree of support across the provinces;within the literature, as well, there is little dissention overthe importance of these goals. However, there is less support in10Goals for Global ContentInstructions for Teachers# of pro.,inces*8642066the literature and the curricula for the goals of valuereasoning and action.Figure 2 shows the extent to which instructions for thepromotion of these goals are provided for teachers. The moststriking feature is how few provinces supply any instructions,recommend materials, or suggest activities for promoting theidentified goals. It is assumed that teachers already know howto promote these goals, or at least have access to otheravenues of assistance.“Considerable indication” means that a province providessome instructions on how to promote the goals, as well assuggests materials or activities, where appropriate, that couldbe used. Alberta explains how to promote “critical valuereasoning” in its discussion of goals (Alberta Social StudiesCurriculum, 1981: 4-5), indicating where and when it may beappropriate to do so, and describing some relevant activities.For instance, for grade seven the guide recommends that studentsdevelop competencies “in value analysis, by identifying theconsequences of our ethnocentric (or empathetic) valueperspectives on non—industrial cultures”; the guide then asksthe student to formulate “recommendations about the best ways tomanage cultural contact situations,” and to “evaluate thedecision by judging the worth of recommendations above, usingthe principles of the Role Exchange Test” (p. 57). Resourcematerials for teachers are also recommended.67“Some indication” means that either instructions orillustrative activities are provided (but not both and notconsistently). The Northwest Territories, for example, discussesthe importance of students understanding values and valueanalysis in its introductory sections; however, in the grade bygrade breakdown there is little or no indication when, where orhow to approach these goals.It is obvious from comparing Figures 1 and 2 that eventhough provinces identify various types of goals related toglobal content, they are less concerned about providinginstructions for the promotion of these goals. Four provincesgive no indication of how to advance value reasoning, nor six ofhow to pursue empathy, even though nine of the provincesidentify both types of goals. On the other hand, the twojurisdictions (i.e., Alberta and Manitoba) that identify actionas significant also give some advice to the teacher on how topromote student action. In addition, three of the four provincesthat suggest some direction of how to teach for empathy alsoidentify it as a significant goal (New Brunswick, Saskatchewanand Alberta).CONTENT OF GLOBAL STUDIESThe content of global studies is defined by the concepts,68topics, geographic coverage, global problems, and global/localconnections that are prescribed or suggested at each gradelevel.ConceptsConcepts are an integral part of the content of socialstudies education. They are considered within most curriculumguides to be the “organizers” around which countries, regions,issues and topics are selected for study.Concepts from curriculum guides that are relevant to globalstudies are listed in Table 2. The number of times that eachconcept is mentioned (either stated, or stated and developed) byeach province in the context of a global, national or localtopic is indicated. (Tables 2, 3 and 4 refer to concepts used inboth a global context as well as a non-global context. Table 5lists concepts that are only used in a global context.)Even though there is disparity in the amount of detailprovided by the guides (as explained in Chapter 1), the extentof differences in the focus on concepts across the provinces issurprising (e.g., Newfoundland mentions the concepts in Table 217 times while Alberta lists them 68 times). However, the guidesare more similar in the kinds of concepts they emphasize.Concepts in the top half of the table are mentioned more oftenby each province than those in the bottom half. Also note thatthe bottom two-thirds of the table contains explicitly moral69concepts (e.g., human rights, inequality/disparity, justice),while the top third could be taught without discussing any moraldimensions (e.g., conflict, change, interdependence, ideology).Table 2Concepts Relevant to Global Studies*Concepts # Mentioned By Each ProvinceA B C D E F G H I J KTotalInequality/Disparity / 2 2 3 2 4 3 /Development / 1 2 1 2 1 5 3Ethnocentrism / 1 2 3 / 3 / 2Justice / 1 3 1 1 / 1 1Global Perspective / / / 1 / 1 1 3StewardshipTotal 17 24 61 47 26 39 60 58 68 39 36 475* Included are concepts also mentioned in rationales, goalstatements, and general remarks outside of the year—by-yearbreakdown of topics; 32 of the total 475 are thus not mentionedin reference to a specific grade level.** Because these two concepts are so central in the AVER (1981)materials referred to throughout the Alberta curriculum, theyare promoted to a greater extent than indicated by thesefigures.Conflict 2 2 12 6 3 6 9 12Change / 4 8 6 3 7 6 7Interdependence 8 5 5 2 3 1 9 8Multiculturalism / 3 8 5 2 5 4 4Diversity 1 4 4 3 4 2 6 3Co-operation 1 / 6 2 1 4 6 4Ideology 4 / 4 7 4 2 4 4Human Rights 1 / 4 4 1 3 3 211 4 3 7010 6 3 604 6 6 574 3 4 424 4 2 376 3 3 364 2 1 365 4 2 292** 3 4 252 1 3 213 / 3 172** / 1 112 1 / 93 1 / 83 / / 764/Conservation / / / 1 /Scarcity I 1 / / /Group Self—determination / / 1 2 /Personal Autonomy / / / / // 3 // / 3/ / 1 / 1 1/ / 1 3 / /70Three concepts are singled out for further discussion here:conflict, interdependence and human rights. Conflict is theconcept mentioned most (see Table 2), whereas interdependenceand human rights are central concepts within the broader globaleducation literature.Conflict: Types of conflict, reasons for conflict, and howspecific cases of conflict were resolved historically comprisethe central focus. For example, the Northwest Territoriessuggests that students in grade nine explore the conflictbetween the “East and West:” “the existence of two majorcontending groups of nations and the reason for their rivalries- the efforts of both East and West to influence Third WorldCountries” (Social Studies K-9, 1979: 197). New Brunswickrecommends investigation of past independence movements, andhence conflict, in Africa: “What factors contributed to thedrive among African people for independence from European rule?Students should understand the concept of black nationalism andits role in the independence movement” (Grade Nine SocialStudies Syllabus, 1987: 17).Few provinces focus on how conflict affects studentspersonally, or encourage teachers to help students clarify andcritique their own experiences of conflict or the conflictingvalues inherent in public issues. An exception is Alberta’scurriculum that encourages students to analyze issues aroundcompeting values (e.g., self sufficiency vs. interdependence,71minority rights vs. majority welfare) and to decide onappropriate actions (Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981:38, 58); the conflicts are not just treated historically but areexplored for their potential relevance to each student’s life.Interdependence: All curriculum guides recommend the studyof economic interdependence. For example, Saskatchewan statesthat “interdependence requires that nations interact throughtrade. A shrinking globe implies increasing interaction. Canadatrades with all countries being studied” (Grade 6 SocialStudies, 1986: n.p.); British Columbia asks in grade 11 “in whatways are countries economically interdependent?” and “How havedevelopments in transportation and communication helped tocreate the global village?” (Social Studies Curriculum Guide,1988: 79).Most provinces, like British Columbia, also discussrelationships between technology and interdependence (e.g.,“People in diverse regions establish transportation andcommunication links in order to trade products and ideas fortheir mutual advantage.... What transportation and communicationlinks are used to connect Alberta to the rest of Canada and theworld? (Consider air, rail, media networks, telecommunications,etc.)” (Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 38-39)).Saskatchewan, in grade seven, recommends classroom discussion ofhow advances in communication and transportation technologyallow for greater interaction between countries, which in turn72create more interdependent relationships: “Appreciate howtechnology can encourage interdependence” (Social StudiesCurriculum Guide: Canada and the World Community, 1986: 49).Political and cultural/social interdependence throughinternational organizations are only mentioned by a few of theguides. For example, when Alberta identifies “interdependence(economic, political, cultural)” as one of the concepts to beexplored in grade ten, the guide goes on to say “A country’sforeign policies are influenced and limited by its political,economic, social and cultural needs. These needs give rise tointernational agreements and participation in internationalorganizations.... What cultural, military and economicagreements does Canada have with other governments?” (AlbertaSocial Studies Curriculum, 1981: 78).All of these examples stress international interdependenceand are taken from the intermediate and secondary grades; theprimary grades, conversely, tend to emphasize personal orcommunity interdependence. For example, the NorthwestTerritories outlines interdependence within the community ingrade two: “the major concept underlying Topic A is that ofinterdependence: people need each other and help each othersatisfy their needs” (Social Studies K-9, 1979: 83). NewBrunswick, in grade three, suggests an “interdependent communitystudy: groups of communities are often interdependent, sharingtransportation, economic, historical, cultural and geographical73features” (Elementary Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1987:45).Human Ricxhts: Some guides mention the United NationsDeclaration of Human Rights and relate it to Canada’s Charter ofRights and Freedoms; they also discuss examples of human rightsand infringements to these rights. Some examples are as follows.New Brunswick talks of civil disobedience and dissent; itraises the issue of whether there is justification for suchactions and, if so, when (Junior High Social Studies Years 7-8--, 1983: n.p.). Manitoba links human rights to quality of life:“compare and evaluate the concept of quality of life in varioussocieties [in relation to].... freedoms and rights: To whatdegree are the rights of free speech, free press, religion,mobility and human rights enjoyed by members of society? (SocialStudies K-12 Overview, 1985: 115). Alberta recommends the studyof global examples of human rights’ infringements, focusesstudents on the tension between individual freedom and socialcontrol, and highlights “Canadian participation in internationalhuman rights movements (Amnesty International), and the role ofgovernment at various levels in relation to human rights issues”(Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 74). Ontario refersto the study of “basic human rights: guarantees, violations”(Curriculum Guideline History and Contemporary Studies Part C:Senior Division Grades 11 and 12, 1987: 45), and Saskatchewanlists some specific cases where one might wish to restrain74either individual or collective rights (Social StudiesCurriculum Guide: Canada and the World Community, 1986: 33).Table 3Concepts Across Elementary and Secondary*Concepts # MentionedElementary SecondaryConflict 24 43Change 28 30Interdependence 37 15Multiculturalism 18 21Co-operation 18 17Ideology 6 29Diversity 22 11Human Rights 8 19Inequality/Disparity 6 16Development 7 13Ethnocentrism 9 6Global Perspective 2 6Justice 4 4Stewardship/Conservation 4 4Scarcity 3 4Group Self-determination 1 4Personal Autonomy 2 2Total 199 (45%) 244 (55%)*Elementary refers to grades one through seven, secondary togrades eight through 12.Table 3 shows the relative conceptual emphasis betweenelementary and secondary curricula. The latter mentions 55% ofthe concepts. However, the concepts “interdependence” and“diversity” (within families, communities, provinces andcountries) are mentioned significantly more in the elementary75grades. This tendency to stress personal/community as opposed tonational/international interdependence and diversity in theelementary grades is an example of the principle of expandinghorizons. Because many provinces use this philosophy to organizethe scope and sequence of topics across the grades (e.g., NewBrunswick Elementary Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1987: 9;British Columbia Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1983: 7,9;Northwest Territories Social Studies K-9, 1979: 14), the earlyelementary grades often deal primarily with families,communities and cities and save examination of other countriesuntil later grades.Table 4 shows how often (59%) these concepts refer to aglobal context. This figure is not surprising, given that socialstudies is largely concerned with people and places around theworld and through time; even though these concepts areidentified 41% of the time in a flop-global context, the teachercould also easily relate them to foreign countries and issues.The concept of interdependence is explored in the elementarygrades in personal and community terms (non-global contexts),whereas the secondary grades focus on national and internationalcontexts (Tables 3 and 4). British Columbia also follows thismodel with the concept of cooperation. In grade two, the guidestates: using their own school, neighbourhood and communitystudents should examine.., co-operation and conflict” (SocialStudies Curriculum Guide: grade one - grade seven, 1983: 19). In76Table 4Concepts and Their ContextConcepts # Mentioned*Global Context Non-Global ContextConflict 37 30Change 27 31Interdependence 30 22Multiculturalism 14 25Co-operation 15 19Ideology 26 9Diversity 24 9Human Rights 16 11Inequality/Disparity 16 6Development 20Ethnocentrism 11 4Global Perspective 8 -Justice 3 5Stewardship/Conservation 3 5Scarcity 6 1Group Self-determination 3 2Personal Autonomy 2 2Total 262 (59%) 181 (41%)*What constitutes a “global context” is outlined in the AnalysisScheme (Appendix C). This context involves any of the following:a) foreign countries, cultures, or landscapes;b) universal or international issues (e.g., humanrights, the United Nations, nuclear war, law of thesea); orc) connection or comparison of Canada/Canadians with othercountries/citizens.grade 11, cooperation is examined in a clearly defined globalcontext:recognize that today’s world is one of cooperation, andthat Canada is involved in many cooperativeendeavours.... What examples of cooperation exist in theworld today? To what cooperative organizations doesCanada belong2 How successful has the U.N. been atfostering cooperation and peace? (Social Studies77Curriculum Guide, 1988: 78).Table 5 indicates that 69% of these concepts are not juststated, but “developed” within a global context; that is,explanations are provided or teaching activities suggested thatTable 5Treatment of Concepts*Concepts Stated Only Developed**Conflict 8 29Interdependence 14 16Change 8 19Ideology 4 22Diversity 3 21Development 6 14Co-operation 5 11Human Rights 8 8Inequality/Disparity 5 11Multiculturalism 4 10Ethnocentrism 4 7Global Perspective 1 7Scarcity 4 2Justice 3 -Stewardship/Conservation 1 2Group Self-determination 2 1Personal Autonomy - 2Total 80 (31%) 182 (69%)*This only represents concepts listed within a global context(i.e., the first column of Table 4).**“Developed” means that explanations are provided or teachingactivities suggested that highlight, exemplify or support theseconcepts.highlight, exemplify or support these concepts in terms of oneor more of the following: a) foreign countries, cultures, orlandscapes; b) universal or international issues (e.g., human78rights, the United Nations, nuclear war, law of the sea); c)connections or comparisons of Canada/Canadians with othercountries/citizens. Less than a third of these concepts arementioned without definition/discussion or supportingactivities.The difference between a concept that is stated only and onethat is also developed with discussion and activities can beillustrated by considering the curriculum guides produced byAlberta. This province mentions scarcity in its list of conceptsfor grade six but does not provide any description/discussionnor suggest any supporting materials or activities for itsdevelopment (Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 48). Incontrast, in grade 11, disparity is not only mentioned in thelist of concepts, but accompanied by both discussion andsuggested activities:The world is characterized by problems of overpopulationand inadequate resource distribution. Although thesedisparities are a central issue in internationalpolitics, no simple generally applicable solutions areknown at the present time.... What are disparities inthe distribution and utilization of resources within andamong countries?... What major efforts are currentlyunderway to redress global disparities, and howeffective are they?... What are the implications, forfuture world stability, of significant disparities inthe wealth of nations?... Develop competencies in valueanalysis, by comparing alternative solutions to globaldisparities from the perspectives of groups who would bethe most adversely affected by each alternative (p. 82-83).The range of concepts found in the curricula corresponds tothose discussed in the literature. However, there is a tendency79across the curricula to stress those concepts less that areexplicitly moral. For example, conflict, change, interdependenceand ideology appear more often than human rights,inequality/disparity, justice and scarcity. Furthermore, aglance at Table 5 shows that the latter concepts are “statedonly” rather that “developed” much more often than the formergroup of concepts. As discussed in Chapter 2, not all globaleducators, although most of those who support a “global issues”approach, are comfortable with teaching about value reasoningand moral education. The same appears to be true for thedevelopers of provincial curricula.Global TopicsThe content of global studies is determined to a largeextent by the broad topics chosen for study. The followingTables (6 through 9) refer to the number of times a generaltopic is at least mentioned within a global context thatincludes any of the following: a) foreign countries, cultures,or landscapes; b) universal or international issues (e.g., humanrights, the United Nations, nuclear war, law of the sea); c)connection or comparison of Canada/Canadians with othercountries/citizens. Table 6 displays the topics relevant toglobal education across the provincial curriculum guides.80Table 6Topics Relevant to Global EducationTOPIC # Mentioned by each Province TotalA B CD E F G HI J KPhysical Geography 1 8 6 11 5 4 6 6 4 7 3 61Culture/Traditions 3 5 9 9 4 3 3 6 11 4 2 59Economic DevelopmentandPlanning 14433547748 50Migrancy/Immigration 3 3 6 6 6 6 7 3 5 3 1 49Government 3299126455 / 46science/Technology 2 1 6 5 4 4 6 4 6 4 3 45Trade, International 2 2 6 7 4 1 2 4 2 4 3 37Environment/Ecology 2 2 2 / 2 5 8 2 3 3 2 31Religion / 1664 / 4343 / 31Lifestyle 235543322 / 2 31Industry!Manufacturing 44132225331 30Population 13314342223 28International Org’ns / 1 4 4 3 1 4 5 3 1 1 27War 2 / 8525 / 1 / 2 / 25Resource Distribution 2 3 1 1 / 3 4 2 3 3 3 25Resource Management 2 2 / 2 / 2 3 2 3 4 3 23Transportation / 3 4 4 1 / 3 2 1 3 1 22Multiculturalism I / 4 2 1 3 / 2 / 2 5 19Food / 2511 / 42121 19Democracy 22 / 63112 / 2 / 19Education/Literacy / 1 2 3 2 / 2 2 2 2 2 18Agriculture/Animal Husbandry / 3 2 4 / 1 1 2 1 / 4 18Employment / 3111121223 17Communication / / 323 / 22131 17Urbanization / 2 / 32231 / 2 / 15Women / / 2513 / 2 / 11 15Development, social / / 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 15Arts / 1332 / 1 / 12 / 13Energy 121 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 1 13HumanRights 1 / 24 / / 122 / 1 13Housing / 2223 / 1 / / 1 / 11Language / 211211111 / 11Minorities / / 2411 / / 1 I 2 11Trade,Domestic / 13311 I / 11 / 11ClimateIClimaticConditions / 1211131 / / / 10International Aid / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 / 1 9Health/Medicine / 13 / 1 / 2 / / / 2 981Poverty / 1331 / / / / / / 8Fishing / 2 / 11 / 2 / / / 1 7Disarmament!NuclearWar / / / 31 / 1 / 1 / 1 7Peace / / / 2 / 1211 / / 7Aboriginal Claims / / / 2 1 / 1 1 / / 2 7Agrarian Reform!LandUse / 1121 / 1 / / / / 6Water andSanitation / 1! 11/3 / / / / 6Mining / 2 / / 1 / 21 / / / 6CivilWar / / 2! / 1 / 2 / / 1 6Forestry / 2! / 1 / 11 / / / 5Youth/Adolescents / / 1 3 1 / / / / / / 5TransnationalCorporations / / 11 / /1 / 1 / 1 5Hunger 1 / 21 / / / / /1 / 5Children / / / 111 / / /11 5Diet/Nutrition / 1 / / / / 1 / / / 2 4International Debt / / / / / / / / / / / 0Total 3580131149906911388 87 80 70 992There is considerable disparity among provinces in thenumber of topics recommended. For example, Newfoundland mentions35 topics as compared to 149 for New Brunswick. Newfoundland’sguide, though, is general, cursory, and lacking in detail; localdevelopment and “subsequent course outlines and teacher guides”are to fill in the gaps (The Master Guide for Social Studies, KXII in Newfoundland and Labrador, n.d.: vi). New Brunswick,conversely, has eight guides, all of which provide detailed,specific discussion.The topics in Table 6 are ordered from top to bottomaccording to decreasing emphasis. Dominant topics across allprovinces include: physical geography (61), culture/traditions(59), economic development (50), migrancy/immigration (49),82government (46), science/technology (45), and internationaltrade (37), whereas negligible topics include: internationaldebt (no mention), diet/nutrition (4), hunger (5),youth/adolescents (5), forestry (5), clean water (6), aboriginalclaims (7) and poverty (8).Table 7Topics Across Elementary and Secondary*# MentionedTOPIC ELEMENTARY SECONDARY TOTALPhysical Geography 33 28 61Culture/Traditions 29 30 59Economic Developmentand Planning 14 36 50Migrancy/Immigration 25 24 49Government 15 31 46Science/Technology 16 29 45Trade, International 12 25 37Environment/Ecology 13 18 31Religion 10 21 31Lifestyle 17 14 31Industry/Manufacturing 8 22 30Population 10 18 28International Organizations 4 23 27War 3 22 25Resource Distribution 12 13 25Resource Management 10 13 23Transportation 13 9 22Multiculturalism 11 8 19Food 12 7 19Democracy 4 15 19Education/Literacy 6 12 18Agriculture/Animal Husbandry 6 12 18Employment 6 11 17Communication 10 7 17Urbanization 1 14 15Women 1 14 15Development, Social 2 13 15Arts 4 9 1323942371423103133422012101110279838564674533233543308313131111111110998777766665555540EnergyHuman RightsHousingLanguageMinoritiesTrade, DomesticClimate/Climatic ConditionsInternational AidHealth/MedicinePovertyFishingDisarmament/Nuclear WarPeaceAboriginal ClaimsAgrarian Reform/Land UseWater and SanitationMiningCivil WarForestryYouth/AdolescentsTransnational CorporationsHungerChildrenDiet/NutritionInternational DebtTotal 370 (37%) 622 (63%) 992* Grades one through seven are elementary, and grades eightthrough 12 are secondary.There is more mention of global topics in the secondary(63%) than the elementary (37%) guides (Table 7). “Housing” isthe only example of a topic listed disproportionately more (4.5times more) for the elementary grades; most topics are listedmore times within the secondary guides, as for example,international organizations, international aid, war, women,peace, and urbanization. Almost all references to both war andinternational organizations at the elementary grades come in the84final two or three years - that is, in grades five, six andseven; this again reflects the expanding horizons approach forselecting topics. Quebec, for example, in the second to lastunit in its elementary curriculum seeks to have the students“identify several bodies which can defend democratic rights andfreedoms at the international level..., the United Nations,Amnesty International, UNESCO, etc.” (Elementary SchoolCurriculum Social Studies, 1983: 45); internationalorganizations are revisited in grade nine through a study ofCanadian “participation in International Bodies: United Nations,NATO, Commonwealth, etc.” (Secondary School Curriculum.Geography of Quebec and Canada, 1983: 60). Saskatchewan does notstudy international organizations until grades six and seven;the grade seven unit on power refers tothe Authority of International Groups: the UnitedNations, the World Court, the World Council ofIndigenous Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations,Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance, the Commonwealth ofNations.... Summarize the purpose of the United Nations.Describe the strengths and weaknesses of internationalorganizations as authoritative bodies. Identify commongoals shared by various international bodies (SocialStudies Curriculum Guide: Canada and the WorldCommunity, 1986: 40—41).By grade 12, the focus is on military and economicorganizations: “in what organizations do we have militaryobligations? e.g. NATO, NORAD, U.N. Why?... [Canadians] worktoward freer world trade, through such agencies as GATT (GeneralAgreement on Tariff and Trade) and through bilateral tradeagreements” (Social Studies 30: Canadian Studies, 1978: 27).85In table 8, “Developed” means that the topic is discussedand that activities are suggested so that the teacher has someindication of how to proceed. “Mentioned only” means thatsomewhere within a unit of study the topic was mentioned orsuggested, but without supporting activities; ideas for suchactivities have to be generated by the teacher. Two-thirds (66%)of these topics are developed, whereas one-third (34%) are not.Table 8Topics and Their TreatmentTOPIC Developed Mentioned Only TotalPhysical Geography 56 5 61Culture/Traditions 53 6 59Economic Developmentand Planning 45 5 50Migrancy/Immigration 34 15 49Government 35 11 46Science/Technology 32 13 45Trade, International 21 16 37Environment/Ecology 24 7 31Religion 21 10 31Lifestyle 28 3 31Industry/Manufacturing 21 9 30Population 20 8 28International Organizations 23 4 27War 22 3 25Resource Distribution 18 7 25Resource Management 17 6 23Transportation 10 12 22Multiculturalism 15 4 19Food 9 10 19Democracy 11 8 19Education/Literacy 6 12 18Agriculture/Animal Husbandry 10 8 18Employment 7 10 17Communication 8 9 17Urbanization 10 5 15Women 7 8 15Development, Social 14 1 15867 6 139 4 137 6 134 7 115 6 117 4 116 5 116 4 104 5 91 8 92 6 82 5 74 3 72 5 71 6 73 3 62 4 62 4 61 5 62 3 50 5 52 3 51 4 51 4 50 4 40 0 0As an example, New Brunswick both “develops” and“mentions only” the topic of minorities. In the grade 12 unit“Living in a Communist Society”, minority rights are identifiedas a key topic, but without any supporting discussion oractivities (World Issues 123, 1986: 15). In another unit, “ThePeople of the United States”, the guide identifies minorities asone of the key topics as well as briefly stating: “Compare withrelated situations in the United States Canadian minority rightsand conditions (refer to the Canadian Indians, the Blacks ofNova Scotia and the French)” (p. 11). More extensive discussionArtsEnergyHuman RightsHousingLanguageMinoritiesTrade, DomesticClimate/Climatic ConditionsInternational AidHealth/MedicinePovertyFishingDisarmament/Nuclear WarPeaceAboriginal ClaimsAgrarian Reform/Land UseWater and SanitationMiningCivil WarForestryYouth/AdolescentsTransnational CorporationsHungerChildrenDiet/NutritionInternational DebtTotal 658 (66%) 334 (34%) 99287is given to the topic of poverty:Students should be very interested in the section on‘War Against Poverty’. An excellent array of films andresource persons are available from the Unicef NewBrunswick Office, Prince William Street, Saint John(P.O. Box 6773, Station A, E2L 4S2, Tel. 652—4747).Check their catalogue (which is available in eachschool). Students will relate to much of the materialpresented here as they have been prepared by both theirhuman nature and television appeals to show interest inand feeling for the need to fight famine, disease, childexploitation, et cetera. This section of the curriculumprovides opportunities for many individualizedassignments (World Issues 123, 1986: 24).Table 9Topics and Their ContextTOPIC # MENTIONED IN:MULTIPLE COUNTRY SINGLE COUNTRY TOTALCONTEXT CONTEXTPhysical Geography 57 4 61Culture/Traditions 53 6 59Economic Developmentand Planning 45 5 50Migrancy/Immigration 43 6 49Government 39 7 46Science/Technology 39 6 45Trade, International 33 4 37Environment/Ecology 29 2 31Religion 26 5 31Lifestyle 29 2 31Industry/Manufacturing 25 5 30Population 27 1 28International Organizations 27 0 27War 22 3 25Resource Distribution 24 1 25Resource Management 22 1 23Transportation 20 2 22Multiculturalism 13 6 19Food 18 1 19Democracy 16 3 19Education/Literacy 15 3 18Agriculture/Animal Husbandry 12 6 18Employment 16 1 17Communication 15 2 17Urbanization 15 0 158811131012119107710987547356645455540423122144001123041002010000015151313131111111110998777766665555540Most (88%) of the topics listed in the guides are done so inrelation to various countries rather than one in isolation.These topics are seen as global and, consequently, examples areobtained from across a spectrum of countries/regions. Forinstance, in contrast to the study at grades 11 and 12 of “thebasic structure of the American government as established by theConstitution of 1789” (Curriculum Guideline History andContemporary Studies Part C: Grades 11 and 12, 1987: 60),Ontario’s “Twentieth-Century World History” course examines theWomenDevelopment, SocialArtsEnergyHuman RightsHousingLanguageMinoritiesTrade, DomesticClimate/Climatic ConditionsInternational AidHealth/MedicinePovertyFishingDisarmament/Nuclear WarPeaceAboriginal ClaimsAgrarian Reform/Land UseWater and SanitationMiningCivil WarForestryYouth/AdolescentsTransnational CorporationsHungerChildrenDiet /NutritionInternational DebtTotal 872 (88%) 120 (12%) 99289nature of government within a multiple country context: “themeaning of the concepts of nationalism, feminism, socialism,fascism, communism, and totalitarianism; the applicability ofthe above concepts to selected parts of Europe and Asia between1919 and 1939” (p. 49). In grade eight, Quebec studies democracyin relation to one historical period: “Athenian Democracy:Original Characteristics, Limitations” (Secondary SchoolCurriculum. General History, 1983: 30), whereas in theelementary curriculum, aspects of democracy are understood interms of more than one country: “To identify, based on worldnews, some situations, in which the exercise of democraticrights and freedoms is curtailed or denied. To identify severalbodies which can defend democratic rights and freedoms at theinternational level..., the United Nations, AmnestyInternational, UNESCO” (Elementary School Curriculum SocialStudies, 1983: 45).In summary, topics are treated within the curricula inroughly the same manner as concepts. Physical geography,culture/traditions, economic development and planning, andgovernment are all examined more often that human rights,poverty and hunger. As well, the former topics are usuallysupported with discussion and activities while the latter topicsare more often “mentioned only.” As discussed in the previoussection, this tendency within the curricula to avoid discussionsof more controversial topics reflects the same treatment within90the literature.Geographic CoverageAn important consideration in global education is the imageof the world that is presented in curricular content. ThreeTable 10Range in the Coverage of World RegionsRegions * *AfricaAs i aAu S traii a /New ZealandEuropeNorth America***Middle EastSouth/CentralAmericaDevelopingCountriesDevelopedCountriesUnspecified****% Each Province Devotes to Each Region*A B C D E F G H I J6 / 5 /27 16 21 3716 11 16 246 2 10 6AverageK3 10 99 26 18* % = number of times a region was mentioned over the totaltimes all regions were mentioned per province.**Includes any mention of a region or the countries within thatregion.*** Excluding Canada.Unspecified refers to times when the guide does notindicate any specific region to be studied, but leaves thechoice to the teacher. (E.g., British Columbia states for gradesix: “Students should compare and contrast the features of fourpeoples drawn from four continents with each other and withCanadians” (Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1983: 35).)/ 13 10 8 12 10 10 14 1018 19 22 19 12 17 13 18 21/4112126446/2271682 /34 3319 178 222213762013612 / 10 8 7 7 13 14 103291563 16 9/ / 2 / 7 5 3 7 / 3 3 3/ 6 1 / 5 2 / 5 / 3 / 25 6 2 2 5 15 6 13 7 12 / 7Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10191aspects of this image are discussed here: 1) which worldregionsare and are not mentioned; 2) which countries withinthese regions are identified and which are not; and 3) thetopics and issues linked to these regions and countries. Table10 identifies, by province, the percentage of consideration thatselected regions receive.According to Table 10 only three regions are mentioned byall of the provinces: Asia, Europe, and North America. Thisattention implies a possible hierarchy of importance. While itmay be legitimate to study some areas more than others due to,for example, historical or economic connections, problems ofbalance may arise when such connections are emphasized to theexclusion of other areas. British Columbia (J) and Prince EdwardIsland (B) are prime examples of this tendency to over-emphasizesome regions (i.e., Europe) and exclude others (i.e., the MiddleEast). There is relative consistency across the provinces in theareas they emphasize (Europe, Asia and North America) and in theareas they downplay (Australia, Middle East).Figure 3 pictorially represents the national average ofregional representation across the provinces: 29% of geographiccoverage is given to Europe, placing it well ahead of all otherregions; Asia follows with 18% and North America (excludingCanada) is third with 15%; Africa and South/Central America eachreceive 9%; unspecified (7%); the Middle East (6%);Australia/New Zealand (3%); developing countries (3%) and92Figure 3developed countries (2%) bring up the rear.According to Table 11, some regions tend to be treated asmonolithic entities, as if their parts are uniform and possessthe same characteristics. South/Central America and the MiddleEast, and to a lesser extent Africa, tend to be portrayed thisway. When the Middle East is identified, the guides do not referto individual countries more than twice; although the intentionoften is to allow the teacher a choice of which country to studywithin a region, an implicit message may be that this region ishomogeneous. South America also is treated monolithically; it isidentified 29 times, whereas Central America is specified fourtimes, and Cuba and Haiti only three times. Africa is shown muchGeographic RepresentationNational AverageAsia 17.3Europe 28.7Y. I I14.1+1.11..North An. 14.97II‘.4 I IAfrica 8.9YSouth/Central An. 8.97Developed 2.GDeveloping .ØY.AustralialNZIliddle East S.97Unspecified93the same, except that Egypt is specified nine times, while SouthAfrica, Nigeria and the Sahara are identified three times each.For example, the Northwest Territories refers to “the movementtoward economic and political independence by former colonies inAfrica, South America, the Caribbean, India, China, SoutheastAsia, Indonesia” (Social Studies K-9, 1979: 192). In its mentionTable 11Regions and Their Prominent Countries*Africa 19** Europe 34Egypt 9 Britain 39Nigeria 3 France 28Sahara 3 Italy 10South Africa 3 Western Europe 10Germany 7Asia 11 Greece 7USSR 30 Ireland 6China 28 Spain 5India 23 Eastern Europe 4Japan 19 Cyprus 3Korea 4 Portugal 3Pacific Rim 4Vietnam 4 North America 12United States 57Australia 11 Mexico 3Middle East 24South America 29Central America 4Cuba 3Haiti 3* Those countries identified two times or less by all the guidestogether are flg included.** Number of times a region/country is listed across all thecurricula.94of authority and oligarchy in grade seven, Saskatchewanencourages a “case study of a country in South America whichis/has been under military rule” (Social Studies CurriculumGuide: Canada and the World Community, 1986: 40). New Brunswickstates as rather general objectives: “to identify the presenceof superpowers in the Middle East. To understand the rise ofBlack Nationalism in Africa” (World Issues 123, 1986: 19). Suchlack of specificity in the questions/topics may encourageteachers to treat these regions as homogeneous. In contrast,Saskatchewan identifies specific countries for grade six: “thedistribution of similar resources in each of USA, Britain,France, Mexico, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti” (Grade 6 Social Studies:Canada’s Global Neighbours, 1986: n.p.)Homogeneity is further highlighted when compared to thespecificity that other regions receive. For example, BritishColumbia specifies “the contributions of the English, French,and American revolutions to the development of democraticconcepts” (Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1988: 44). NovaScotia identifies “hot spots” as: “(a) Cyprus (b) Middle East(c) Korea” (Modern World Problems, 1976: 7). Saskatchewanadvocates comparisons of “roles in various societies and howthey change.... in an African village, Indian village, Japan”(Social Studies Curriculum Guide: The Individual in Society,1985: 44). (In the last two examples, Cyprus, Korea, India andJapan are specifically identified while the Middle East, and95Africa are treated monolithically - that is, any country withinthe Middle East or any African village could be studied; theimplication being that all countries or villages are roughly thesame in these regions.) Some of the suggested tasks requirestudents to recognize distinctions within a region: Europe isnot just a common geographic area, it is also comprised ofunique and individual countries. On the other hand, the guidesseem to imply that Africa, the Middle East, and South/CentralAmerica do not have the same degree of distinctiveness withintheir regions.Asia and North America are treated much more often throughspecific countries rather than through the whole region. Forexample, Asia is mentioned 11 times while the USSR, China, Indiaand Japan are identified, respectively, 30, 28, 23 and 19 times.Asia is not often spoken of as a monolithic region, but composedof countries sufficiently varied to necessitate singularidentification; given the number of times specific countries arementioned in relation to the times the region is mentioned, itwould seem that Asia is defined more by its individual countriesthan by regional characteristics. North America is mentioned 12times while the USA is identified 57 times and Mexico threetimes (Canada is not included in the statistics). Europe, as aregion, is mentioned 34 times, whereas Britain is identified 39times, France (28), Western Europe (10), Italy (10), Germany(7), Greece (7), and five other countries or semi-regions. This96specificity is in marked contrast to the treatment accorded toAfrica, South/Central America and the Middle East.Also evident in Table 11 is the representation of a regionby a few countries within it. These prominent countries arementioned so extensively that they overshadow other countries inthe region and almost replace the region itself. Of the twocountries in North America (excluding Canada), the USA ismentioned 57 and Mexico three times. With such lopsidedtreatment, it would be easy to equate the USA with NorthAmerica. Similarly, Asia is largely composed of the USSR, China,India, and Japan to the exclusion of other countries. Theseguides show Europe to be overwhelmingly dominated by Britain,followed closely by France. Moreover, Europe is often identifiedas Western Europe, with Eastern Europe given minimal mention.Africa is dominated by Egypt and to a lesser degree the Saharadesert, South Africa, and Nigeria.Table 12Historical Emphasis of Selected RegionsRegion Topic % of alltopics*Africa Ancient Civilizations 22Middle East Ancient Civilizations 20South/Central America Ancient Civilizations 16* % = number of times “Ancient Civilizations” are mentioned overall topics mentioned for the region.97Most provinces study ancient civilizations at some point intheir curriculum. For instance, British Columbia devotes most ofgrade seven to the study of “Early and Classical Civilizations:A study of the peoples of the: Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, Indusand/or Mediterranean” (Social Studies Curriculum Guide: gradeone - grade seven, 1983: 39), whereas Alberta does so at gradesix: “Content is to be selected from ancient Mediterraneancivilizations (e.g., Greek, Roman, Egyptian) or pre-ColumbianAmerica (e.g., Mayan, Inca, Aztec)” (Alberta Social StudiesCurriculum, 1981: 46). Approximately one-fifth of the times thatAfrica, the Middle East and South/Central America are mentionedis in respect to ancient civilizations (Table 12), whereas otherregions do not show a pattern of such magnitude. Although Europe(i.e., Greece and Rome) is studied in connection with ancientcivilizations, many more contemporary and various topics arealso listed. Where ancient civilizations are emphasized, thereis a possibility that students may develop rather limited imagesof those regions (c.f., Case, 1991: 5).In summary, various emphases within the curricula combine tomake it unlikely that an accurate image of the world will bepresented. Africa, South America and the Middle East are treatedsuperficially and distinctions within these regions largelyignored. Europe, Asia and North America are examined with morespecificity but certain countries are emphasized to theexclusion of others. For example, North America is98overwhelmingly shown to include the United States (and Canada);Mexico is overlooked by most curricula. Europe is primarilycomposed of western European countries and Asia is dominatedalmost exclusively by Japan, India, China and (the now defunct)USSR. If global education seeks to encourage accurate images ofthe world, then some questions may need to be raised about theappropriateness of geographic coverage in these curricula.Global ProblemsGlobal problems or issues transcend national boundaries andaffect whole regions or even the globe. Global warming,pollution, poverty and population are examples of such problems.Although all provinces refer to global problems, the relativeemphasis given to causes, manifestations and ramifications, andremedies does differ (Table 13).While causes and manifestations of global problems are“extensively” treated within most of the guides, only one-thirdtreat remedies “extensively.” Recommended ways to think aboutsolutions vary across provinces. For example, New Brunswicksuggests role playing as a way to help students generate andconsider solutions to a variety of problems (Grade Nine SocialStudies Syllabus, 1987), whereas Manitoba didactically presentssome means of enhancing the quality of life in developingcountries (Social Studies K-12 Overview, 1985: 117). Albertadefines all issues/problems as a conflict between at least99Table 13Global Problems# of Provinces*Extensive** Some MerelyTreatment Treatment MentionedCauses/origins 9 1(G)Manifestations /ramifications 10Remedies/programs 3(D,G,I) 6 1(J)* Newfoundland is not included.** “Extensive treatment” means that aspects of global problemsare discussed three times or more; suggestions for instructionor support activities are also provided. “Some treatment”indicates that these aspects are discussed and supported one ortwo times. “Merely mentioned” does not include supportingdiscussion or activities.two values, and then encourages students to consider remedialcourses of action (Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981).Discussions of the causes and origins of global problems areusually approached from a historical perspective. Understandingthe development of Middle East conflicts, the origin of theUnited Nations, the role of changing technology in makinginterdependence an increasing fact of life, or increases inhuman populations all rely on historical study, althoughinsights from sociology, geography, anthropology, and economicsmay also be recommended. (Interdisciplinary perspectives arediscussed within the “Scope of Global Studies” section.)One of the approaches is to link global problems directly to100the student and show how she can have an impact on them locally.Many curricula recommend this, as discussed in the next section.Global/Local ConnectionsHow much encouragement is given to link global issues tolocal, regional or national concerns? A very general answer isgiven in Table 14.All curricula make some attempt to link global and localissues. Over one-third consistently have students consider howglobal issues impact on themselves, their friends,Table 14Provinces Making Global/Local Connections4 Consistent global/local linkage* (C,G,I,K)7 Some attempt made to connect issues0 No attempt made*“Consistent” linkage means that all of the global issuesdiscussed by a province are linked back to Canada. “Someattempt” means that there is inconsistency in linking issues toCanada.neighbourhood, city, or region, or how local issues relate toglobal issues. For example, Alberta in grade six compares basichuman needs in eastern cultures to those of Canadians (AlbertaSocial Studies Curriculum, 1981: 48-49), and in grade 11,explores “relationships between one’s own behaviour and theglobal distribution of wealth” (p. 83). Saskatchewan relates theconcept of global interdependence to Canada and, more101specifically, to Saskatchewan (Social Studies Curriculum Guide:Canada and the World Community, 1986: 46-51). Ontario talks of“the characteristics of the global village that affect studentspersonally” (Curriculum Guideline History and ContemporaryStudies Part C; Grades 11 and 12, 1987: 43). The NorthwestTerritories argues that a teacher should always bring issuesback to local concerns: “Social Studies learning in every yearand in every Topic will either start with or lead back to theknown and familiar world of the student” (Social Studies K-9,1979: 26). Nova Scotia discusses methods of relating all thetopics in a grade 12 course to Canadian examples (Modern WorldProblems, 1976: 4-5).This global/local linkage is intended to have studentsconsider how global problems have local impact; they are not tobe seen as located only in other countries and therefore not ofconcern to Canadians. Understanding global/local connections ispart of gaining a global perspective.Within curriculum guides there are assumptions concerningteachers’ background knowledge of global topics and issues, andof relevant pedagogy. For example, teachers may be expected tounderstand something of the history and geography of variousworld regions, have a knowledge of global dynamics, economicdevelopment, political systems or the concept of“interdependence” (i.e., the teacher has to provide examples ofglobal and local “interdependence”). The global studies courses102offered for grades 11 and 12 by Nova Scotia and New Brunswickalso demand a considerable knowledge of specific global issuesrelated to terrorism, revolutions, environment, and population.The need for specialized knowledge of value reasoning isexplicitly recognized only by Alberta in its advocacy of globalissues (Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 5). Thisprovince recommends the pedagogy developed by AVER (1981) forvalue reasoning, and focuses units around conflicting valuepositions (e.g., global concern vs. national self-interest).The Scope of Global StudiesThis section presents a general picture of the percentage ofcontent that is related to global studies across the provinces.Further, it examines the sources of global content - that is, dothe curricula encourage a single, multi- or interdisciplinaryapproach to global content.Global Presence in the CurriculumThe discussion so far in this chapter focused on those partsof curricula devoted to global content (the exception is thediscussion of concepts used in both global and non-globalcontexts). This section outlines how much of the curricula arefocused on global content. Figures 4 and 5 provide thepercentage of topics devoted to global studies (given the103definition provided in Appendix C).Figures 4 indicates increasing attention to global studiesas one moves up the elementary grades. Younger children (gradesone through three) receive little exposure in global topics:from two to 15 percent. As one advances through the elementarygrades, the percentage of content devoted to global studiesincreases (64% for grade seven). All the secondary gradesFigure 4Global PresenceNational Average Across Crades*l00Grade levelGlobal Prescence*The percentage was determined by comparing the amount of globalcontent to total content that are stated for each grade in eachprovince, and then finding the average across provinces. This isa very general calculation and does not indicate what occurs inclassrooms because each province allows between 15 and 40% ofeach grade for “extension” activities defined by the teacher.104dedicate considerable attention to global studies (from a low of47% for grade 10, to a high of 71% for grade 11). Figure 5illustrates the gross difference in attention to global studiesbetween the elementary (29%) and secondary (59%) grades. Globalcontent occupies twice the amount of the curriculum in thesecondary as opposed to the elementary grades.This pattern of increasing global content as one movesthrough the elementary and into the secondary grades has itsroots in the widespread use of the expanding horizons philosophythat guides much of the scope and sequence of the socialstudies. As discussed in Chapter 2, this philosophy structuresFigure 520Goba1 PresenceNational Average20 1z:z::.0Elerientary Grades Secondary GradesAverage Presence105the scope and sequence of the curriculum so that the primarygrades are devoted to exploring the child’s world in anexpanding pattern from the self to the family and community. Notsurprisingly, then, in the primary grades global content is lessevident but becomes increasingly more so as a student moves intothe later grades of elementary school. In most cases, it is notuntil grades four, five and six that a student will beintroduced to considerable global content.Source of Global ContentThree sources of global content are encouraged by thecurriculum guides: single discipline, multidisciplinary andinterdisciplinary (definitions are found in Figure 6). Twonotable features are evident in Figure 6. First, the proportionof emphasis given to these three sources is similar. Singlediscipline and interdisciplinary inquiry are each evident in 35to 40% of the global content while multidisciplinary inquiry isutilized in approximately 25 to 35%. Second, there is littledifference between elementary and secondary; both are similar intheir proportional emphasis on these three sources.However, this national picture of relatively equal emphasison sources across the grades is misleading. This equality doesnot hold true for individual provinces, as the followingexamples show: Quebec indicates an interdisciplinary approach inFigure 6106*Single discipline inquiry:global topics are viewed exclusively through one disciplineor intellectual perspective (e.g., geography, sociology,economics).Multidisciplinary inquiry:global topics are viewed through several disciplines orintellectual perspectives consecutively (e.g., a discretesection deals with geography, a second section deals withhistory, and so on).Interdisciplinary inquiry:global topics are viewed concurrently through severaldisciplines or intellectual perspectives (e.g., thepolitical, economic and ethical significance of a topic isexamined).less than 20% of its curriculum; Saskatchewan’s curriculum is80% interdisciplinary and gives no preference to a singlediscipline; Ontario utilizes a multidisciplinary approach inSources*ieo7 of global contentof Global Content80140200E lenentary SecondarySirgIe discipline Multidisciplinary LZJ Interdisciplinarymore than 90% of its curriculum; Prince Edward Island’s107secondary curriculum consists of courses in geography andcourses in history.As discussed in Chapter 2, many global educators argue thatan interdisciplinary, issues-based approach to global educationis desirable because it breaks down artificial or narrowboundaries when studying topics, and allows for an analysis thatmore closely respects the reality of issues. Proponents ofinternational education, on the other hand, more commonlyespouse single or multidisciplinary inquiry for global content.These two outlooks are also evident in provincial curricula. Forexample, Saskatchewan generally assumes a global issue -interdisciplinary approach to its global content, while Quebecpredominately emphasizes a single discipline approach. AcrossCanada, though, less than 40% of global content is approachedfrom a single discipline orientation.GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEThe literature on global education indicates that one of itscentral purposes is to have students develop a globalperspective for understanding issues (see Chapter 2).Characteristics of a defensible global perspective can be talkedabout in negative terms (Case, 1989). While a list (Table 15) ofsuch characteristics may not be exhaustive or shared by all108global educators, it represents some features that underminewhat would be considered a defensible global perspective (Case,1991; Hanvey, 1976). Much of the following discussion reliesheavily on Case’s (1989) Global Perspective or Tunnel Vision?In Table 15, the first category of “evidently present”signifies that there are explicit and consistent indications ofthe presence of the negative characteristic in the curriculum.“Evidently not present” signifies that there are explicit andconsistent indications of the absence of the characteristic.Table 15Defeasance Characteristics of a Global Perspective# of Provinces*Evidently No Evidently MixedPresent Indication Not Present IndicationOversimplification 6 4(B,E,J,K)Compartmented 9 1(J)stereotyped 10Sectoral Polarity 2(B,K) 1(J) 2(D,I) 5National Polarity 7 3(E,G,K)Objectified 1(E) 8 1(J)Relativistic 9 1(I)Non Empathic 2(B,G) 7 1(E)Uni-lateral Action 1(C) 4(E,F,B,K) 4 1(D)National Egoism 3(B,C,E) 6 1(D)*Nujnbers refer to provinces. Newfoundland is not includedbecause its guide was too general to give adequate information.“No indication” means that there is no clear evidence for oragainst the presence of the characteristic. The final category,109“mixed indication”, refers to conflicting evidence. If a goal ofeducators is to promote a defensible global perspective, thenthat goal would be best advanced in those situations where anydefeasance characteristic was “evidently not present”.Oversimplification: Complex ethical and empirical issuesseem to be treated as straightforward or unproblematic. While itis inevitable that issues have to be simplified somewhat, it isimportant that this not distort a topic or encourage naiveviews. Six provinces avoid oversimplification; but four havemixed results, avoiding oversimplification at certain times butnot at others. Examples of how some guides try to avoid thisproblem follow. Manitoba warns about the “complexity ofevaluating development”, and to illustrate this complexity,compares a rural Canadian and third world community, raising thequestion of which is “more developed” and cautioning that “theseissues do not lend themselves to simple or final answers”(Social Studies K—12 Overview, 1985: 49). Saskatchewan stressesthat technological changes have positive and negative effects ondifferent people: “Understand that changes in society affectpeople in different ways. Appreciate that industrialization maybenefit some groups or nations but not others” (Grade 6 SocialStudies: Canada’s Global Neighbours, 1986: n.p.).There are various means of oversimplifying issues. Onemethod is to avoid recognizing or discussing the diversity ofviews within an issue; Prince Edward Island investigates “world”110communities, but on examination, all the “world” communitiesidentified come from Northern Europe (Social Studies Year 5:Eastern Hemisphere Communities, 1977), and only the positiveattributes of industry are mentioned in grade eight (BritishIsles and Germany: Teacher’s Guide, 1981: n.p.). Another methodis to allow for limited time in the treatment of complex andcomplicated issues; for example, the Northwest Territories ingrade five promotes environmental responsibility, but thenexplicitly recommends that it be treated quickly. Superficialcoverage may well lead to student misunderstanding rather thanclarity:5. Responsibilities We Have Toward The Environment:local, national and international issues5.1 personal, local responsibilities (to control waste,fire, abuse)5.2 resource management and conservation of nonrenewable and renewable resources, including gamemanagement5.3 planning and controlling the use of technologyUnit 5 should not be studied in depth (Social Studies, 1979: 133; emphasis added).Compartmented: Topics are treated in isolation from eachother and are not seen to be part of a constellation ofinterrelated factors. Nine of the provinces clearly do notcompartmentalize global issues, whereas one province (BritishColumbia) is less clear. This province discusses the impactresource management has on pollution and waste, which clearly isnot compartmented; on the other hand it treats other globalissues in isolation from each other and, consequently, may notencourage the examination of linkages among them (Social Studiesii’Curricula Guide, 1988).Many guides discuss the interrelationships betweengeography, history, and culture as they relate to specificevents, such as the exploration of the “new world.” Many alsoanalyze regions of the world utilizing a variety of disciplinesand then go on to compare and contrast these regions. Whenexamining quality of life issues in grade four, Manitoba warnsthat they are more complex and interrelated than is accountedfor by evaluation based on G.N.P. (Social Studies K-12 Overview,1985: 49). Time is spent discussing the impacts that one eventor factor has on others; for example, how technological changeinfluences people, their perceptions, habits and lifestylechoices (Saskatchewan, Social Studies Curriculum Guide: Canadaand the World Community, 1986: 45-51).Even those provinces that rely on a single disciplineapproach overcome compartmentalization by discussing, forexample, how various factors interrelate or how differentregions compare. For example, Prince Edward Island in grade fivecompares other world communities to Canada (Social Studies Year5: Eastern Hemisphere Communities, 1977).Stereotyping: Portrayals of people or cultures are limitedto superficial generalizations, and individual differences arenot represented. All of the provinces make some effort to combatstereotyping, and many explicitly state their intention toincrease tolerance and respect for differences; for example,112Prince Edward Island seeks to “foster tolerance and reduceprejudice” (Social Studies Year 4: Selected Canadian and WorldCommunities, n.d.: n.p.) and declares that students should“recognize that cultural and physical diversity aidsdevelopment” (The Developed World North America: Teacher’sGuide, 1982: 13). Alberta, in grade seven, argues for developing“sensitivity to the limitations of any one cultural perspective”(Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 56), and New Brunswickseeks to “challenge stereotypes” of Latin America (Grade NineSocial Studies Syllabus, 1987: 37). In a stronger vein, Manitobaoffers explicit instructions on how to minimize the chances ofstereotyping: select contrasting communities within each regionto offset the tendency to blur distinctions and see regions,cultures, populations, and countries as monolithic entities(Social Studies K-12 Overview, 1985: 48).Although some of the provinces state succinctly theirintention to reduce stereotyping, it is sometimes difficult tofind evidence in suggested activities. For example, both BritishColumbia and Prince Edward Island mention stereotyping butsuggest no activities to combat it. Geographic representationof the world in their curricula tends to treat Africa, theMiddle East, and South America as monolithic entities (Table 10and 11). Such treatment may promote ignorance of the diversitywithin these regions, and thereby encourage stereotypingTherefore, while provincial curricula state their opposition to113stereotyping, not all of them seem to support this statementwith appropriate content and activities.Sectoral Polarity: Canadian or foreign interests are alignedin “blocks”, e.g., North-South, East-West, developed-developingcountries. The study of historical and contemporary alliances isdesirable if the interests of countries in a block are notreduced to the interests of the block as a whole or necessarilyset in opposition to the interests of countries in other blocks.Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories portraysectoral polarity by consistently dividing the world into“blocks” such as East-West, North-South or First-Third World.There is little attempt here to emphasize individuals orindividual countries. Countries within blocks are characterizedas being, in the main, similar, and differences between blocksare magnified.Nova Scotia and Alberta oppose this polarity by doing theopposite of the above. Either they break down the blocks (e.g.,identifying similarities and differences between countries) orthey compare and connect Canada to the countries within theblocks. In grade six, for example, Alberta argues that“attention should be called to the similarity, as well asdifferences, in problems that people in our society and Easternsocieties must resolve in meeting their emerging needs” (AlbertaSocial Studies Curriculum, 1981: 48).The five provinces that have a mixed response demonstrate a114combination of these tendencies. A case in point is Manitoba’scurricula which break down polarity by stressing the “politicaland economic interactions and interdependencies among variousregions” (Social Studies K-12 Overview, 1985: 72), and yetcompare general North American aboriginal populations to ThirdWorld populations (p. 80), discuss First and Second Worldsocieties in grade eight (p. 80) and East-West and North-Southorganizations in grade 12, without stressing that the variationswithin these groupings are to be studied (p. 118).National Polarity: Canadian interests are consistently castin opposition to other countries’ interests in a “we - they”dualism. Seven provinces do not support national polarity whilethree (Quebec, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories) are mixed.This polarity is broken down when world issues or issues ofconcern to specific countries are also related to Canada;illustrative is Nova Scotia’s provision of Canadian examples ofmodern world problems “for teachers who wish to place extraemphasis on the Canadian scene” (Modern World Problems, 1976: 4-5). One example of this linkage is a comparison of economicdisparity in India and Canada (p. 4, 13-15).The three mixed responses at times identify global problemsand what Canadians can do to help solve these problems; however,poverty, disparity and pollution, for instance, are largely seento be other peoples’ problems: we can help others but do notshare their problems. For example, the Northwest Territories115asks in grade nine: “What are our responsibilities towardemerging nations?... What can we do to reduce the disparityamong standards of living in the world today?” (Social StudiesK—9, 1979: 194).Ob-lectified: Cultures or countries are at times viewed asstatic, quaint, eccentric or as curiosities. One province(Quebec) examines non—Western countries almost exclusively asancient cultures, whereas eight provinces portray cultures andpeoples from a variety of perspectives (e.g., economic,historical, sociological, cultural, quality of life, humanrights, conflicts, problems). British Columbia does both byviewing foreign cultures as past entities that led ultimately tothe establishment of modern civilization; a skewed perception ofthese cultures may emerge for students if, for example, Egypt isobjectified and reduced to “the land of pyramids.” In contrast,Ontario explores various world regions from a variety ofperspectives, such as lifestyles and cultural change, humanrights and values, the global economy, roles of male and femaleleaders and citizens, peace, war, and conflict (CurriculumGuideline History and Contemporary Studies Part C: Grades 11 and12, 1987: 35).Relativistic: Questions of moral right and wrong areportrayed as entirely relative to the beliefs of each culture.While most judgements do depend on prevailing conditions andsocietal standards, it is undesirable to encourage the view that116cross-cultural judgement is not permissable. Instances of humanrights abuse, genocide, and even destruction of naturalresources warrant ethical censure. There are two undesirableimplications of a relativistic view. First, students may bediscouraged from accepting responsibility to act on globalproblems if they believe it improper to make ethical judgementsabout the practices of other cultures. Second, since relativismsuggests that moral right is determined entirely by one’ssociety, students may be discouraged from reassessing their ownbeliefs when these conflict with those of other cultural groups.In cases of cross-cultural dispute, ethical relativists tend toregard their society’s position as “right for them.”Nine provinces give no indication of how to deal withrelativism, whereas one argues against this position. Albertautilizes tools for value reasoning, including four tests thatcan be used to judge positions in value conflicts (AlbertaSocial Studies Curriculum, 1981: 5).Non-Empathic: Students are not encouraged to placethemselves in the role or predicament of others nor to imagineissues from another person’s or group’s perspective. Naturally,this does not require that students agree with the positionstaken by others, but merely that they acquire some sensitivityand understanding for that position or predicament. Sevenprovinces discourage non-empathic attitudes; Prince EdwardIsland and Manitoba give no indication; and Quebec promotes a117mixed response.Those provinces that discourage this perspective most oftenrecommend role playing to increase empathy and decreaseethnocentrism, although British Columbia only mentions roleplaying once. Role playing involves taking on another’sperspective; through this identification, empathy with othersmay increase and, concurrently, ethnocentrism (seeing only fromyour own group’s perspective) may decrease. New Brunswickstresses critical analysis of one’s culture from the perspectiveof the outsider:An exercise which might prove useful in giving studentsa better perspective on their culture and at the sametime teach them about their own ethnocentricity is tohave them imagine themselves as an extraterrestrialviewing some cultural rite such as Halloween (Grade NineSocial Studies Syllabus, 1987: 13).Similarly, Saskatchewan urges the student to ask the question“how would I be different if I was in another culture?” (SocialStudies Curriculum Guide: The Individual in Society, 1985: 24).Prince Edward Island and Manitoba do not provide anyactivities for combatting a non-empathetic view of the world norfor encouraging empathy. Without exposure to situations thatinvite consideration of the experience or predicament of personsin other countries, students may not come to see the value ofempathetic considerations in social studies. Quebec utilizesrole playing in one of its curriculum guides but does notmention this activity in any other guide.Uni-lateral Action: Solutions to global problems are not118seen as requiring multi-lateral or cooperative action from allparties; rather, problem solving is in the hands of powerfulcountries and organizations. Ontario, Quebec, Prince EdwardIsland, and the Northwest Territories give no indication of thisperspective, while Nova Scotia sends mixed signals.Examples of the four that support multi-lateral action areas follows: Saskatchewan discusses the necessity ofinternational cooperation for a healthy, non-polluted world(Social Studies 30: Canadian Studies, 1978: 28). BritishColumbia prompts students to “recognize that today’s world isone of cooperation, and that Canada is involved in manycooperative endeavours” (Social Studies Curriculum Guide, 1988:78); Manitoba argues that “humans can no longer live inisolation but must view the world as an interdependent totalityin which everyone shares the responsibility for improvement andstewardship” (Social Studies K-12 Overview, 1985: 68). Albertadiscusses the importance of international organizations andinternational cooperation in grade 10 and 12, respectively(Alberta Social Studies Curriculum, 1981: 78, 86).New Brunswick does seem to promote uni-lateral action; itmentions international organizations like NATO and the WarsawPact but without discussing cooperation among or even withinthese organizations (World Issues 123, 1986: 17-18).National Egoism: Canadian interests are emphasized to theexclusion of other countries’ interests, and our119responsibilities to other countries or peoples are not stressed.While discussion of Canadian interests is important, it must betempered with some sensitivity to the responsibilities thatCanada has towards others in the global community. Six provincesavoid national egoism by recognizing Canada’s responsibility toother countries; Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Islandgive no indication, whereas Nova Scotia gives mixed signals.Of those provinces that discourage national egoism, forexample, British Columbia asks “how can Canada create a moreequitable, humane, and peaceful world?” (Social StudiesCurriculum Guide, 1988: 78) and states that “we are thecaretakers of the world’s resources and are responsible fortheir management” (p. 79). Alberta asks students to balance thecompeting values of national self-interest and global concern,and global welfare and national prosperity (Alberta SocialStudies Curriculum, 1981: 78, 82). Saskatchewan discussesCanadian contributions to world improvement and the promotion“of social justice through aid to developing nations” (SocialStudies 30: Canadian Studies, 1978: 28).On the other hand, Nova Scotia does mention internationalresponsibility in grade 12, but only briefly and withoutelaboration or support; the guide seems to avoid making ajudgement about the advisability or inadvisability ofinternational responsibility and, thus, gives a mixed signal inthis perspective (Modern World Problems, 1976).120Figure 7Figure 7 includes the ten characteristics identified inTable 15, and provides a very general impression of the extentof global perspective within provincial guides. The ‘favourable”category indicates that the characteristics adhere consistentlyto a global perspective, while the “unfavourable” categoryindicates some inconsistency. In certain cases no discussion ofa perspective may be equivalent to treating it unfavourably;however, an “unfavourable” rating results only when a provinceexplicitly supports the defeasance characteristic. “Noindication” means that the perspective is not explicit enough tomake a judgement one way or another; the curriculum guide doesGlobal PerspectiveCharacteristics by Provincen of characteristics108420HIlT ALTA SASK HANFavourable ho lndiatior IZ] Unfavourable Mixed121not say enough to allow a reasonable decision. The “mixed”category refers to those provinces that provide an unclearmessage concerning specific characteristics.Figure 8* % = number of “favourable”, “unfavourable”, “mixed”, or “noindication” characteristics over the total number ofcharacteristics (100) across all the provinces (i.e., 10characteristics times 10 provinces = 100).Whereas Figure 7 displays a provincial breakdown of a globalperspective, showing that certain provinces are more explicitabout the characteristics of a global perspective, Figure 8indicates very generally the extent to which a globalperspective is evident in curricular documents across Canada. AnGlobal PerspectiveNational CharacteristieFavourab 1Ho Indication19.Unfai.,oix’ab le122unfavourable perspective is explicitly evident in only fourpercent of the characteristics (i.e., four provinces each treatone characteristic in a negative fashion) as compared to 60% forfavourable characteristics.SUMMARYSome general observations can be made about similarities anddifferences amongst provinces in terms of their support forglobal education. Three comparative groupings of provincesbecome apparent.The first group, consisting of Alberta, Saskatchewan andManitoba, for the most part, displays a global issues approach,as discussed in Chapter 2. These provinces focus their curriculaaround issues, exploring not just one, but various sides of anissue. Consequently, these provinces also assume aninterdisciplinary approach to global content, drawing upondiverse sources to aid the investigation of an issue. Valuereasoning is encouraged, some moral questions are considered,and a role for student action is recognized. Alberta is the mostconsistent and extensive exemplar of this approach to globalcontent.The second grouping contains New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,123Ontario, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories,Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. In very general terms,this grouping relies on regional studies, and multidisciplinaryor single discipline inquiries. Value reasoning and moralquestions tend not to be promoted, and neither is studentaction. However, these provinces do occupy a spectrum where oneend (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) comes closer to theattributes discussed in the first grouping (interdisciplinary,issue-based, student action and value reasoning) while themiddle of the spectrum (Ontario, British Columbia and theNorthwest Territories) more closely resembles thosecharacteristics of “international education” (Chapter 2) and,finally, the far end of the spectrum (Prince Edward Island)takes a single discipline approach. British Columbia’scurriculum is a good exemplar of a multidisciplinary“international education” approach.The final group contains Quebec. What global content it doeshave more closely resembles a single discipline internationaleducation approach. This more inward looking curriculum tends tofocus on provincial history and European connections, and insome respects is less supportive of global education than otherprovinces. For example, Quebec’s curriculum is the leastsupportive of characteristics of a global perspective, onlytreating two out of ten characteristics in a clearly positivemanner.124How do we account for these differences? Obviously, becausecurriculum development is a provincial matter, it will exhibitdifferent educational needs, interests and traditions. There isno one conception of the purposes and content of social studiesacross the country. Historical, economic and cultural realitiesvary significantly, and are reflected in the way social studieshas been shaped over time, resulting in some dramaticdifferences from province to province (Tomkins, 1986; Werner etal, 1980). Furthermore, differences in opinion within the globaleducation community result in a diverse and sometimescontradictory literature, which may also account for some of thedifferences across the provinces (Popkewitz, 1980; Werner,1990).This national picture has to be treated cautiously, though,because a particular aspect of the content, goals orperspectives of any provincial curriculum may not always fitwith this general grouping. These three clusters illustrate arange of approaches to global education within Canadiancurricula.Chapter 4 summarizes the study and discusses implicationsfor both curriculum design and further research.125CHAPTER 4SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONSThis chapter summarizes the findings around the study’sresearch questions, discusses some implications for curriculumdesign for the enhancement of global education, and suggestssome further research.SUMMARYThe purpose of this study was to determine how Canadiansocial studies curriculum guides portray global education,broadly defined as the study of foreign countries, cultures andlandscapes; universal or international issues; and connectionsor comparisons of Canada/Canadians with othercountries/citizens. Forty-seven provincial and territorialdocuments, current in 1988 for grades one through 12, wereanalyzed around the following questions:1. What rationales and goals are used to justify andguide the pursuit of global education?2. What is the recommended content (concepts, topics,geographic coverage, global problems, extent ofglobal/local connections, disciplinary orientations, and126overall amount) of global education?3. What characteristics of a global perspective areadvanced?To pursue these questions, a 16 page analysis instrument wasdeveloped in light of the varying definitions, rationales, andconcepts evident in the global education literature, and toallow for a wide-ranging analysis of the nature and extent ofglobal education recommended in the curricula.A national picture of global education as well ascomparisons across provinces, are difficult to present becauseof variations among provincial guides in their formats, levelsof detail, optional courses, and the amount of allowable locallydeveloped curricula. The major generalizations of the studymust, therefore, be interpreted cautiously. The following threegeneralizations summarize the findings related to the researchquestions.1. The rationales and goals used to justify and guide thepursuit of global education are limited and varied.Curriculum guides provide little explicit justification forthe study of global content. In fact, it is fair to say thatthey do not provide much argument for any of their prescribedtopics and specific goals. Teachers are given little explanationfor the contents of curricula, or for determining what contentis of higher priority. Where rationales do exist, they tend tobe stated briefly and in general terms for entire social studies127programs rather than for different kinds of content. It is notsurprising, then, that particular discussions justifying globaltopics are uncommon; four provinces provide no rationale for thestudy of any global content within their curricula, whereas fiveprovinces supply a paragraph or more discussing a reason forglobal content.Reasons found in the curricula can be related to therationales offered in the global education literature. Threerationales dominate this literature: 1) prudential rationalesstressing national self-interest, 2) moral rationalesemphasizing human rights and economic justice, and 3) factualclaims highlighting our changing world. Overwhelmingly withinthe curricula, factual claims about our changing world dominate.For example, references to an “interdependent world”, “sharedproblems/needs” and a “changing world” are the top three reasonsgiven by the curricula, making up half of all reasons given forthe selection of global content. Moreover, these three reasonsaccount for five of the seven times any reason is given aparagraph or more of discussion, and three of the four times anyreason is given less discussion (see Table 1). The implicationof such claims is that because our world is changing, and isbecoming more interdependent, or because we have shared problemsand needs, we should study global content. Moral rationales arerarely offered, and there are no prudential, national selfinterest arguments for the inclusion of global content.128Knowledge of facts, understanding of concepts, and theinclination to empathize and to engage in problem solving aregoals in almost all curricula. However, half of the provinces donot provide any suggestions on how to teach these goals; inparticular, complex goals are rarely supported with examples oractivities to indicate how they can be pursued.Only two provinces (Alberta and Manitoba) identify valuereasoning and student action as goals (these goals are explicitwithin most global education literature) and then give someindication for the teacher about how to promote them.This range of goals mirrors the global education literaturediscussed in Chapter 2. Not surprisingly, all provinces supportthose goals that are generally considered to be noncontroversial. For example, the development of facts, concepts,problem solving and empathy are supported within the literature;at least half of the provinces also treat them as significant interms of global studies. However, support is less evident inboth the literature and the curricula for the teaching of valuereasoning and student action.2. The range of recommended concepts, topics and geographicregions differ across curricula, although some general patternsare evident.Concepts most often listed - such as change, conflict,interdependence, or ideology - are those that can be developed129without necessarily raising moral issues, whereas concepts suchas justice, disparity, or human rights are recommended lessfrequently. The same pattern holds true for global topics; thefacts of cultures/traditions, physical geography, economicdevelopment and planning, government, and science/technology arerecommended more frequently than problems related to thetreatment of minorities, or reasons for poverty and hunger. Thishesitancy to deal with controversial or moral content is alsoapparent within the literature, as discussed in Chapter 2. Onlysome global educators, most of whom support a “global issues”approach, advocate the teaching of value reasoning or moraljudgement-making (e.g., Coombs, 1988).There is a tendency to portray countries homogeneouslywithin Africa, South/Central America and the Middle East, as iftheir parts are uniform and share the same characteristics.These regions are referred to more as unitary wholes than asindividual countries. For example, although the Middle East isreferred to 24 times, no individual country is ever mentionedmore than twice. South/Central America is mentioned 29 times,but only three countries are identified. This lack ofspecificity may encourage teachers to treat some regions asmonolithic and homogeneous and to ignore important distinctionswithin them.On the other hand, important distinctions amongst countriesare highlighted for Europe, and to some extent Asia and North130America. These regions are treated with much more specificity.For example, Europe is mentioned 34 times while 11 countrieswithin Europe are identified a total of 123 times. Asia islisted 11 times while seven countries are referred to 112 times.The specificity afforded to these regions is in direct contrastto the treatment of Africa, the Middle East and South/CentralAmerica. Students may conclude that some regions have richsimilarities and differences within them, whereas others lackvariety.Within some regions, certain countries are emphasized tosuch an extent that they overshadow the whole region. Forexample, although North America contains two countries (asidefrom Canada) the United States is mentioned 57 times and Mexicoonly three. Similarly, such disproportionate treatment is alsoevident for Asia which as a region is referred to 11 times,whereas the USSR, China, India and Japan are mentioned a totalof 100 times, and other Asian countries only 12 times. Thesefour countries may come to represent Asia, to the exclusion ofothers, since they dominate discussions of it so extensively.All provinces make some effort to link local and globalissues, and four consistently attempt this linkage. Also, allprovinces discuss causes, manifestations and ramifications ofglobal problems and three recommend the study of possibleremedies. However, curricula concentrate more on the factualaspects of problems rather than on their moral implications and131controversial aspects.Considerable emphasis is devoted to global concepts andtopics across the curricula. The national average of 29% at theelementary grades, and 59% at the secondary, is not surprisingbecause social studies is the study of people and places aroundthe world and through time. The extent to which global conceptsand topics are evident across the curricula means that there isfreedom to pursue global education, if a teacher so chooses.The prevalent “expanding horizons” principle of contentorganization does limit to some extent the amount and type ofglobal content in the elementary grades. As a consequence, manyprovinces do not begin to examine global content until gradefour or later, and almost twice as much global content isevident at the secondary as opposed to the elementary grades.Exceptions arise for the concepts “interdependence” and“diversity” which are emphasized more at the elementary level;however, these concepts are examined within the context of theexpanding horizons of the child’s family and community.The disciplinary sources of global content vary (single,multi- and interdisciplinary), sometimes radically, fromprovince to province. Nationally, however, these sources arebalanced, as well across the elementary and secondary grades.Less than 40% of global content is approached from a singledisciplinary orientation. As discussed in Chapter 2, many globaleducators argue that an interdisciplinary, issues-based approach132to global education is desirable because it breaks down narrowboundaries when studying topics, and allows for an analysis thatmore closely respects the reality of issues.3. Overwhelmingly, positive rather than negative characteristicsof a global perspective are evident.Favourable characteristics of a global perspectivepredominate across the provinces. Only four provinces actuallypromote one unfavourable characteristic in their curricula,although nine provinces provide ambivalent examples, in terms ofthe following:Oversimplification: Complex ethical and empirical issuesseem to be treated as straightforward or unproblematic.Compartmented: Topics are treated in isolation from eachother and are not seen to be part of a constellation ofinterrelated factors.Stereotyping: Portrayals of people or cultures are limitedto superficial generalizations, and individual differencesare not represented.Sectoral Polarity: Canadian or foreign interests are alignedin “blocks”, e.g., North-South, East-West, developed-developing countries.National Polarity: Canadian interests are consistently castin opposition to other countries’ interests in a “we - they”dualism.Obiectified: Cultures or countries are at times viewed asquaint, eccentric or as curiosities.Relativistic: Questions of moral right and wrong areportrayed as entirely relative to the beliefs of eachculture.Non-Empathic: Students are not encouraged to placethemselves in the role or predicament of others nor toimagine issues from another person’s or group’s perspective.Uni-lateral Action: Solutions to global problems are notseen as requiring multi-lateral or cooperative action fromall parties; rather, problem solving is in the hands ofpowerful countries and organizations.National Egoism: Canadian interests are emphasized to theexclusion of other countries’ interests, nor are our133responsibilities to other countries or peoples stressed.If present, these defeasance characteristics of a globalperspective could hamper the development of global studies.Alberta is the only province to avoid all negative andambivalent examples and to favourably support all ten of thesecharacteristics.In summary, according to the curricula there is considerablespace for the pursuit of global education within classroomsacross Canada. There is little indication of a lack of overallsupport for such endeavours. If a teacher has the knowledge andinclination, a significant amount of global studies could bepursued in the classroom, as there are few constraints imposedby most curricula. (Quebec has the strongest focus on provincialhistory and European connections.) Somewhat disappointing,though, current controversial topics are ignored in general, andvalue reasoning, while identified as a goal by many provinces,is not adequately supported with instructions or examples.IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRICULUM DESIGNResearch on curriculum guides is at best moderatelyworthwhile if one is seeking a means of assessing what is taughtand how. Many teachers only have a passing acquaintance withcurricula because they provide such general guidance fororganizing the daily activities of the classroom; far more134important to teachers are the textbooks and other teachingmaterials that are readily available. However, even thoughcurriculum guides do not represent classroom life, they doprovide the general content parameters and broad perspectivesunder which teachers operate. Analysis of curricula allows us tounderstand some features of the classroom’s policy context.While the diverse nature of the provincial guides makes bothprovincial comparisons and a national picture tentative, thereare some issues raised by this analysis that have implicationsfor a variety of groups that may have an interest in promotingglobal education. However, the group most affected by thefollowing implications are those people who write curriculumdocuments for teachers. For those curriculum designers who seekto enhance global studies, some consideration of the followingimplications may prove useful.The first issue concerns the widespread adoption of theexpanding horizons pattern for organizing curricular content,and its repercussions for the scope and sequence of globaleducation concepts and topics. This pattern of moving the childfrom the known to the unknown is taken for granted within mostguides without any attempt to justify it. However, globaleducators have good reason to question the expanding horizonsprinciple since it limits most global content to grade four andbeyond. What does going from the familiar to the unfamiliar meanto a child in the 1990s? He or she has a different “known”135world than a child in 1922 or even 1962. By grade one, the mediahave shaped much of the child’s understanding of the broaderworld. In many cases the “known” world contains places that arenot geographically close (e.g., Iraq after the Gulf War) andconcepts that may not be a part of the child’s immediate reality(e.g., hunger, poverty, war). Many children today do not liveinsular lives, and the advisability of a curricular philosophythat assumes relative isolation can be questioned. It ispossible, as Alberta has done, to include the study ofsignificant global issues as early as grade one.Egan (1986, 1988) argues for an alternative more amenable toglobal education. He challenges the basis of expanding horizons,arguing that the known world of the child is not limited to,nor only organized around, their family or community; rather,“what children know best when they come to school are love,hate, joy, fear, good, and bad. That is, they know best the mostprofound human emotions and the bases of morality” (Egan, 1979:10). Consequently, a curriculum can also be organized aroundquestions of morality and topics related to human emotions.Degenhardt and McKay (1988) also argue that children’s mentalhorizons are restricted by a pedagogical focus on topics ofclose spatial proximity rather than extending “children’simaginations through studies of different and remote cultures”(1988: 237). If curriculum designers wish to enhance globalstudies, a reconsideration of the role of expanding horizons in136the curriculum may be valuable.A second issue concerns the selection and portrayal ofgeographic content. As was described earlier, certain regions ofthe world were accorded a high degree of specificity by mostcurricula while others were talked about with generality. Partsof Europe, Asia, and North America were treated with specificity- that is, many of the individual countries within these regionswere examined and differences between countries were notignored. On the other hand, a region may be unduly defined byspecific countries due to the amount of time devoted to theirstudy. In these cases, an over-emphasis on some countries and anunderemphasis of others does not provide a balanced, or evenhonest, portrayal of the region as a whole. In contrast, Africa,South America and the Middle East were treated generally andalmost exclusively as unitary wholes. What do such portrayalstell students, and is the message justified? Case warns that:the study of other cultures [that] is limited torelatively superficial features of their lifestyles....is unlikely to promote an enlightened perspective on thelives and concerns of people in these ‘foreign’cultures... and may actually reinforce stereotypicalperceptions about other people (1991: 4).The solution, he cautions, is not “primarily a matter ofteaching students more about the world - merely having moreinformation may not advance students’ understanding of theworld” (1991: 5). In order to enhance a defensible global view,curriculum designers need to consider the amount and nature ofattention that regions of the world should receive.137A third issues arises out of two approaches to dealing withdiversity and, most notably, making cross-cultural judgements.The first, employed by most of the provinces, emphasizes amulticultural approach where the goal is to appreciate diversityand avoid judgements, possibly on the assumption that anyjudgenients made are largely ethnocentric; therefore, the mostthat should be done is to make students aware and appreciativeof similarities and differences across cultures. The secondargues that at times there may be a need to make some cross-cultural moral judgements, and that there are rational andexplicit grounds for doing so; only Alberta consistentlysupports this approach. The global education literature (seeChapter 2) also recognizes this tension between diverse anduniversal human values (Kniep, 1985). The arguments of themulticulturalist hold true for the study of diverse humanvalues: we may have little reason or right to disparage mostculturally determined values. However, where universal values(e.g., freedom from the fear of torture, respect for the rule ofinternational law) come into play, then judgements need to bemade. International law and treaties, as well as the recognitionof human rights, rest on a broadly based consensus about thedesirability of a global morality (e.g., the United NationsDeclaration of Human Rights). Both a multicultural and a moralapproach are necessary for an educationally sound curriculum. Ifdesigners wish to enhance global studies, then a consideration138of the benefits of these two approaches and their applicabilityto the curricula might prove useful.A fourth issue concerns what type of global education is inthe curriculum. Within the literature there is still a lack ofclarity about its goals, content and rationale (see Chapter 2);in many ways it remains a “slogan system” that embraces diverseand even contradictory beliefs (Popkewitz, 1980). Notsurprisingly, this diversity is evident among the curricula,although diversity within the curricula might be more a productof the unique educational needs, interests and traditions ofindividual provinces. Alberta, for example, adopts an issuesapproach which encourages interdisciplinary analysis andincludes a strong moral reasoning component. British Columbiaevidences something closer to an international studies approachwhich relies more on a single or multidisciplinary descriptiveanalysis, whereas other curricula, such as those of theNorthwest Territories, stress the multicultural aspects ofglobal education.Within provincial curricula, moreover, there is ambiguityabout the nature and type of global education. Many provincesare inconsistent in their support for important globalperspective characteristics. For example, 36% of thesecharacteristics are treated unclearly by provinces. Forinstance, oversimplification of issues may be both discouragedand evident within one province’s curricula (e.g., Prince Edward139Island). Curriculum designers seeking to strengthen globalstudies may wish to consider the implications of conceptualvagueness within their curricula.A fifth issue concerns the scope and direction for globaleducation within Canadian curricula. There is much scope withinmost curricula but very little direction. Units of study arecommonly focused around lists of concepts, topics or issues,many of which are globally relevant. However, information on howto make the most instructional use out of these globalcomponents is often lacking. Without explicit guidelines, globaleducation may be hampered more than helped (Case, 1991). Listsof goals that are accompanied by activities, examples orinstructions for the teacher may have a better chance of beingtranslated into classroom practice than those that have nosupporting documentation. For example, Alberta suggests aframework whereby each instructional unit explores a tensionbetween two polarities such as “global welfare vs. nationalself—interest” or “individual freedom vs. social control”; thecontent can then be focused by teachers to explore theserelationships. However, if a curriculum does encourage aparticular framework for content, then it should also explainthe workings of that framework (if necessary, through supportingdocuments). Alberta does not give enough explanation for someof the complexities of moral reasoning; anyone unfamiliar withthe suggested strategies would not able to teach them on the140basis of a brief summary, although the curriculum does refer theteacher to a source that discusses value reasoning (AlbertaSocial Studies Curriculum, 1981: 5). Adequate explanation,supporting documentation and focused instructions could be partand parcel of curriculum documents. They could be vehicles forsupporting instructional change by introducing teachers to newideas, methods, materials and literature. The use of footnotesand current bibliographies could identify important trends inthe literature. In this manner, most curricula would become lessacademically and professionally sterile.A sixth implication arises from the variety of formatsamongst curriculum guides. Curricula vary from province toprovince, from very detailed and structured to general andunstructured. Each type of organization makes assumptions aboutteacher knowledge, experience, preferences and motivation, amongother things. A general and unstructured curriculum, one thatprovides little direction, assumes that teachers will draw upontheir own experiences and knowledge to devise lessons, that theywould rather plan their own structure than have it provided forthem. Conversely, a structured, detailed curriculum, one thatprovides direction, content and activities in abundance, assumesthat all teachers may not have the same interest, experience andbackground knowledge relevant to global studies. Curriculumdesigners concerned with advancing global studies need toconsider which curriculum format is suited to this task. If141teachers have to be introduced to global education, then a moredetailed and structured curriculum that provides adequateexplanation for its rationale, goals and content, and someinstructional support may be desirable.While these implications are related to curriculumdocuments, they may also have relevance for the design ofteacher inservice and curriculum support materials.FURTHER RESEARCHSince it is difficult to provide a national picture ofglobal studies because of the diversity of curricular formatsand elective courses across provinces, further research couldexamine, with greater specificity, each individual province. Thevalidity of comparisons across provinces would be enhanced asthe idiosyncrasies of each province are explored. Researchcould also focus on the committees that make curricula. Howfamiliar are they with recent literature? To what extent, andhow, do they access expertise in global education? To whatextent are they influenced by special interest groups? Whatperspectives on “citizenship” do they assume and exclude? Wheredo they stand on current global issues? An analysis of thenature and sources of their ideas might account for some of thepresentations of the world that are evident across curriculumguides.142BIBLIOGRAPHYAVER. (1991). Peace: In Pursuit of Security, Prosperity, andJustice. Toronto: OISE.AVER. (1983). “Introduction to Value Reasoning” Population.Toronto: OISE.Access. (1988). New York: The American Forum for GlobalEducation. N.77-78.The Ad Hoc Committee on Global Education. (1987). “GlobalEducation: In Bounds or Out?” Social Education, V.51,p.242—249.Algers, Chadwick F. and James E. Harf. (1986). “GlobalEducation: Why? For Whom? About What?” in Robert E. Freeman(ed.), Promising Practices in Global Education: A HandbookWith Case Studies. New York: National Council on ForeignLanguage and International Studies.Anderson, Charlotte C. (1982). “Global Education in theClassroom” Theory into Practice. V.21, N.3.Anderson, L. (1990). “A Rationale for Global Education.” inKenneth Tye (ed.) Global Education: From Though toAction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.Beattie, Catherine. (1982). “Rawis and the Distribution ofEducation” Canadian Journal of Education. V.7, N.3.Beck, Clive. (1982). “Education in Controversial Areas” inCochrane, D. and M. Schiralli (eds.). Philosophy ofEducation: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: CollierMacMillan Canada, Inc.Becker, J. (1990). “Curriculum Consideration in GlobalStudies” in Kenneth Tye (ed.) Global Education: From Thoughto Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.Becker, J. (1982). “Goals for Global Education” Theory intoPractice. V.21, N.3.Beckett, K. and L. Darling. (1988). The View of the World143Portrayed in Social Studies Textbooks. Vancouver: EDGEpaper #13, Research and Development in Global Studies(UBC).Benjamin, Steve. (1989). “An Ideascape for Education: WhatFuturists Recommend” Educational Leadership. V.47, N.1.Bennett, Christine. (1990). Comprehensive MulticulturalEducation: Theory and Practice, second edition. NeedhamHeights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.British Columbia Global Education Prolect. (1991). Vancouver:British Columbia Teacher’s Federation.Brodhead, Tim. (n.d.) “Present Tense, Future Conditional:Global Issues and Education”. (n.p.).Burns, Robin. (1983). “Development Education in Other WesternNations”. (n.p.).Burtonwood, Neil. (1986). The Culture Concept in EducationalStudies. Windsor: Nfer-Nelson Publishing Co.Byram, Michael. (1989). “Intercultural Education and ForiegnLanguage Teaching” World Studies Journal. V.7, N.2.Canadian UNICEF Committee and the Canadian Red Cross. (1979).Why Should I Care?. Ottawa: Canadian Red Cross Society.Caporaso, James A. and James H. Mittelman. (1988). “The Assaulton Global Education” Political Science and Politics. V.21,N.1.Carr, Burgess. (1987). “Development Education in anEthical/Humanistic Framework” in Joy, Carrol and WillardKniep (eds.) The International Development Crisis andAmerican Education. New York: Global Perspectives inEducation.Case, Roland. (1991). Key Elements of a Global Perspective.Vancouver: EGDE Paper #25, Research and Development inGlobal Studies (UBC).Case, Roland. (1989). Global perspective or Tunnel Vision? TheMandated View of the World in Canadian Social StudiesCurricula. Vancouver: EDGE Paper #23, Research andDevelopment in Global Studies (UBC).Case, Roland, Martha Keehn, and Walter Werner. (1987). How AreWe Doing? A Framework for Evaluating Development Education144Programs. New York: InterAction.Case, Roland, Walter Werner, Eha Onno, and LeRoi Daniels.(1985). Evaluation for Development Education. Vancouver:Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Development,University of British Columbia.Case, Roland, W. Werner, E. Ono and L Daniels. (1984). “InterPares Educational Materials Analysis”. Vancouver: Centrefor the Study of Curriculum and Development, University ofBritish Columbia.Cleveland, Harlen. (1986). “The World We’re Preparing OurSchoolchildren For.” Social Education. V.50, N.6.Cohen, Cheryl B. (1985). “An ERIC Update on Global Studies”.Bloomington, In: ERIC Clearinghouse for SocialStudies/Social Science Education.Cole, Donna J. (1984). “Multicultural Education and GlobalEducation: A Possible Merger” Theory into Practice. V.23,N.2.Coombs, Jerrold R. (1988). Towards a Defensible Conception of aGlobal Perspective. Vancouver: EDGE Paper #1, Research andDevelopment in Global Studies (UBC).Cortes, Carlos E. (1983). “Multiethic and Global Education:Partners for the Eighties?” Phi Delta Kappan. V.64, N.8.Daniels, Leroi. (1983). “Development Education: The 20th CenturySurvival and Fulfillment Skill” Canadian and InternationalEducation. V.12, N.3.Darling, Linda. (1991). Solidarity and Strangers: Shifting ofGlobal Perspectives. Vancouver: EDGE Paper #29, Researchand Development in Global Studies (UBC).Darling, L. (1988). The Rise of Global Education in NorthAmerica. Vancouver: EDGE Paper #21, Research andDevelopment in Global Studies (UBC).Degenhardt, M. and E. McKay. (1988). “Imagination and Educationfor Intercultural Understanding” in K. Egan and D. Nadaner(eds.) Imagination and Education. New York: Teachers’College Press.Dhand, Harry. (1986-87). “Recent Research on Global Education”The History and Social Science Teacher. V.22, N.2.145Egan, Kieran and D. Nadaner (eds.). (1988). Imagination andEducation. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Egan, Kieran. (1987). Primary Understanding: Education in EarlyChildhood. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Egan, Kieran. (1985). Teaching as Storytelling. London,Ontario: The Althouse Press.Egan, Kieran. (1979). Educational Development. New York:Oxford University Press.Evans, R.W. (1989). “Diane Ravitch and the Revival of History:A Critique” Social Studies. V.80, N.3.Finn, C.E. and D. Ravitch. (1988). “No Trivial Pursuit” PhiDelta Kappan. V.69, N.8.Freeman, Robert (ed). (1986). Promising Practices in GlobalEducation: A Handbook of Case Studies. New York: NationalCouncil on Foreign Language and International Studies.Greig, S., G. Pike, and D. Selby. (1987). Earthrights. Educationas if the planet really mattered. London: World WildlifeFund/Kogan Page.Haipt. (1980). “Multicultural and Global Education:Relationships and Possibilities” Connecticut Univ.,Storrs: World Education Project.Hannah, J. (1991). Portrayal of World Interdependence in SocialStudies Textbooks. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University ofBritish Columbia.Hanvey, Robert G. (1976). An Attainable Global Perspective. NewYork: Global Perspectives in Education, Inc.Hare, William. (1982). “Controversial Issues and the Teacher” inCochrane, D. and M. Schiralli (eds.). Philosophy ofEducation: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: CollierMacMillan Canada, Inc.Hearty, Brian. (1986-87). “Canadian Perspectives on Human RightsEducation” The History and Social Science Teacher. V.22.N.2.Hughes, T. (1988) “Myth and Education” in K. Egan and D. Nadaner(eds.) Imagination and Education. New York: Teachers’College Press.146Joy, Carrol and Willard Kniep (eds.). (1987). The InternationalDevelopment Crisis and American Education. New York: GlobalPerspectives in Education, Inc.Kirman, Joseph M. (1984). “How to Teach About ControversialIssues Without Being One” The ATA Magazine. V.64 N.2.Kniep, Willard M. (1989). “Global Education as School Reform”Educational Leadership. V.47, N.l.Kniep, Willard . (1987). “Development Education: Essential to aGlobal Perspective” in Joy, Carrol and Willard Kniep(eds.). The International Development Crisis and AmericanEducation. New York: Global Perspectives in Education, Inc.Kniep, Willard M. (1986). “Defining a Global Education by itsContent” Social Education. V.50. N.6.Kupperman, Joel J. (1984-1985). “Why Some Topics areControversial” Educational Leadership. V.42, N.4.Lamy, Steven L. (1990[a]). “Global Education: A Conflict ofImages” in Kenneth Tye (ed.) Global Education: From Thoughto Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.Lamy, Steven L. (ed.) (1988). Contemporary International Issues.Boulder, Cob.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Lamy, Steven L. (1983). “Defining Global Education” EducationalResearch Quarterly. V.8, N.1.Lonzetta, Margaret. (1988). “International High Schools in theUnited States” Access. N.77-78.Lynch, James. (1986). “Building the Global Dimension of theMulticultural Curriculum”. Bristol, Eng.: Paper presentedat the Conference on Swann and the Global Dimension inEducation.McGowan, Pat. (1987). “Key Concepts for Development Studies” inJoy, Carrol and Willard Kniep (eds.) The InternationalDevelopment Crisis and American Education. New York: GlobalPerspectives in Education, Inc.Met, Myriam. (1989). “Which Foreign Languages Should StudentsLearn?” Educational Leadership. V.47, N.1.Pellicano, Roy. (1982). “Global Education: A Macro Perspectivefor Citizenship Education” The Social Studies. V.73, N.3.147Peterat, L. (1988). Teaching of Global Concepts in HomeEconomics: A Curriculum Document Analysis. Vancouver: EGDEPaper #2, Research and Development in Global Education(UBC).Popkewitz, T. (1980). “Global Education as a Slogan System”Curriculum Inquiry. V.10, N.3.Pradervand, Pierre. (1982). Development Education: The 20thCentury Survival and Fulfillment Skill. Bern: A Report tothe Swiss Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Presidental Commission on Foreign Language and InternationalStudies. (1979). “Strength through Wisdom: A Critique ofU.S. Capability”. Washington, D.C.: National Council onForeign Language and International Studies.Ramler, S. (1991). “Global Education for the 21st Century”Educational Leadership. V.48, N.7.Ravitch, D. (1990). “Diversity and Democracy: MulticulturalEducation in America” American Educator. V.14, N.1.Ravitch, D. (1989). “The Revival of History: A Response” SocialStudies. V.80, N.3.Ravitch, D. (1985). “The Precarious State of History” AmericanEducator. V.9, N.1.Ravitch, D. (1982). “The New Right and the Schools: WhyMainstream America is Listening to Our Critics” AmericanEducator. V.6, N.3.Rawis, John. (1958). “Justice as Fairness” Philosophical Review.V.67.Roche, Douglas. (1986-87). “Global Education” The History andSocial Science Teacher. V.22, N.2.Rosengren, Frank H. (1983). Internationalizing Your School.Washington, D.C.: National Council on Foreign Language andInternational Studies.Sandahi, Peder. (1986-87). “Teaching Human Rights: Why, What andHow?” The Hisory and Social Science Teacher. V.22, N.2.Selby, David. (1989). “The Role of Schools in the Global Age”Prime Areas. V.31, N.2.Short, Joseph. (1985). “Learning and Teaching Development”148Harvard Educational Review. V.55, N.l.Southern Governors’ Association. (Nov. 1986). “Cornerstone ofCompetition”. Report on the SGA’s Advisory Council onInternational Education. Washington, D.C.: SouthernGovernors’ Association.Spinola, C. (ed.). (1989). Towards a Global Social StudiesEducation: Focus on Teacher Education. University ofBritish Columbia: Research and Development in GlobalStudies.Stenhouse, Lawrence. (1969). “Handling controversial issues inthe classroom” Education Canada. V.9 p.12-21.Storm, Michael. (1981). “Development Education and Multi-ethnicEducation: Some Tensions”. Unicef Development EducationPaper No. 21. (ERIC #ED212412).Strada, Michael J. (1985). “Rich Nations Vs. Poor Nations:Baiting the Global Trap” Contemporary Education. V.56, N.2.Tomkins, G. (1986). A Common Countenance: Stability and Changein the Canadian Curriculum. Scarborough, Ont. :Prentice-HallCanada, Inc.Tooke, Moyra. (1986-87). “The Global Village in the Classroom”The History and Social Science Teacher. V.22, N.2.Torney-Purta, Judith. (1988). “Measuring the Effectiveness ofWorld Studies Courses” in Woyach, R., and R.C. Remy.Approaches to World Studies: A Handbook for CurriculumPlanners. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.Traitler, Reinheld. (1982). Leaping over the Wall: An Assessmentof Ten Years’ Development Education. Geneva: World Councilof Churches.Tye, Barbara and Kenneth Tye. (1983). “Global EducationResearch: A Partial Agenda for the Future” EducationalResearch Quarterly. V.8, N.1.Tye, K.A. and W.M. Kniep. (1991). “Global Education Around theWorld” Educational Leadership. V.48, N.7.Tye, K.A. (ed.) (1990). Global Education: From Though to Action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.Weeren, Donald J. (1986). “Global-citizenship Education and149Moral/Values Education: A Comparison”. Paper forpresentation at the Annual Conference of the CanadianSociety for the Study of Education, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Werner, Walter. (1990). “Contradictions in Global Education” inHenley, Dick and Jon Young (eds.) Canadian Perspectives onCritical Pedagogy. Winnipeg: Canadian Critical PedagogyNetwork.Werner, Walter and K. Nixon. (1990). The Media and PublicIssues: A Guide for Teaching Critical Mindedness. London,Ontario: The Althouse Press.Werner, Walter. (1988[a]). “Development Education in CanadianPublic Schools”. Presented at Pacific Rim Conference,Vancouver, June.Werner, Walter and Case, Roland. (1988[b]). “ImplementingGlobal Studies Through Graduate Studies”. Vancouver:Research and Development in Global Studies (UBC).Werner, Walter. (1988[c]). “What is Global Education”.Presented at “The School’s Role in Global Education”Conference sponsored by the B.C.T.F., Vancouver, March 4.Werner, Walter, B. Connors, T. Aoki, and J. Dahlie. (1980).Whose Culture? Whose Heritage? Ethnicity within CanadianSocial Studies Curricula. Vancouver: Centre for the Studyof Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education,University of British Columbia.Wiersma, William. (1986). Research Methods in Education: AnIntroduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Wilson, Angene H. (1982). “Cross-Cultural Experiential Learningfor Teachers” Theory into Practice. V.21, N.3.World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). QjCommon Future: From One Earth to One World. New York:Oxford University Press.Woyach, Robert B. and Janice Love. (1983). “Citizenship andWorld Affairs: The Impact of a Community-Based Approach toGlobal Education” Educational Research Quarterly. V.8, N.1.Woyach, R., and R.C. Remy. (1988). Approaches to WorldStudies: A Handbook for Curriculum Planners. NeedhamHeights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.APPENDIX A 150THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA2125 MAIN MALLVANCOUVER, B. C., CANADAV6T 115Faculty of EducationCentre for the Study of Curriculum & InstructionJuly 24, 1987.Social Studies CoordinatorDepartment of EducationBox 2000Charlottetown, PEICiA 7N8Dear Social Studies Coordinator,A team of curriculum researchers and developers at theUniversity of British Columbia are currently beginning a twoyear project on global education. As part of the project, wewill be producing curriculum materials suitable for use atvarious grade levels. However, we first need to know what arethe issues, concepts, and topics relevant to global educationthat are prescribed within provincial curriculum guidelines.May we order a copy. of your prescribed guidelines forsocial studies (elementary and secondary)? If you havecurriculum guidelines for courses in world history or worldstudies, economics, political science, geography, andanthropology, then we would like to order these as well.I appreciate your consideration of my request.Cordially,W. WernerAssociate Professor151APPENDIX BCURRICULUM GUIDES ANALYZEDNEWFOUNDLANDMaster Guide for Social Studies K-XII, 1978.PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDSocial Studies Year 4: Selected Canadian and WorldCommunities, n.d.Social Studies, Year 5: Eastern HemisphereCommunities, 1977.Social Studies Year 6: Atlantic Canada, 1980.British Isles and Germany, Grade 8, 1981.The Developed World: North America (Teacher’sGuide), Grade 9, 1982.The Developed World, Grade 10, 1979.Canadian Geography 431 (Guidebook), Grade 10, 1985.Our Changing Earth 521 (Notebook), Grade 11, 1980.NOVA SCOTIASocial Studies for Elementary Grade Levels, Grades1—6, 1981.Teaching Guidelines (History), Grades 7-12, 1976.Social Studies Curriculum, Grade 7, 1987.Social Studies Curriculum, Grade 8, 1987.Geography Grades 10-12 Revised Guidelines, 1979.Modern World Problems, Grade 12, 1979.NEW BRUNSWICKElementary Social Studies Curriculum Guide, Grades1—6, 1987.Junior High Social Studies Years 7-8-9, 1983.Grade 9 Social Studies Syllabus, 1987.History 102: Ancient and Medieval Civilizations,Grade 10, 1979.History 112, Grade 11, 1979.Physical Geography 110, Grade 11, 1985.Canadian Geography 120, Grade 12, 1985.History 122: Canadian History, Grade 12, 1973.World Issues 123 (Fieldtest Copy of Draft CurriculumGuidelines), Grade 12, 1986.QUEBECElementary School Curriculum, Social Studies, Grades1—6, 1983.General Geography: Secondary I, 1985.General History Secondary II, 1983.Geography of Quebec and Canada: Secondary III, 1983.152History of Quebec and Canada: Secondary IV, 1986.ONTARIOHistory and Contemporary Studies (Part A), 1986.History and Contemporary Studies (Part B), 1986.History and Contemporary Studies (Part C), 1986.Geography Program Summary, 1987.MANITOBASocial Studies K-12 Overview, 1985.SASKATCHEWANThemes for Social Studies 1-12, n.d.Social Studies: A Curriculum Guide for Division II, 1973.Grade 6 Social Studies: Canada’s Global Neighbours, 1986.Social Studies Curriculum Guide: Canada and the WorldCommunity, 1986.Social Studies Curriculum Guide: The Individual inSociety, 1985.Social Studies Curriculum Guide: Roots of Society, 1986.Social Studies 10, Man: A Study of the Individual, ACurriculum Guide for Division IV, 1977.Social Studies 20, Cross Cultural Comparision, ACurriculum Guide for Division IV, 1976.Social Studies 30, Canadian Studies, A Curriculum Guidefor Division V1 1978.ALBERTAAlberta Social Studies Curriculum, Grades 1-12, 1981.BRITISH COLUMBIASocial Studies Curriculum Guide, Grades 1-7, 1983.Social Studies Curriculum Guide, Grades 8-11, 1985.THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIESSocial Studies K-9, 1979.153APPENDIXCGlobalStudiesCurriculumAnalysis:ProvincialCurriculumGuidesProvince:ElementarySecondary____BibliographicInformation:DocumentTitleGrade(s)DateComments1.2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.11.12.13.14.15.154Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,“GlobalStudies”(andbyextension“global—relatedtopics”and“globalcontext”)aredefinedbroadlyasthestudyofanyofthefollowing:a)foreigncountries,cultures,orlandscapes;b)universalorinternationalissues(e.g.,humanrights,theUnitedNations,nuclearwar,lawofthesea);c)connectionorcomparisonofCanada/Canadianswithothercountries/citizens.Rationale:Which,ifany,ofthefollowingreasonsforundertakingGlobalStudiesareexplicitlyreferredtointherationale?ExtensiveSomeMerelyDiscussionDiscussionMentioneda)Interdependentworld_______________b)Sharedproblemsc)Globalextinction_______________d)Nationalself-interest___e)Solutionsrequireco—operation___f)Changingworld__g)Justice/fairnessh)Fundamentalhumanrights/dignityi)Lessego/ethnocentricworldview____j)Moreenlightened/futurelookingdecisionsk)Grossinequality1)Shrinkingworldm)Other_______________________15Perspectives:Inthetreatmentofglobal-relatedtopicsisthereevidenceofthefollowingfeatures:EvidentlyNoindicationEvidently•presenteitherwaynotpresenta)oversimplification(i.e.,treatingcomplexethicalorempiricalissuesasExamples:unproblematic!straightforward)b)compartmented(i.e.,persistentlytreatingproblemsinisolationwithoutExamples:recognitionoftheconstellationofotherfactorsthatbearontheissue)C)stereotyping(i.e.,viewingpeople/culturesinlightofpre-formedExamples:generalizations/characteristics,ignoringothercharacteristicsorindividualdifferences)d)globalpolarity(i.e.,persistentlyviewingtheinterestsofblocksofcountriesExamples:ina“we—they”dualism—North-South,East-West,developed-underdeveloped)e)nationalpolarity(i.e.,persistentlyviewingCanadian—foreigninterestsinaExamples:“we—they”dualism)15EvidentlyNoindicationEvidentlypresenteitherwaynotpresentf)objectified(i.e.,treatingpeople/countriesasquaint,eccentric,curiosityExamples:objects)g)relativistic(i.e.,questionsofmoralrightandwrongarenotdecidedonExamples:universalprinciplesbutentirelyrelativetothebeliefsofeachculture)h)nonempathic(i.e.,studentsarenotencouragedtoplacethemselvesintheroleExamples:orpredicamentofothersnortoimagineissuesfromotherpersons’orgroups’perspectivesi)uni—lateralaction(i.e.,solutionstoproblemsarenotseenasrequiringinputandExamples:co—operativeactionfromallpartiesinvolved)j)nationalegoism(i.e.,CanadianinterestsareemphasizedtotheexclusionofExamples:othercountries’interests157GlobalProblems:Whataspectsofglobalproblemsarestressed?ExtensiveSomeMerelyExemplars:TreatmentTreatmentMentionedCauses/originsManifestations/ramificationsRemedies/programsOther__________LocalConnections:Whateffortismadetoconnectglobaltopics/issueswiththoseofnational/regionalrelevancetoCanadianstudents?(Checkone)Exemplars:ConsiderablelinkageSomeattemptmadetoconnectissuesNoobviousattemptmadeOther______________________________TeacherKnowledge:Whataretheexpectationsregardingteachers’knowledge?(Checkone)Exemplars:______Generalknowledgeonly____SomebackgroundinGlobalStudiesSpecializedknowledgeofGlobalStudiesOtherGeneralComments:GeographicalCoverage:AsidefromCanada,whatgeographicalareasarecovered?Indicatespecificcountriesifmentionedandwhetherornotthecountryisstudiedinconnectionwithothercountries.GradesTopicStudiedinStudiedincomparativeisolationcontextAfricaAntarcticAsiaAustraliaEuropeNorthAmerica159GradesTopicStudiedinStudiedincomparativeisolationcontextSouthAmerica__________________ThematicCoverage:Identifyanyglobally-relatedthemes.Iftheguidespecifiesavarietyofcountries,butonlyrelegatesenoughtimetimetodealwithafewofthem,indicatethosecountriesandwhetherornotthethemeisstudiedinconnectionwithseveralcountries.GradeThemeCountriesstudiedStudiedininmultipleconnectioncountrywithonecontextcountryonly160KeyConcepts:Identifyatwhatgradelevel(s),howextensively,andinwhatcontextthefollowingconceptsaretreated.ClearlyWithinANotClearlyWithinGlobalContextAGlobalContextStatedStated&StatedStated&OnlyDevelopedOnlyDevelopeda)Changeb)Conflictc)Co—operationd)Developmente)Diversityf)Ideologyg)Interdependenceh)Other_____________i)Ethnocentrismj)Globalperspectivek)Groupself-determination1)Personalautonomyin)Other______________n)Humanrightso)Inequalityp)Justiceq)Other______________r)Other_____________Examplesoftreatment—Conflict:Interdependence:HumanRights:161GlobalGoals:Identifyatwhatgradelevel(s)andtowhatextentarethefollowinggoalsimplicitinthecontentandactivitiesdealingwithGlobaltopics.Towhatextentdotheguidesindicatehowteachercanpromote/developthesegoals?N=NoIndicationS=SomeIndicationC=ConsiderableIndicationExemplarsoftypesoftreatment:CriticalvaluereasoningTechnical/practicalproblemsolvingKnowledgeofphysical/culturalfactsUnderstandingofkeyconceptsEmpathy/concernCommitment/actionOtherSignificantGoalMinorGoalExemplarsofextentofsignificance:162KeyTopics:Identifyatwhatgradelevel(s),howextensively,andinwhatcontextthefollowingaretreatedasglobal-relatedtopics.(Checkbyindicatinggradelevel,onlyifapplicable).“*“meansthetopicisamajorcomponentoftheyear’sstudy.StudiedinmultipleStudiedinconnectioncountrycontext_____withonecountryonlyFocusofMentionedFocusofMentionedSub-unitSub-unit1)Aboriginalclaims2)Agrarianreform/landuse3)Agriculture/animalhusbandry4)Arts5)Children/infants6)Civilwar7)Climate/Climaticconditions(ie.drought)8)Communications9)Culture/traditions10)Democracy/politicaldisenfranchisement________________________11)Development,economic____________________12)Development,social____________________13)Diet/nutrition____________________14)Disarmamentandnuclearwar____________________15)Environment(ecology)____________________16)Economicplanning/development____________________17)Education/literacy____________________18)Employment____________________19)Energy____________________20)Fishing____________________21)Food____________________22)Forestry____________________23)Government________________________24)Health/medicine____________________25)Housing____________________26)Humanrights____________________27)Hunger____________________163StudiedinmultipleStudiedinconnectioncountrycontext_____withonecountryonlyFocusofMentionedFocusofMentionedSub-unitSub-unit28)Industry/manufacturing____________________29)Internationalaid_______________30)Internationaldebt_______________31)Language____________________32)Lifestyle____________________33)Migrancy____________________34)Mining____________________35)Minorities____________________36)Multiculturalism____________________37)Peace____________________38)PhysicalGeography____________________39)Population____________________40)Poverty____________________41)Religion____________________42)Resourcedistribution____________________43)Resourcemanagement____________________44)Science/technology____________________45)Trade,domestic____________________46)Trade,international____________________47)Transnationalcorporations____________________48)Transportation____________________49)Urbanization____________________50)Waterandsanitation____________________51)Women____________________52)Youth/adolescents____________________53)Other______________________________54)Other___________________________________164GlobalComponent:WhatpercentageoftheprescribedcurriculumforeachcourseisidentifiableasGlobalStudiesandwhichofthefollowingdisciplinaryperspectivesarerecommendedforthesesections:(singlediscipline):GlobalStudiesisviewedalmostexclusivelythroughoneperspective/discipline(eg.,geography,economichistory,sociology);M(multi—disciplines):GlobalStudiesisviewedthroughseveralperspectivesbutnotconcurrently(eg.,onediscretesectiondealswithgeography,aseconddiscretesectionsdealswithhistory,andsoon);I(inter-disciplinary):GlobalStudiesisviewedsimultaneouslythroughseveralperspectives/disciplines(eg.,indealingwithasingletopic,itshistory,economicandethicalsignificanceareallexamined).ElementarySocialStudies:GradePercentageDominantPerspective1______S___M___I2______S11___I3______S___M___I4______S___M___I5___%___S___M___I6______S___M___I7%___S___M___I______S___M___I(Average)(Total)165SecondaryRequiredCourses:(Coursesallstudentsmusttake)GradeTitlePercentageDominantPerspective7____________%___S___M___I_______________S___M___I8_______________S___M___I____________%___S___M___I9_______________S___M___I_______________S___M___I10____________5___M___I_______________S___M___I11_______________S___M___I_______________S___M___I12_______________S___M___I_______________S___M___I______S___M___I(Average)(Total)PercentageGlobalStudies56(Average)___S__M(Total)ISecondaryRequiredClusterCourses:GradeTitle166(Clustersofcoursesfromwhichstudentsmustselect)DominantPerspective___S(Average)__M(Total)(Total)(Average) %167SecondaryOptionalCourses:(Electives)TitleGradePercentageofDominantPerspectiveGlobalStudiesEconomics______________%___S___M___I______________%___S___M___I______________S___M___IGeography______________%___S___M___I______________%___S___M___I_________________S___M___I______________S___M___IHistory______________%___S___M___I_________________S___M___I_________________S___M___I______________S___M___ILaw_________________S___M___I_________________S___M___IPoliticalScience______________%___S___M___I_________________S___M___I______________S___M___IWesternCivilization______S14___I______S___M___IWorldCourses%_____S_____M_____I_________________S___M___I___________%___S___M___IOtherM___________S___M___I______S___M___I9-___S___N___I0168

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054896/manifest

Comment

Related Items