Introduction

One of the first things that students of history or history education confront in their academic career is the question of historical knowledge. What is history? Is history a construct of the present? Does history provide direct access to the past? For some, the act of asking this question is an epiphany, and for others, a disenchantment. Studying and teaching history is not merely about memorizing stories and being good at telling them. Recent research in the field of history teaching suggests that history is much more than a mere repository of the lessons of the past (Baildon & Afandi, 2018). Learning history also means dealing with representations of the past constructed by historians and learning to construct one’s own representations of reality to gain a greater understanding of the present (Martineau, 2011). It involves “admitting the presence of the past still there, in the present” (Falaize, 2020, p. 57). These visions of history teaching correspond partly to what Peter Seixas calls history as a means of knowledge corresponding to the disciplinary approach (history as a way of knowing), but also to the postmodern approach and its various issues (Seixas, 2000). Several authors have dedicated themselves to the question of the evolution of historical knowledge and its meanings in the context of more diversified societies such as the United States, England, and Canada. A school of thought has thus developed around the concept of historical thinking, directing the issue of history teaching toward the question of transposing this knowledge into the classroom to deal with the dual challenge of a historical education with scientific claims that is nonetheless subject to influences from the political sphere (Barton & Levstik, 2004).

History is invariably seen as a politicized subject because of its role in shaping national identity and social cohesion (Harris & Graham, 2019). Its changes can be met with varying degrees of hostility (Nakou & Barca, 2010 in Harris & Graham, 2019; Dagenais & Laville, 2014) and controversy (Lemieux, 2021). However, Barton and Levstik (2004) point out that if we hope to change the nature of history teaching, then we might have a greater impact by “focusing on teachers’ purposes than on their pedagogical content knowledge” (p. 258). According to Audigier (1995), the purposes associated with history teaching fall into three broad categories. First is the patrimonial and civic aims, in which a shared representation of the past is transmitted through facts and results, and students are expected to adhere to this. Second is intellectual and critical purposes, where the discipline can also allow training the mind through the initiation of a scientific method, and a form of adhesion is expected as the information transmitted is based on a scientific consensus. Finally, in its practical purposes, unless one becomes a historian, the discipline can only be useful if political and civic purposes are added, and knowledge must, therefore, serve a purpose in social life. Therefore, if the purpose associated with the teaching and learning of a discipline gives it meaning, the question of historical knowledge is thus central for the teachers involved in any changes concerning history education.

However, since the 1990s, there has been a significant shift in how history is approached, moving toward a global perspective in the teaching and learning of history (Maurel, 2013). Originating from British historiography, this approach aims to promote a broader and more balanced understanding of history, encouraging exploration of the connections and interactions between different regions of the world (Stanziani, 2018). The term “global history” is often used to describe nonnational history (Girard & McArthur Harris, 2018). This raises questions about knowledge, sources, methodologies, and the objectives of teaching history in such a connected manner.

The recent reform of history education in the social sciences and humanities program at the college level in Quebec, Canada, reflects this shift. Instead of focusing solely on the history of Western civilization (Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the modern and contemporary periods), the new curriculum encompasses the history of the world from the fifteenth century onward. Therefore, my study aims to examine the relationship between teachers and historical knowledge in the context of this curricular change. I will discuss the national context of my study and the specific curricular change, as well as the opposition it faces. Furthermore, I will describe the key characteristics of global history, its different approaches, and its epistemological implications. Finally, I will outline how my ongoing project allows us to understand the relationship between teachers and knowledge, as they serve as intermediaries in the changes implemented in history education.

Canada’s National Context

According to Sears (2017), as cited by Harris and Reynolds (2018), the debate between competency-based and knowledge- or content-based teaching is universal, but the solutions are embedded in national or regional contexts (p. 139). Thus, the approaches to teaching and learning history vary internationally (Vinuesa, 2012; Nygren, 2011; Elmersjö & Zanazanian (2022); Girard & McArthur Harris, 2018), but more importantly, they depend on the needs of each society and its capacity to develop its own curriculum. In Canada, education is under provincial jurisdiction, meaning that each province and territory (13 jurisdictions) organizes its own education networks and creates its own programs based on linguistic contexts, the presence of minority groups, and their respective historical trajectories. There are two dominant narratives, one centered on the Franco-Catholic experience in Quebec and the other on the Anglo-Protestant experience in Canada (Clark and Levasseur, 2015). In addition to these narratives, the Indigenous experience is also seeking greater representation within existing programs (Vallée-Longpré & Stan, 2022). Within this context, representations of the past are strongly influenced by the specific experiences of the different groups currently inhabiting Canadian territory, as well as the disciplinary and social context. According to Moisan (2010, p. 10), the vision of history and its teaching at any given time is closely linked to the way history is constructed in that period and the conception of citizenship that is shared. In this regard, if “all history is contemporary,” as each generation interprets the past according to its own concerns (Stanziani, 2018), those guiding the modification of the history curriculum are particularly concerned with the phenomenon of globalization and the need to move away from a Eurocentric perspective in teaching history.

My Study: History Teaching in Quebec’s College System

Unique to Quebec (in its form, see Grégoire, 1992), college education has been in place since 1967, following the compulsory primary and secondary schooling cycles. Its purpose is to prepare students for the labor market or further university studies (Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur du Québec, 2020, p. 1). Within this educational network, approximately 24% of students opt for the pre-university social sciences and humanities program (Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur du Québec, 2021). As the name suggests, this program serves as a stepping stone for various university fields of study in Quebec, such as humanities and social sciences, and law, without offering specific career pathways upon completion.

The program consists of four components: general training that is common to all study programs (French, English, philosophy, physical education), program-specific general training (history, economics, psychology), specific training (which varies locally), and complementary training (courses outside the field of study). Although the program was initially introduced in 1991 and revised in 2001, it underwent further review in 2015 to update its content. This review process aligns with the broader context of updating college programs, as guided by the Ministry of Education and the recommendations put forth by the Higher Education Council. However, the revision process and the new draft program have not received unanimous support. While the goals and objectives of the program have been well-received, the proposed competencies have sparked heated debate, particularly due to their aim of avoiding disciplinary specialization at the request of universities (Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur, 2017). In essence, pre-university college education must align with university requirements. The previous competency, “Recognize the essential characteristics of Western civilization from a historical perspective,” was criticized by the working group responsible for making recommendations, stating that it did not allow for a comprehensive approach to historical reality, which involves multiple contributions from various civilizations. Therefore, it was recommended to replace it with a competency that focuses on a specific time period rather than a geographic region. Eventually, the competency “Explain the foundations of world history, from the 15th century to the present day” was included in the new program after a process marked by a second proposal on North American history.

Then, on August 28, 2020, in response to the process of updating the new pre-university humanities curriculum at the college level, an opinion piece entitled “Pourquoi amputer l’histoire de l’Occident?” (“Why amputate the history of the West?”, 2020) was published. In this article, a doctoral student in ancient history strongly criticized the modification of the history competency embedded in the new social sciences program, which led to a polarized debate with two main perspectives. One article on Radio-Canada highlighted a teacher’s concern about the formation of “cultural illiterates” (2020), while an influential sociologist questioned, “How can we understand Western civilization without going back to its sources?” (2020). On the other hand, supporters of the curriculum change welcomed the revised competency and criticized the lack of understanding or even distortion of the updating process by the opposing camp. Teachers described the process as long in the making and part of the broader redesign of the social studies program that began five years ago, with extensive consultation with stakeholders. A teacher and lecturer reminded us that the process primarily aims at updating knowledge and teaching in the humanities and does not specifically target the history course. However, due to the lively nature of the debate, the Minister of Higher Education finally issued a press release announcing the addition of a sub-element of competence that relates to the connections to be made with Antiquity and the Middle Ages. This addition aims to complete the world history course from the fifteenth century to the present day. What does this debate mean for our subject? According to Montreuil (2022), four oppositions or “common objects” emerge from the arguments of both sides. These include the spatiotemporal dilemma (in reference to discussions on competencies with geographical or temporal markers), the opposition on the pedagogical purpose of history (humanistic tradition or civic and professional), the question of identity (the identity function of transmitting history), and the opposition on the utilitarian function of history (teaching history in service of the present) (Montreuil, 2022). The vitality of the media debate generated by the change in competency underscores the social importance of history and the central role of its teaching in Quebec. Many studies have focused on the various controversies related to the curriculum in different national contexts, but I believe it is relevant to focus on the knowledge in tension and the epistemological implications for teachers. Within the two perspectives, there are also different positions regarding the teaching of history and the relationship to knowledge, which may lead to postures of resistance or acceptance of the latest reform of the social studies curriculum and its new world history-oriented competency. Presumably, teachers are not yet willing to let go of the history of the West.

Teaching Western History in Québec: From Plato to NATO

As mentioned earlier, in Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, courses on Quebec and Canadian history are mandatory for secondary education. In 2006, the introduction of a program considered too multiculturalist sparked a major controversy as it excluded certain historical content related to the national question (Bouvier, 2008). On the other hand, for some educators, the question of content must be approached with an inclusive, open, and critical objective for citizenship education (Moreau, 2017). Opponents of the program argued that one does not necessarily exclude the other. As a result, the program’s content was revised in 2017 to reconcile a scientific approach with a “heritage” role (Éthier et al., 2017). However, some argue that the curriculum’s efforts to create a national identity and collective memory undermine the interpretive and critical aspects of history teaching (Baildon & Afandi, 2018), as it tends to “favor unreflective identification with a predefined community” (Éthier et al., 2017, p. 54). While the teaching of national history continues to be debated in Québec, the history of the West itself had not been questioned until the aforementioned debate, despite being taught in Quebec schools. The Secondary Two curriculum has included a general study of Western history since 1982, and its revised version in 2006 offers a two-year course (Secondary One and Two) focusing on the history of Western Europe and North America (Éthier et al., 2017; Lemieux, 2021). It can be said that the history of Western civilization has always had its place in Quebec curricula, firstly, with the (historical) aim of fostering “pride in Catholic and French origins” (Éthier et al., 2017, p. 50) and, secondly, based on different pedagogical and civic purposes, to cultivate an attachment to the framework of Western civilization. The teaching framework for history and the resulting knowledge logically follow a curriculum path that introduces this general framework and then situates the more specific framework of Quebec and Canadian history. The compulsory Western history course in the humanities program discussed in this chapter was introduced in the 1990s. Initially, it sparked some discontent, summarized by a teacher as the history of the West “from Plato to NATO,” emphasizing the tremendous challenge of covering Western history from Antiquity to the contemporary period, in only 45 hours!

In my view, the new history course from the fifteenth century to the present falls under the so-called global history approach, which considers historical phenomena on a scale that encompasses the local, national, and international levels (Maurel, 2014; Stanziani, 2018). This approach connects local history to global dynamics and provides students with the opportunity to study a less Eurocentric curriculum. The report preceding the current redesign of the history course at the college level recognized the need for students to “differentiate major historical periods and utilize factual information related to international, Western, and national history to contextualize a situation” (Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur, 2017, p. 23). Moreover, the compulsory study of history in the social sciences and humanities curriculum was emphasized to facilitate the understanding of global dynamics specific to other disciplines while also acknowledging the “risk” of over-specialization (Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur, 2017). Consequently, the working group responsible for redesigning the social sciences and humanities curriculum initially focused on a competency in North America and the world, then expanded to cover the world from the fifteenth century onward (Ministère de l’Éducation supérieure, 2020), and finally integrated the foundations of Western culture from Antiquity and the Middle Ages into the world history perspective (Ministère de l’Éducation supérieure, 2021). In addition to adopting a global perspective, the new course also incorporates many related to the practical purposes of Audigier (1995). Several competency elements in the new course reflect this, such as “identifying the characteristics of historical knowledge construction,” “formulating a historical explanation,” and “interpreting a contemporary issue from a historical perspective” (Ministère de l’Éducation supérieure, 2021). Thus, the introduction of the new course is a response to the contextual logic of a “program approach” where the knowledge acquired in core subjects (history, psychology, economics) supports the learning of other humanities courses in the program (geography, anthropology, sociology, etc.). This logic aligns perfectly with the goals of the global history project, which promotes interdisciplinary openness and highlights the educational challenge of responding to the phenomenon of global globalization in humanities education.

Finally, the new competency, its sub-elements, and performance criteria have been announced. However, it is up to the teachers to determine the content indicators that will identify the key concepts to be addressed in the course and the didactic sequence of its teaching. In this context, what are the implications of introducing a global perspective to history teaching from an epistemological standpoint? To answer this question, it is important to examine the advocates of this historiographic trend and then consider how teachers translate official policies into curricula or content (Harris & Reynolds, 2018).

World History, Global History…

How are these two terms similar? Osterhammel distinguished the world and global history as follows: “World history is the history of different civilizations and their comparison, while global history is the history of contacts and interactions between civilizations” (Osterhammel, 2005 cited by Grosser, 2011, p. 15). According to Clarence-Smith et al. (2006), it is specifically the examination of the process of globalization that differentiates global history from world history. But what globalization are they talking about? According to Stanziani (2018), specialists of the nineteenth century, the Renaissance, the Middle Ages, Antiquity, and even the Neolithic are entitled to identify their own globalization phenomena according to their respective frameworks, but I will not settle this debate here.

Faced with the need to draw a line in the intellectual claims of these specialists, Stanziani (2018) puts forward the question of sources as a criterion. It is not enough to say that one is doing global history to do so, but the objectives, methodology, and conclusions must be oriented toward particular ends. However, there is a certain methodological vagueness about the methods, which can be explained in part by the currents of interest in the 1990s (Stanziani, 2018; Maurel, 2018). Indeed, it is customary to trace the questioning of global history back to the currents of comparative history and its first roots in the development of the social sciences and then to the methodological criteria that Marc Bloch attempted to provide (Maurel, 2018). The limits of comparative history lie, however, in the need to know several languages and master several historiographies at the same time, but above all, as Maurel (2018) points out, in the methodological vagueness that has not, despite all of Marc Bloch’s attempts, been completely resolved. Other authors propose different approaches in universal history, in historical sociology, and, of course, in economic history.

Thus, what characterizes the project of global history is probably the need for a more comprehensive history in the context of the study of globalization in the humanities. To understand a world in which the Western world is no longer the center, the humanities must be open to different perspectives to understand world dynamics (Metro, 2020). Since the study of this globalization requires markers, it also requires the restitution of the dynamics at the origin of the phenomena studied in the field of the respective disciplines making up the humanities in Quebec (geography, anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics). To this end, global history seems to me to respond to a need to build networks of knowledge from which to connect the study of different subjects in a so-called program or global approach to pre-university education in the humanities.

Epistemological Implications

On the side of French historiography, the publication of Patrick Bucheron’s “Histoire mondiale de la France” (2017) has recently raised a significant media debate. As with the reactions to curricular change in Quebec summarized in the introduction, the perspective of a world history of France is perceived as a way of bypassing or contesting national identity (Bucheron quoted by De Baecque and Ion, 2018), reflecting the idea of Girard and McArthur Harris suggesting that global history is often perceived as nonnational history (2018). But is it? Cadpuy (2015) reminds us, however, that “global history does not eclipse other histories, revolutions, genres, beliefs.” On the other hand, the “principles of global history have a relevance that extends far beyond” (Testot dir., 2015, p. 244). Indeed, it might be a step forward to do away with the so-called national novel, but not necessarily with national history which, in a world history teaching scenario, is still a point of reference from which it is possible to establish connections between societies in other geographical areas.

Without a doubt world history, global history, and even connected history share several aims, those of “decompartmentalising, reframing, reconnecting, stepping aside, and thinking in equal parts” (Capdepuy in Testot dir., 2015, pp. 245–246). All these aims imply drawing on the method of scholarly history while adopting various perspectives to break with a ready-to-teach history. Finally, for the historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam (2014, p. 2), in his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France on the origins of global history:

It turns out that in today’s world there is a growing interest and curiosity in this type of history, which is not, however—and this is my deep conviction—intended to replace history done on a regional, national, or continental scale but to complement it. I am also convinced that new synergies can even be found by combining these varieties of history under one roof.

This perspective is shared by Laurent Testot (2015, p. 12), for whom the project of global history is to “connect and put into comparative perspective all these national histories, which have been severely compartmentalized until now, in order to bring out an invisible substance, made up of interactions, migrations, and exchanges.” This perspective has also been severely criticized in Quebec, where global history is welcomed as a thumb in the eye of national history. However, as Stanziani (2018) argues, I believe that it is the complementarity of these views and epistemologies that makes it possible to account for the real complexity of the issues and realities of the world today.

In sum, the shift toward global history in the teaching and learning of history brings about significant epistemological implications. It challenges traditional Eurocentric perspectives and encourages a more inclusive and interconnected understanding of the past (Metro, 2020). Global history seeks to break down the boundaries between national narratives and explores the interdependencies and exchanges between different regions and cultures (Maurel, 2013). By adopting a global approach, historians aim to overcome the limitations of a narrow focus on individual nations or regions and instead examine broader patterns, networks, and flows of historical events and processes (Stanziani, 2018).

Teaching Global History, A Context for Reform

Considering … how does the global history project serve as an epistemological critique of the writing and teaching of history within the framework of college studies in Quebec? I have already addressed this question to some extent, but I would like to attempt to answer it by focusing on the teachers, as intermediaries between the political and the curriculum.

Given that history is a subject with political implications, it is expected that a reform would immediately reflect the aims and objectives of the education system (Harris & Graham, 2019). Teachers serve as intermediaries (Harris & Reynolds, 2018), and their interpretations of a curriculum can vary (Lanoix, 2015; Spillane et al., 2002). The actual implications of such a change ultimately involve an adherence to a specific historical perspective that can be interpreted in different ways within a non-prescriptive curriculum where teachers are largely responsible for the content. The spatiotemporal dilemma arising from the choice of the course’s timeframe highlights the importance of connections from the fifteenth century onward, while also necessitating an awareness of the Eurocentric nature of history education. As Brian Girard and Lauren McArthur Harris state (2018, p. 255), “Teachers may recognize Eurocentrism but not know how to avoid it.” The recent curricular change in history education in Quebec reflects the broader shift toward global history. Moving from a focus on the history of Western civilization to a more encompassing history of the world, this change challenges teachers to reevaluate their relationship with historical knowledge and adapt their pedagogical practices accordingly. It requires them to familiarize themselves with new content, methodologies, and perspectives and to develop strategies for teaching global history effectively. Thus, a critical epistemology of history and its teaching is emphasized through this course. I believe that it is precisely this aspect that encounters resistance, as the knowledge typically associated with the discipline, especially its study from the origins of human civilizations, is questioned in some way. Since teachers are ultimately seeking a form of balance in their profession (Lanoix, 2015), it would be interesting to better understand how they adapt to these changes through the examination of their representations and beliefs about the subjects of global history and its teaching.

The shift toward global history in the teaching and learning of history represents a significant departure from traditional national and Eurocentric frameworks. It promotes a broader and more interconnected understanding of the past, emphasizing the importance of historical knowledge and the mechanisms of historical production. In the Canadian context, the recent curricular change in Quebec reflects this shift and raises important questions about teaching methodologies, epistemological implications, and the role of teachers as facilitators of this change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the curricular change in Quebec toward the teaching of global history reflects a critical approach aimed at better preparing students to navigate the complexities of a globalized world. By incorporating global perspectives, the curriculum acknowledges the interconnectedness of societies and the importance of understanding historical dynamics beyond national boundaries. However, critics argue that this shift may lead to a neglect of pivotal periods such as Antiquity and the Middle Ages, which are crucial for comprehending the development of Western civilization. While teachers are trained to recognize and incorporate the contributions of non-European civilizations, avoiding a Eurocentric perspective requires additional epistemic knowledge and understanding. It is important to note that while certain phenomena are experienced globally, the solutions and adaptations to global history teaching are likely to be shaped at the national and local levels. Each society must determine its own response to the challenges of globalization, drawing upon updated knowledge to develop new history curricula. Overall, the introduction of global history in Quebec’s curriculum reflects a critical epistemology that challenges traditional approaches to history teaching. It calls for a broader understanding of historical dynamics and encourages educators to explore new perspectives and knowledge to better equip students for an increasingly interconnected world. By examining the national and epistemological context, as well as the experiences of teachers, I think we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with teaching history from a global perspective. Understanding their perspectives will help identify potential areas of support and professional development needed to enhance the quality of history education in this new framework.