Pedagogies of Remembrance and “Doing Critical Heritage” in the Teaching of History: Counter-memorializing Canada 150 with Future Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that critical heritage studies has much to offer critical approaches to history education that are attentive to the profound challenges to settler colonial national narratives and memory politics occasioned by #Colonialism150 and the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action. The argument is grounded in a review of current debates over the status of Indigenous approaches to the past and memory-based historical accounts within competing movements in history education. If the “doing” of heritage is always contested and inherently pedagogical, this article traces the ways critical heritage studies expands the purview and vocabulary of educational explorations of contemporary memory politics in profoundly divided societies. This argument is illustrated through two examples of critical heritage practices: the national social media debate occasioned by Canada’s 2017 sesquicentennial celebrations in which dissonant publics unsettle and reconfigure state practices of imagining settler colonial temporalities and futurities; and an undergraduate secondary history education course focused on the production of counter-histories and counter-memorials to Canada 150.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".