Chapter 3: Literature Review
2.4 School Curriculum, and Curriculum Development
2.4.3.1 Disciplinary Knowledge
The traditional approach of teaching history to transmit collective memory and emphasize national narrative came as a response to national needs early in the 20th century. Post- colonialists wanted to reinforce and reconsolidate national identity (Ahonen, 2014; Naylor, 2015; Paulson, 2015; Smith; 2011; Weldon, 2009). Late in the 20th century until today, social and economic changes caused a challenge for all societies. History curricula began to be developed where the objectives were reshaped by national agenda to prepare students for the future by developing skills of problem-solving and critical thinking (Ahonen, 2014; Naylor, 2015; Paulson, 2015; Smith; 2011; Weldon, 2009). This was a turning point in teaching history as traditional narratives of the past. Gross and Terra (2018) affirm the discipline of
119
history had a fundamental shift in the 20th century because of socio-political changes and imperialism. This was accompanied by violent conflict and genocide. This new context emphasized a socio-cultural approach and historical understanding of the content to reveal the complexity of 20th century phenomena.
Ahonen (2014), Naylor (2015), Paulson (2015), Smith (2011) advocated a multi-perspective view as the contemporary approach to teach history. Multi-perspective approaches emphasize disciplinary skills such as comparison, interpretation and causation, and evaluating primary and secondary evidence. This knowledge underpins multi-perspectives and encourage students to construct learning experiences that incorporate different sources and multiple viewpoints (Ahonen, 2014; Paulson, 2015).
The multiperspective approach is an approach that is used in the teaching of history and current gains importance among researchers and practitioners in the teaching of history (Grever & Van Boxtel, 2014; Nordgren & Johansson, 2015). The evidence can be found in the study conducted by Wansink et al. (2018; 2014) and Nordgren & Johansson (2015) who applied this perspective in the history education. The underlying tenet of this perspective is that history is subject that requires thorough interpretation and subjective analysis across multiple perspectives that coexist on a particular historical event (Wansink et al., 2018).
Thus, the authors have commented such an interpretational approach should not be left to the relative understanding of the students to compare and judge various narrative by using disciplinary critera (Stoel et al., 2017; Wansink et al., 2018). The proponents of this
multiperspective approach have also expressed normative expectations. These authors have suggested that since societies are culturally diverse, an exploration of different perspectives would be required by the students in order to develop themselves as responsible citizens (Wubbels et al., 2017; Grever, 2012). However, adopting such practices in the educational context is not easy as it requires the teachers to be equipped with subject matter knowledge,
120
pedagogical expertise, and classroom management skills (Wansink et al., 2018). These practices and teaching approaches are adopted in western societies and are effective in developing national identity. By understanding different cultures, norms, and values the students can engage in evaluation and develop their national identity (Stoel et al.,
2017).Yazici and Yildirim (2018) call it a scientific approach and state the importance of adopting it for history teaching and a means to re-construct nationalism and to deliver
citizenship values. What Yazici and Yildirim (2018) meant is to adopt innovative approaches in curriculum and pedagogical practices must support the development of analytical skills that stem from scientific approaches to deliver meaningful knowledge.
Du Preez (2014) agrees with curriculum scholars and states the necessity of adopting new approaches to understanding curriculum. However, there is a debate on how this can be implemented. This era lacks consensus among curriculum scholars. Naylor (2015) says evidence demonstrates that meaningful knowledge and historical thinking which promote critical analysis skill and causation are necessary to understand the relationship between cause and effect and have the potential to reshape attitudes and perspectives of learners. This will enhance peace building in post-conflict societies. Weldon (2009) agrees that the
traditional approach of formal history curricula inefficiently constructs national identity and is not relevant to the lives of students. Weldon emphasized a multi-perspective approach which strongly constructed "identity within the national context historical knowledge meaningful for students (Weldon, 2009).
Intervention in post-conflict societies demonstrates that, unlike standard history teaching, multiple-perspective teaching history can "positively" affect student behaviours and perception. Teaching multiple perspectives of history has two approaches: 1) inquiry approach through critical analysis of conflicting sources and 2) dual narrative approach to history education (also called "joint history textbooks") (Burde et al., 2017).
121
Practitioners presumed that the first approach allowed students to be critically engaged with
"primary and secondary evidence on conflicting historical perspectives which would transform conflict-ridden societies". This was supported with empirical research which demonstrated that the inquiry approach to teaching history had significant "impact on
changing student attitudes and perceptions about the contested past and out-group members"
(Burde et al., 2017)
Furthermore, Ahonen (2014) conducted a comparative study of history curricula in post- conflict societies such as Finland, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Baha), and South Africa. The purpose was to investigate the new approach of teaching history in post-colonialism states.
History education was included in “multi-perspectival studies”. History education today is based on skills of critical historical thinking and emphasizes the “local, vernacular history culture”. Ahonen (2014, p. 86) also emphasized the importance of historical consciousness as an essential feature of history in contemporary times. “As historical consciousness is an all- human faculty, a post-conflict generation needs the school as an arena to deal with the burden of the past and connect the achieved understanding to aspirations for the future”.
Although multiple-perspective curricula received scholars’ consensus, there are debates on the content of history curriculum and the structure of historical narratives. Du Preez (2014) states that historical narrative is imperative in reconciliation in post conflict societies because it addresses root causes of problems through transmitted knowledge of traumatic conflict from past to present. Gross and Terra (2018) comment it is a very challenging task.
Smith refers to epistemological issues. Smith (2011) promotes history education as one way of building identity in nation-building and highlights the implications of epistemological issues on curriculum content, single narrative versus multiple perspective approaches, and
122
how these debates reflect on curriculum goals to be "driven by content or by skills and learning outcomes".
Burde et al. (2017) conducted an empirical study that revealed that political context in post- conflict societies influence or shape how schools function or informs the school ideology and textbook development using as an example the two cases of Rwanda and Bosnia. Both of these countries suspended teaching history in schools post-conflict because the government was not sure how the legacy of conflict could be taught, and the government was not sure how a legacy of war could fuel conflict once again. Teachers were prohibited from discussing ethnic divisions in the class room. They were encouraged to teach the government “narrative”
to revive national identity while excluding the “difficult” history. Burde et al. (2017) believed this will keep students from learning critical skills needed to analyse conflict and to evaluate
“historical evidence”.
On one hand, it is important to present the “traumatic past” since it evolved around national challenge; on the other hand, content and pedagogy are always debatable (Du Preez, 2014;
Gross &Terra; Guyver, 2016; Duckworth, 2015). Du Preez (2014) advocated using a reflective approach that critically reviews history curriculum content to bring the legacy of conflict into the forefront. Curriculum scholars believe that without such an approach and analytical review of historic narratives that consist of analytical reviews of the past legacy of conflict, there is no hope for success or sustainability for peace education. Historic narratives enable students to understand what happened in the past, including violence, and “memories of death and suffering” (Grodofsky, 2012; Paulson, 2011). In spite of these challenges, Gross and Terra (2018) emphasize the importance of students learning about “difficult history” as this enhances learning of historical understanding which enables them to comprehend or analyse the present issues, especially in post-conflict societies to achieve what Gaultung calls
“positive peace”.
123
Du Preez (2014) highlights two issues. First, the majority of curriculum practitioners tend to
“tackle social issues on a superficial level rather than look deeply to the roots of the problem”. This promotes a political agenda with “little or no attention to ethical
consideration”. Gross and Terra (2018) identified a framework to develop the narrative of
“difficult history” which follows:
1. Difficult histories need to capture prominent events in national history such as war or civil violence.
2. Difficult histories generally contradict national values and morale and national assumptions and versions of the past.
3. Difficult histories are quite relevant to contemporary national issues and challenges.
4. Difficult histories tackle the violence aspects of the conflict committed either between groups or states.
5. Difficult history aims to challenge the habits of minds and assumptions underpinning current historical understanding that shapes the relationship between state and nation or even intergroup relationships.
Duckworth (2015) critically argues the drawback of teaching history in classrooms. Guyver (2016) and Duckworth (2015) believe that the goal of peace education must go beyond
“classroom discussion and learning skills". History education must be linked strongly to resolve root causes of violence conflict. Hence, Duckworth (2015) pinpoints that historical narratives consist of conflict trauma and controversial scenarios are a rich source for curricula content rooted in reflective approaches to teaching history. It is by carefully examining traumatic conflicts of the past, involved parties, and causes of dispute that significantly reveals “the role of the heavy hand of history in conflict.” This enables teachers to effectively
“interrupt transgenerational cycles of violent conflict”. Students gain meaningful knowledge that enables them to critically evaluate inherited legacies and reveal the taboos of traumatic
124
conflict. Duckworth (2015) and Gross and Terra (2018) advocate having students adopt reflective approaches when they tackle the “sensitive past”. Critical thinking will empower students in their search for truth and to identify root causes of conflict which will illuminate social divisions. Gross and Terra (2018) state the importance for teachers to adopt effective pedagogical practices to encourage students to handle the challenges of their “traumatic past”
in classroom.
Here, interpretation of historic trauma is a group activity where teachers and students collectively engage in interpretation of the past “transgenerational transmission of historical trauma” (Duckworth, 2015; Gross and Terra, 2018). Du Preez (2014) presents the concept of
“curriculum theorizing” through intersections, where apartheid history in dialogical nostalgia and apartheid narrative are compared.
However, Du Preez (2014) emphasizes ethical considerations in curriculum theorizing.
Nostalgic, critical content provides learners with better understanding of social injustice which paves the way for reconciliation and building collective identity. “Sensitive past” is a global phenomenon and is not exclusive to post-conflict societies. To adopt a contemporary approach is to incorporate violent conflict and trauma into history curriculum which is known as “difficult history” (Gross & Terra, 2018, p. 35).
The "dual narrative approach" requires students from both in-group and out-groups to learn historical narrative. Experimental research shows mixed results as in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Palestinian secondary students show no interest in Israeli perspectives with negative reactions to the latter's narrative. In Northern Ireland, students who been taught "subject" to
"dual history curriculum showed more interest in out-group narratives, but struggled to fully engage with alternative historical perspectives (Burde et al., 2017).
125
Paulson (2015) identified globalization as a third approach and comments that globalization has taken the history discipline far from the main purpose which is “nationalization” to “de- nationalised” and has shifted from nation-state to more global issues and perspective. History is no more a distinct subject but is integrated into other subjects like civic or social studies.
Paulson believes globalization will enhance students’ understanding of other communities.
However, Naylor (2015) comments that in spite of the important role of history, there’s a scarcity of research on “the impact of history education in post-conflict” states. Du Preez believes that it “is important for curriculum theorizing in South Africa and other post-conflict societies to adopt reflective approaches to tackle the content of history curricula. This
perspective enables us to have dialogical narratives that allow us to be critical about the root causes of conflict, understanding differences and emphasizing similarities to “arrive at intersections of understanding one another in the context of our ethical responsibilities towards one another. Reflective, dialogical nostalgia is important” (Du Preez, 2014, p. 16).
History Education in conflict-affected societies
History education has been recognised as the key for sharing identity, fostering collective memory, and sharping affiliation across communities (Paulson, 2015). It inculcates in the young people the history of the nation, influences their idea of self, and indicates the necessity to learn the future. Studies conducted in the field of education in emergencies highlight the importance of history education especially its potential to increase violence and conflicts in societies. By reinforcing the communal identities, representing a biased identity of ‘others’, and naturalizing dominance of the superior, history teaching can significantly impact the incidence of violence in the society (Davies, 2003). Zembylas and Beckerman (2008) stated that the debate is not about whether children should be taught about the past, but also how they rember and interpret it.
126
However, the contribution of history education is not always negative. As reflected by Bellino (2014), history education serves as as transmitter of past memory that has shifted from indoctrination to influence and inspiration. This results in an engaged citizen rather than obedient citizens. It was also assumed that the right perspective will create a shared identity and foster civic sense among the young individuals. This shift in perspective from
prescriptive to influential necessitates emergence of teaching methods that are democratic and incusion of histories of marginalised groups in the society.
As discussed earlier, multi-perspective approach is significant in studying history (Grever &
Van Boxtel, 2014; Nordgren & Johansson, 2015). For instance, in the history curriculum or Northern Ireland such approach to teaching has enabled children to gain awareness of multiple concepts. In Northern Cyprus, the history textbooks presents a social-constructivist model that highlightsnationalism and national identity and encourages pupils to critically think and analyse from a multiple-perspective (Paulson, 2015; Latif 2010). In addition to this, history is taught as a part of social studies syllabus in number of countries like Rwanda (King 2014), South Africa (Weldon, 2010). This approach has helped the students to explore social scientific knowledge and understand the concept of citizenship.
In Peru and Guatemela history curriculum incorporates the incidence of recent conflicts alongside peace education and subjects on human rights (Paulson, 2015). As highlighted by Oglesby (2007), past is used here as a guide to act in the present as well as in the future. The authors noted that conflict here is depicted as brutality of restoration of democracy whereby the victims are drained out of their identities. It has been highlighted that the culture of violence is now replaced with culture of peace. Thus Oglesby (2007) stated that the structural reasons of conflict is not highlighted.
127
According to Weldon (2010), in South Africa history education is a part of value-driven curriculum that is focused on citizenship education. The textbooks presents the facts in an apolitical note without going deep nto the injustice of the system. Such history education system aims at creating individuals who are productive, self-sufficient, and do not demand a lot from the state. However, Staeheli and Hammett (2013) noted that social segregation continues to segregate people and constrain equal access to opportunities to all.
In contrast the history education in Rwanda upholds a false claim of ethinic unity in the country (King, 2014). Moreover, the researchers have shown that there exist discrepancies between the narratives disemminated by the Rwandan government and the actual historical records (Freedman et al., 2011; King, 2014) that questions the core purpose of history education. This is contradictory with the principles of multi-perspective approach that emphasizes open dialogue, debate, and critical thinking. Similar approach is also followed in Yemen whereby the government has published narratives that have been incorporated in the textbooks (Young, 2010). Thus, both in Rwanda and Yemen such mythical unity among the social groupings served as maintaining the authoritarian rule of the government (King, 2010).
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be stated that history education has been used positively as well as negatively. While usage of multiple-perspective provides scope to the students for an open discussion and critical analysis, in practice, they are not followed as evident from the case of Rwanda. The fact that are presented in the textbooks are often misleading and do not provide a holistic picture of the context.