166
in examinations. Teachers highlight this issue which keeps them from meeting the expectations of a broad framework.
Teachers commented on the difficulty of holding students’ attention in selected knowledge because the topics of such knowledge was excluded from assessment. Students always prefer to be engaged in lessons that might be included on exams as students form correlations between lessons and exam credit. In other words, if the teacher has selected an historical context for interpretation, but this topic will not be in exam, students will not be motivated to participate.
Evaluation
The teachers in New Zealand delivered powerful knowledge of history curriculum; however, the contradiction between substantive and procedural knowledge, and the balance between breadth and depth undermined the worth of the new curriculum.
Thematic
Knowledge of discipline is known as “powerful knowledge” and consists of substantive and procedural knowledge.
167 Description
Harris and Burn (2016) examined the gap between policy-makers and school teachers.
Teacher voices were almost always absent in any curriculum development of history in the UK, such as the proposed change of national history curriculum by the Coalition government.
Harris and Burn examined the proposed curriculum based on several curriculum models.
Interpretation
Harris and Burn (2017) stated that knowledge is at the core of curriculum. Selection of appropriate substantive knowledge is fundamental to engage students in the learning process.
For history, the type of delivered knowledge is debatable because of contentious contents.
Harris and Burn highlighted the dilemma to identify history as a "body of knowledge or as discipline of knowledge". In 2013, the Coalition government in the UK proposed a new history curriculum consisting of a set of topics which discussed events and individuals.
Content was expected to be delivered chronologically and systematically. Teachers opposed the new program because of the limited nature of the scope and sequence of substantive content.
The new curriculum theoretical framework underpinned the Young and Muller model. This model summarises the fundamental principles needed to construct a curriculum. There are three bases which are known as “Future 1”, “Future 2”, and “Future 3”.
Future 1: revolves around the main principles. Precise knowledge is at the "core of the model" which Young calls the “knowledge of the powerful". Young criticised these models that underpinned the "draft curriculum proposal of 2013" as they did not challenge the status quo and failed to provide students with meaningful knowledge. This model adopted a cultural approach rather than an educational approach that is an essential of school history.
168
Future 2: deals with learning methods or how the child learns new knowledge to develop critical skills. The focus of the model is on practice or method, and little attention is given to the purposes of gaining knowledge or making use of what has been learnt.
Future 3: are social realism models based on the assumption or belief that knowledge is socially constructed, which gives students powerful historical knowledge.
Harris and Burn (2016) refer to the powerful nature of historical knowledge as historical thinking that provides students with the ability to read and interpret past events and reflect on the future which provides the opportunity for human development which characterises history as a discipline.
Studying change and continuity enables students to draw or connect between the past and present. However, Harris and Burn (2016) advocate using a "usable" framework of historical knowledge to achieve the preceding goals and purposes. Using a framework is important to encourage students to develop historical consciousness, to make sense to understand what happened in the past, and to "see future action".
The issue in selecting a framework is how it teaches a “coherent, chronological narrative” (p.
525). This “intuitive” approach enhances students’ ability to develop sequential understanding of past events. This is an ineffective approach. Students develop better understanding by “comparing people, events, and periods to certain references points”
(Barton, 2009).
Methodology
Harris and Burn (2016, p. 528) formulated two research questions to investigate teacher perceptions toward proposed history curriculum:
169
1. What do their reactions to the proposed prescribed content knowledge reveal about teachers' views about what young people should be taught?
2. What do teachers’ reactions reveal about their understanding of the nature and purpose of history?
Harris and Burn (2016) in 2013 were assigned by the Historical Association in the UK to conduct quantitative research. An online survey was sent (Likert scale) to all history teachers in the UK. The majority of questions covered different aspects of teaching history. A specific question asked teachers to give their opinions about the proposed curriculum. 544 history teachers participated by answering the electronic survey.
The data revealed that teachers were not satisfied with the specific knowledge and content in proposed history curriculum; the epistemological knowledge was derived from Young and Muller's “Future 1” model which demonstrates a political ideology.
Teachers also commented that the theoretical framework of the proposed curriculum lacked clarity, whereas a broad framework would enhance student learning and understanding of the modern world which requires including more geographical topics, which was not feasible.
Harris and Burn (2016) argued that teachers focused more on context, not on concept.
Evaluation
Harris and Burn (2016) concluded that several factors undermined the value of the proposed history curriculum. History teachers rejected the proposed history curriculum; also, teachers did not have the robust knowledge to develop an appropriate theoretical framework for a history curriculum. The teachers were challenged by the content of the curriculum that lacked a rigorous framework which kept them from delivering meaningful knowledge to students.
Teachers’ theoretical understanding was a mixture of “Future 2" to develop curriculum
170
content which would enhance historical thinking, and "Future 3" which emphasized a disciplinary approach.
Teachers perceived their role in the proposed curriculum was to serve the more generic aims of education than encourage students to develop historical understanding.
Thematic
The theoretical framework underpinning Muller's (3) model advocated that knowledge is socially constructed and is fundamental to teaching history as a discipline of knowledge.