144
analyse documents”. The articles were selected to elicit knowledge and understanding of best practices to develop meritorious curriculum.
This is a developmental evaluation to determine characteristics of a meritorious history curriculum (Guba & Lincoln, 1979). Meriam (2009) recommends that content analysis should consist of systematic procedures; hence, the Eisner Connoisseurship and Criticism frame was adopted to provide a systematic review of published research. Eisner’s
Connoisseurship and Criticism Frame consists of four components: description,
interpretation, evaluation, and it “yields “themes developed from particular case studies (Nordin & Wahlstrom 2019; Olivia, 2009; Özüdoğru; 2018; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009;
Shahidi et al. 2014; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).
145
Loftstrom (2014) asserts that no evidence of research been conducted to review the feasibility of historical reparation. Lofstrom critically examined secondary students’ perception of historical consciousness and “historical reparation”. The purpose of empirical research is to integrate the findings to reform Finnish national core curricula in basic education and in upper secondary school that would be implemented in 2016.
Loftstrom (2014, p. 516) defined historical consciousness as “the mental disposition in how people conceive of the interconnections between the past and the present and the future, how they explain historical processes, and how they invest the historical narrative with moral meanings”.
1. Lofstrom formulated research questions as follows (p. 516):
2. What was the cause of what happened? Who was responsible?
3. Who is morally entitled to speak on behalf of the perpetrators and victims of past injustices? Do states and nations have historical continuity that carries historical moral responsibilities with it?
4. Can people of another historic period be judged with the moral standards of today?
Can historians pronounce moral verdicts on people of the past?
Lofstrom adopted a multidisciplinary approach as his theoretical framework that stemmed from social sciences, history, and philosophy to address the overarching nature of historical reparation and historical consciousness that underpinned social culture which gives historical narrative a moral meaning.
Method
Lofstrom adopted a qualitative approach as the best to address research questions to explore student feelings and perceptions of the two concepts of historical responsibility and historical reparation. Qualitative research is mainly interested in understanding how people “make
146
sense of their world” and how this reality can be socially constructed (Merriam, 2009).
Additionally, Glesne (2011) discusses the exploratory and descriptive nature of qualitative research whereby qualitative researchers aim to create opportunities to be engaged in social interaction in specific contexts to have in-depth understanding of social phenomena.
Qualitative researchers focus on the context of specific settings where the social activities occurred. Long, in-depth interaction with participants in “one or several sites” provide qualitative research with rich description of the social phenomena (Fraenkel, Wallen, Hyun, 2015; Glesen, 2011).
Lofstrom selected upper-secondary students from eight different schools to have focus group discussions. Lofstrom chose students who demonstrated controversial skills to enhance discussion and enrich the study. The purposive sample consisted of 14 to 53 students, male and female, with different scores. Lofstrom preferred focus group methods because of the sensitive topic. Also focus groups are recommended when the participants are at a "young age" between 17-19 years. Interview times lasted 45 to 70 minutes. A topic guide was used the discussions evolved from four questions: “Can historical injustices be repaired? Who can make historical reparations and to whom? What could be the best result from historical reparation? Why have institutional historical apologies proliferated recently? (Loftstrom, 2014, p. 125). These questions were discussed in the historical context of two cases. The first one was the Finnish Civil War in 1918, and the second case was the public apology of the Finnish Prime Minister to the Jews for expelling them from Finland during World War 2.
Topic guide questions represented key themes of historical consciousness such historical understanding, continuity and change, past and future, value, and “individual and collective responsibility”.
147
Discussions were recorded and then transcribed and coded. Lofstrom states that students showed negative attitudes toward transgenerational moral responsibility and historical reparation. Students demonstrated difficulty in perceiving “historical reparations” in history classrooms. In addition, students denied responsibility and justified it saying that there was no rationale for why someone must hold moral responsibility for conflict that happened in the past, especially when the victims who should claim their right from preparators are not alive anymore. Based on this, students affirmed discontinuity between the past and present.
Evaluation
Loftstrom (2014) commented that Finnish core curriculum is well developed to emphasize the discipline knowledge where students were encouraged to use analysis skills on sources and obtain evidence from historical contexts. Lofstrom concluded that there is a mis-match between cultural history and upper secondary history curriculum (core curriculum).
Lofstrom attributed this to the drawback in curriculum content because of the absence of fundamental facts related to moral and political dimensions of conflict which were
“sensitive”, whereas historical knowledge promoted the legacies of colonization. Structured narratives of difficult past events inhibited students from developing historical consciousness.
This was reflected in the difficulty students had in perceiving the meaning of historical responsibility. Furthermore, Lofstrom asserts that society perceives culture and history in one way and that social reality is absent in history curriculum.
Lofstrom asserts that in spite of the freedom of Finnish teachers to choose the topic and methods, poor content is the main obstacle for student’s lack of improvement. Lofstrom asserts teaching "sensitive issues" is always neglected or ignored in terms of educational instruction and pedagogical practice, and even in classroom it lacks in-depth discussion.
148
Lofstrom, when conducting the qualitative research, did not mention that he had obtained ethical forms or consent of gate keepers. Evaluation needs to be ethical (Olivia, 2009), especially with sensitive issues like historical responsibility.
The researcher selected an appropriate qualitative approach and method of focus group discussions to address overarching themes of transgenerational responsibility and historical reparations. However, the researcher was not specific or precise about the process used to obtain Gatekeeper consent which undermined the validity of data which is drawback of the study.
Thematic step
The Lofstrom study yielded the theme of historical consciousness. Lofstrom argues the drawback of Finnish history curriculum of upper schools to develop change and continuity undermined students’ ability to grasp the meaning of transgenerational responsibility. Most importantly students denied their responsibility towards victims. Lofstrom (2014) said this concept could be developed through developing curriculum content and teaching practices.
Lofstrom (2014) recommends that teachers encourage students through classroom
discussions to be critical thinkers and reflect on moral and political aspects of history content and also to develop historical consciousness to have a better understanding of “social reality”.
Lofstrom also strongly recommends using an integrated approach which reinforces
understanding “dark past”. In anthropology, this includes looking at traditions, rituals, myths that support "social reality" and politics (Difficult history).