162
which undermines the reconciliation. Part of this is because the epistemological basis of history is to promote colonization because of the indigenous epistemology of their past and present. Cutrara says that historical thinking (structural historical thinking) increased the gap between Aborigines and non-Aborigines. In general, the six bench marks do not fit or serve the goals of TRC.
Thematic
Historical thinking needs to be adequately structured to reinforce reconciliation and truth to develop relationships between different ideas about the past, present, and future.
“Reconciliation will require us to display "more openness, innovation, and willingness to take risks" in our study of the past (Cutara, 2018, cited Brownlie, 2009, p. 33).
163 Rationale (conceptual framework)
Ormond (2017) adopted the theoretical foundations of social realism as a base to explore the epistemological challenges of teachers in their role as curriculum designers to construct the knowledge or the content (historical knowledge).
Social realism recognises the social principles of knowledge. Knowledge is reliable and real despite the social context, "despite social origin". Ormond states that social realists strive to investigate different forms of knowledge that could address the needs of learners in their present and future lives. Social realists identify qualities or characteristics related to discipline knowledge such as history.
Ormond identified the concept of powerful knowledge that enables students to think out of the box, which is also known as theoretical knowledge.
Ormond stated that Young and Muller identified some characteristics of powerful knowledge such as: (1) constructed by specialists in the "academic community”; (2) emergent, which can be changed and re-interpreted; and (3) is both realistic and fallible as it is open to criticism and is contestable. History as a discipline fulfills criteria of powerful knowledge, and evolves through interpretation and critique. There is no absolute truth. Truth has different
interpretations of reality, so it is more objective than subjective. These epistemological debates are the foundation of history curriculum. This is an important point for teachers who became curriculum makers. The misunderstanding of this epistemological foundation might undermine the selection of knowledge, which will prevent teachers from delivering powerful knowledge.
Ormond (2017) stated that history as a school subject "has the potential to deliver powerful knowledge". This depends on two factors: rigorous knowledge and appropriate pedagogic practices. Ormond emphasized two concepts of Bernstein’s (2000) the Official Re-
164
contextualizing Field (ORF). It relates to the way the subject is introduced in official policy documents and the Pedagogic Re-contextualizing Field (PRF) refers to the teacher practices needed to deliver the content in the classroom.
Ormond identified different forms of knowledge that contributed to powerful knowledge of history such as substantive knowledge of time, and place which enables students to develop an understanding of historical context, ideas, and actions of the past. The second type is knowledge of concepts such as continuity, change, cause, and consequence. The third type is knowledge of procedures and examining primary resources. All these forms of knowledge and processes contribute to structuring a framework of historical thinking that supports discipline knowledge to encourage student interpretations of history and enables them to gain understanding of contestability.
Ormond highlights that teachers were challenged to identify the main purpose of the curriculum, content or knowledge, and assessment.
Ormond emphasized more issues related to knowledge or contents such as breadth and depth,
"overview" or "in-depth" selection, and the "inter-connection between the two". Ormond advocates that teachers to be clear on rationale which will lead them to determine breadth and depth of knowledge. Broad knowledge always is preferable as it provides information needed to enhance student skills of analysis and interpretation.
Methodology
Ormond (2017, p. 606) conducted qualitative research to address the question of "What are the challenges for teachers in their selections of knowledge for secondary history programs".
Ormond conducted semi-structured interviews and documents analysis of national curricula and assessment to gain better understanding of knowledge expectations and curriculum outcomes. For the interviews, participants were selected via purposive sampling consisting of
165
six teachers who were either heads of department or experienced teachers. All of teachers were working in Auckland, one of the biggest cities in New Zealand. The teachers were asked about their foundation of curriculum development. He avoided asking leading
questions such as about difficulties that teachers encountered in decision-making relevant to knowledge.
Qualitative data transcripts were coded for analysis and teachers had the chance to check transcripts for accuracy. Then data were coded into three main categories: (1) challenge to select historical knowledge which can fit in assessment "requirement" and guidelines, and content related to substantive knowledge; (2) Depth and breadth of historical context and concerns undermining curriculum coherence; and (3) development of a history curriculum which retains student interest.
Findings reveal that teachers advocated freedom in selecting knowledge for the secondary program, but in practice this was a very challenging task. They prefer to have specificity to manage teaching.
For internal assessment that assesses performance based on two standards, the first one is cause and consequence, and the second one is "significant historical events". Teachers
commented that internal assessment was managed efficiently, but teachers were challenged to meet the external assessment as teachers had no control over selecting historical context that fit both standards. Hence, there was contradiction between teacher selections and external examiner content which would undermine students’ performance.
Teachers acknowledged difficulty with balancing breadth and depth of knowledge selection because of the national framework which encouraged a broad understanding of historical thinking concepts. Substantive knowledge underpinning cause and consequence requires broad historical context to encourage analytical skill; however, narrow topics are preferable
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.