Session Information
03 SES 07 B, History and Multicultural Education and the Curriculum
Paper Session
Contribution
Nation states appear to be under increasing pressure from a range of issues that threaten to destabilise their cohesion, such as globalisation, mass migration, ‘home-grown’ terrorism and domestic turmoil. In response, many politicians have tried to find means to stress national unity. One way in which national identity and social cohesion can be seen to be addressed is through education, and one area that has attracted much attention has been the role of history education. Much public discourse across the globe shows politicians wishing to transmit a patriotic national canon (e.g. Gove 2009, Grever and Stuurman 2007, Hurst 2014), which is what makes teaching history a contentious subject in the school curriculum (Grever and Stuurman 2007, Nakou and Barca 2010, Taylor and Guyver 2012)..
Despite this focus little is known about how history teachers confront the challenge of creating a curriculum and the extent to which they simply follow policy imperatives, how consciously they try to develop a substantive framework of knowledge or focus on history as a form of knowledge. Harris and Burn (2015) have recently explored what history teachers think should be taught, but there is little explicit evidence on the rationale behind their decisions. Given history teachers have to interpret, construct and implement curriculum policy directives, and so have a huge responsibility in the process of deciding what should be included and excluded in curriculum construction (Counsell, 2000), this is an important area to investigate.
There are a number of theoretical frameworks that will be used to inform the research. Seixas (2000, 2007) offers three ways that teachers may conceptualise a curriculum: as collective memory, a disciplinary approach or post-modern approach. Barton and Levstik (2004) offer an alternative means of rationalising a history curriculum through their four stances: identification, analytical, moral and exhibition. Another possible rationale is the development of a framework of knowledge, with the intention to allow people to orient themselves in time; as Howson and Shemilt (2011) show such a framework could take many different forms. There are potential overlaps between these ideas, e.g. Seixas’ collective memory has links to Barton and Levstik’s identification and some forms of frameworks of knowledge. Yet it is unclear whether the ways teachers conceptualise the history curriculum would fit into any of these frameworks.
The aim and objective of this research is therefore to draw upon on the actual experiences and views of teachers in order to explore ways in which the history curriculum can be developed and teachers supported. To do this, the following research questions will be explored:
1. What is taught in the history curriculum in England?
2. What rationale do teachers of history have for their choice of curriculum content?
3. How can teachers’ curriculum choices and understanding about the nature and purpose of history be conceptualised?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Counsell, C. (2000). Historical knowledge and historical skills: A distracting dichotomy. In J. Arthur & R. Phillips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching (pp. 54–71). London: Routledge. Gove, M. (2009). Failing schools need new leadership. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://conservative-speeches.sayit.mysociety.org/speech/601288 Grever, M., & Stuurman, S. (2007). Beyond the canon: History for the twenty first century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Harris, R. & Burn, K. (2015) English history teachers’ views on what substantive content young people should be taught. Journal of Curriculum Studies DOI:10.1080/00220272.2015.1122091 Howson, J., & Shemilt, D. (2011). Frameworks of knowledge: Dilemmas and debates. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 73–83). Abingdon: Routledge. Hurst, D. (2014). Christopher Pyne: Curriculum must focus on Anzac day and western history. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/10/christopher-pynecurriculum-must-focus-on-anzac-day-and-western-history Nakou, I., & Barca, I. (Eds.). (2010). Contemporary public debates over history education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Seixas, P. (2000) Schweigen die Kinder! Or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. Stearns, P. Seixas & S. Wineburg (Eds.) Knowing, Teaching and Learning History (pp. 19-37). New York, NY: New York University Press. Seixas, P. (2007) Who needs a canon? In M. Grever & S. Stuurman (Eds.) Beyond the canon: History for the twenty first century (pp. 19-30). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Taylor, T., & Guyver, R. (Eds.). (2012). History wars and the classroom – global perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.