History is one of the most debated and discussed topics among the Georgian society. It is believed that history plays an important role in Georgian nation-building, acting as one of the important building blocks of the Georgian national identity (Batiashvili, 2017). The impact of history is the especially significant in the case of Georgian school children and youth, as they encounter history and history-related topics during their early socialization, both at schools and at home. As prior studies indicate, history is often sacralized and the knowledge in history, particularly Georgian history, is perceived as an homage to the past, ancestors, and traditions (MYPLACE, 2015). In the light of this specific perception, on a declared level, Georgian youth is generally very interested in history and consider it an important school subject to learn and study.
For one thing, this study demonstrates the social importance of history, while for another, it shows that the Georgian youth understands the purpose, missions, and goals of history in particular, culturally specific ways. It has to be noted that conceptual theoretical methods exploring the given issue are quite rare. Among one of those rare existing models, we consider the one developed by Maggioni and colleagues (2004) the most relevant to the Georgian context. This model suggests three different approaches to understanding the history: the copier, the borrower, and the criterialist (Miguel-Revilla, Carril-Merino, & Sánchez-Agustí, 2021). While the first category takes historical knowledge without any interpretation or critical assessment, the second approach is more subjective and relativistic, highlighting the existence of different discourses and interpretations; the third approach is rather more nuanced, emphasizing the importance of relying on the empirical data and separating the objective and subjective facts and positions (Miguel-Revilla, Carril-Merino, & Sánchez-Agustí, 2021).
Based on this theoretical model, paper aims at shedding some light on how Georgian school students view and interpret history. The key question we try to raise within this paper is: which theoretical models would be most relevant to the Georgian school students’ experiences regarding the different ways of teaching, explaining, and writing history.

To answer the above-raised question, the paper uses data collected through the nationally representative school students’ study conducted in Georgia, 2021. The data was collected through survey and focus group discussions with school students. The survey instrument of the study was based on the research project by Angvik, von Borries and colleagues (1997), containing questions regarding the ways students study history at school, the role of history in their everyday life, their perspective on history and attitudes regarding the interpretation of past, present, and future. The survey conducted at Georgian schools was administered using the Computerized self-administered questionnaires (CSAQ) approach, while the sampling of Georgian public schools was implemented using the probability proportional to size sampling approach. In total, 118 schools were sampled and within the sampled schools 4366 students were interviewed. The discussions during the focus group meetings with students evolved around the understanding of history, the purpose of studying the history and the perceptions of the subject of history. 9 focus group discussions were held in total with school students.

The interpretation and understanding of history among Georgian students are twofold: on the one hand, the interpretation of history is related to the idea of history as an objective form of knowledge and the necessity to find the “truth”, while on the other hand, history is perceived as a multidimensional phenomenon differently viewed and interpreted by historians or general public. Interestingly, in our research, both ideas are often simultaneously supported and shared by the students. In this regard, the Georgian youth has an ambivalent approach to history – it can both be perceived as an objective form of knowledge and a subject to interpretations . Eventually, such mixed views on history are reflected in the general performance of Georgian students when it comes to studying and practicing history. Despite the fact that they highlight the importance of complex probing and analysis of history, their majority still learn and study it based on traditional and standard activities, which usually overlook the complex nature of history and the past.

Angvik, M., & von Borries, B. (Eds.). (1997). Youth and history: A comparative European survey on historical consciousness and political attitudes among adolescents. (Vol. 1 and 2 with CD-Room). Körber-Stiftung. Batiashvili, N. (2017). The bivocal nation: Memory and identity on the edge of empire. Springer. Miguel-Revilla, D., Carril-Merino, T., & Sánchez-Agustí, M. (2021). An examination of epistemic beliefs about history in initial teacher training: a comparative analysis between primary and secondary education prospective teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(1), 54-73. Maggioni, L., Alexander, P., & VanSledright, B. (2004). At a crossroads? The development of epistemological beliefs and historical thinking. European Journal of School Psychology, 2(1-2), 169-197. MYPLACE thematic report: History and memory. (2015).