‘Look, Each Side Says Something Different’: the impact of competing history teaching approaches on Jewish and Arab adolescents’ discussions of the Jewish–Arab conflict

Abstract

There is growing interest in the impact of Jewish and Arab historical narratives on intergroup relations and conflict. A randomized placement comparative study set out to examine it empirically. Conventional-Authoritative official narrative, Empathetic Dual narrative, and Critical-Disciplinary multiple-source teaching interventions were designed around the topic of the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. Seventy-five Jewish and 85 Arab Israeli adolescents were placed in each of the three different approaches to teaching history and in a control group. Following the learning intervention, participants from both communities were paired by condition, and discussed the causes and possible solution of the refugee problem. Dominance and agreement in discussion were analyzed, revealing a significant effect of teaching approach. Findings show discussions in Empathetic Dual narrative, and Critical-Disciplinary feature a lower degree of dominating discourse by the dominant group. Conventional-Authoritative approach featured lower frequency of agreement on solution for the problems caused by the conflict, compared to control and multiple perspective teaching approaches.