The Purposes of History Education in the Context of “Flourishing Life”, “Powerful Knowledge” and Political Reconciliation

Danilo Kovac

doi:10.33422/ejte.v3i1.648

Abstract

Stretching beyond its theoretical field, the debates about the purposes of history education are of great importance to curriculum writers and classroom practitioners. The content selection from a broad field of history is connected to what educators deem an overarching purpose of education. With this in mind, this paper aims to examine the purposes of teaching history against the background of the two general theories of education, namely – the theories of a flourishing life and powerful knowledge. While the theory of a flourishing life encourages the development of personal autonomy, allowing individuals to make successful choices, the theory of powerful knowledge examines the importance of traditional academic knowledge for individual success. The paper will also use the context of post-conflict societies, to reflect on the question of possible purposes of history education.

Highlights

Many educationalists have contested the view of determining the purposes of history education, arguing that ‘’a specific reason for studying history is a transparent attempt to introduce ideology or social engineering into curriculum” (Barton & Levstik, 2004, pp. 26)
The consensus has not been researched even between those who have argued for precise definition of the purposes of history education
Instead of focusing its values on autonomy and individuality, history education should aim at moving humankind to the stage of its socio-political development

Summary

Introduction

Many educationalists have contested the view of determining the purposes of history education, arguing that ‘’a specific reason for studying history is a transparent attempt to introduce ideology or social engineering into curriculum” (Barton & Levstik, 2004, pp. 26). Researchers such as John White, Paddy Walsh and many others, attempt to define the purposes of history education with precision (Lee et al, 1992). The main debate has arisen between the researchers who emphasised the subject’s intrinsic value – namely, that history is important in its own right - and those who favoured its extrinsic value – history is important for moral or civic agenda (White, 1994). The consensus has not been researched even between those who have argued for precise definition of the purposes of history education. One of the most important changes was a step back from history as a means of transmission of particular civic and moral values, to history as the development of intellectual autonomy (White, 2004). The conflicting nature of these purposes is one of the many points that reflects the complexity of the question

Objectives

Conclusion