Abstract
This paper reports on an intervention study conducted with the A level students whom I teach at a sixth form college in the north-west of England. The study aimed to survey the students’ perceptions of the purposes of history education, and to broaden their understanding of the debate. The study drew upon data from 82 online forum posts from 41 history A level students. It consisted of two stages: the first surveyed students’ initial perceptions of the purposes of history education; the second aimed to further develop students’ perceptions through the deployment of stimulus material and activities designed to broaden students’ understanding of the issue. Following these activities, students’ perceptions were surveyed for a second time to facilitate comparison. The study data indicate that students who have chosen to pursue their historical studies to a higher level tend to appreciate the intrinsic value of knowing history (as opposed to its extrinsic value, such as developing transferable skills or for the sake of employability). The study also indicates that students’ perceptions of the purpose and value of historical study can be significantly altered by teacher intervention, although the long-term impact remains unassessed.
Highlights
As Barton and Levstik (2004: 27) have observed, there is ‘no “neutral” or “objective” approach to history that can guide [history curriculum] choices; they can only be guided by the goals we develop for the subject’
This paper reports on my attempts to heed their advice and address these issues with my own A level students, rather than merely assume that they were secure in their understanding of the purpose of history education, having chosen to continue it past the age of 16
What was clear was that students valued the subject for itself: its fascination, its role in understanding the present and understanding others, and its value in providing us with lessons, both positive and negative
Summary
As Barton and Levstik (2004: 27) have observed, there is ‘no “neutral” or “objective” approach to history that can guide [history curriculum] choices; they can only be guided by the goals we develop for the subject’. By far the most significant change in responses between Stage 1 and Stage 2 is the decline in the incidences of references to prudential uses of history (Pru, a decrease of 26.8 per cent), and the increase in consideration of historical consciousness (HC, an increase of 24.4 per cent) These are discussed together, as what can be seen in the responses is a reduction in comments of the type, ‘we have to learn from the mistakes of the past’, and a move towards explanations that show understanding of the temporal dimension that spans past, present and future. What Harari (2016: 68) argues is that people tend to see the present as an inevitable outcome of the past, meaning they neither question the present nor, by extension, consider possible futures This is a significant difference in ideas (with the former undermining the importance of historical study, and the latter emphasizing its value). While responses such as this were a small minority, it is important to consider what misconceptions may be established or reinforced in the students’ minds
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
