Historical Significance and Sites of Memory by Michael Harcourt, Gregor Fountain, and Mark Sheehan. He Whakaaro Ano, (no date).
This article looks at the experience of teaching teachers to help their students be critical viewers of historical sites. The idea itself is great and I would love to teach PD like this. However, the best part of this article was stumbling upon different criteria for determining historical significance. I love having students try to articulate this and so having examples for them to compare their thinking with seems like a perfect compliment to what I already do. Examples:
Partingon's Criteria of Historical Significance (Partington, 1980)
Importance: to people living at the time
Profundity: How deeply people's lives were affected by it
Quantity: How many lives were affected
Durability: For how long people's lives were affected
Relevance: The extent to which the event has contributed to an increased understanding of present life
Counsell's Criteria of Historical Significance (Counsell, 2004)
Remarkable: The event/development was remarked upon by people at the time and/or since.
Remembered: The event/development was important at some stage in history within the collective memory of a group or groups.
Resonant: People like to make analogies with it; it is possible to connect with experiences, beliefs or situations across time and space.
Resulting in change: It had consequences for the future.
Revealing: It reveals some other aspect of the past.
Then, they refer to Christine Counsell (2004) again, using her example of how students can learn the concept of historical significance:
"-applying given sets of criteria for judging historical significance
-devising (and applying or testing) sets of given criteria of their own
-discerning implict criteria in others' judgements about historical significance
-using any of the above to challenge or support others' judgements about significance" (quoted from the article)
Yes. I like this idea because I think students bring their own perspectives on what is important to learn-- especially influenced by their age and their cultural background. Once given some considerations, I can see them really going with the idea.
What the authors point out is that while these frameworks are interesting and potentially useful, "these models may not be able to fully incorporate indigenous frameworks for reference that recognize the place-based nature of cultural and geo-historical significance that are attached to particular landscapes (Kelly, 1999)."
I take that to mean that these frameworks are all well and good, but applying them only to memorials and state-recognized sites of history doesn't go far enough. If the goal is a more critical history class, we have to start by problematizing what a historical "site" even is, and where we'd take students if we want to engage them in these conversations.
The other issue is that these frameworks are very history-centric and not criteria for deciding what goes in the curriculum. I can envision many other criteria one would want to consider.
This article looks at the experience of teaching teachers to help their students be critical viewers of historical sites. The idea itself is great and I would love to teach PD like this. However, the best part of this article was stumbling upon different criteria for determining historical significance. I love having students try to articulate this and so having examples for them to compare their thinking with seems like a perfect compliment to what I already do. Examples:
Partingon's Criteria of Historical Significance (Partington, 1980)
Importance: to people living at the time
Profundity: How deeply people's lives were affected by it
Quantity: How many lives were affected
Durability: For how long people's lives were affected
Relevance: The extent to which the event has contributed to an increased understanding of present life
Counsell's Criteria of Historical Significance (Counsell, 2004)
Remarkable: The event/development was remarked upon by people at the time and/or since.
Remembered: The event/development was important at some stage in history within the collective memory of a group or groups.
Resonant: People like to make analogies with it; it is possible to connect with experiences, beliefs or situations across time and space.
Resulting in change: It had consequences for the future.
Revealing: It reveals some other aspect of the past.
Then, they refer to Christine Counsell (2004) again, using her example of how students can learn the concept of historical significance:
"-applying given sets of criteria for judging historical significance
-devising (and applying or testing) sets of given criteria of their own
-discerning implict criteria in others' judgements about historical significance
-using any of the above to challenge or support others' judgements about significance" (quoted from the article)
Yes. I like this idea because I think students bring their own perspectives on what is important to learn-- especially influenced by their age and their cultural background. Once given some considerations, I can see them really going with the idea.
What the authors point out is that while these frameworks are interesting and potentially useful, "these models may not be able to fully incorporate indigenous frameworks for reference that recognize the place-based nature of cultural and geo-historical significance that are attached to particular landscapes (Kelly, 1999)."
I take that to mean that these frameworks are all well and good, but applying them only to memorials and state-recognized sites of history doesn't go far enough. If the goal is a more critical history class, we have to start by problematizing what a historical "site" even is, and where we'd take students if we want to engage them in these conversations.
The other issue is that these frameworks are very history-centric and not criteria for deciding what goes in the curriculum. I can envision many other criteria one would want to consider.