"More tick-the-box": the challenge of promoting interdisciplinary learning in the middle years through the Australian history curriculum

The Australian Curriculum marks national reforms in social science education, first with the return to the disciplines of history and geography and second, through a new approach to interdisciplinary learning. This paper raises the question of whether the promise of interdisciplinary learning can be realised in the middle years of schooling if teachers have to teach history as a discipline rather than within an over-arching integrated curriculum framework. The paper explores the national blueprints and considers the national history curriculum in light of theories of teachers’ knowledge and middle school education. Evidence from teacher interviews indicates that historical understanding can be achieved through integrated frameworks to meet the goals of middle schooling.

What does the review of the Australian Curriculum mean for Senior Modern History?

In this paper we briefly explore some of recommendations of the Review of the Australian Curriculum Final Report (Australian Government, 2014a), henceforth referred to as the Review, with reference to Modern History in the senior secondary Australian Curriculum. We also refer to the invited papers provided by history subject matter specialists, Professor Gregory Melleuish and Mr Clive Logan, published as the Review’s Supplementary Material (Australian Government, 2014b). In doing so, we note that both documents devote most of their attention to critiquing the Australian Curriculum: History in the compulsory years from Foundation (F) to Year 10.

Introduction to Point and Counterpoint: What does the Review of the Australian Curriculum mean for History?

The April 2015 edition of Curriculum Perspectives has a special focus and casts light on the continuing development of the Australian Curriculum. This paper provides an introduction to a series of papers in the Point and Counterpoint section of this edition on the Review of the Australian Curriculum with reference to History. It makes clear that History is one of the most contested areas of the curriculum and that whilst politicians and policy makers are concerned with the importance of history in relation to national identity and nation building, history serves other purposes. The paper reiterates the need to pay attention to the particularities of discipline–based knowledge for the study of history in schools and the central role of inquiry for student learning in history. In doing so, it establishes the context for the five papers which follow.

The purposes of history? Curriculum studies, invisible objects and twenty-first century societies

A new intellectual epoch has generated new enterprises to suit changed beliefs and circumstances. A widespread sentiment in both formal historiography and curriculum studies reduces the “new” to the question of how knowledge is recognized as such, how it is gained, and how it is represented in narrative form. Whether the nature of history and conceptions of knowledge are, or ought to be, central considerations in curriculum studies and reducible to purposes or elevated as present orientated requires rethinking. This paper operates as an incitement to discourse that disrupts the protection and isolation of primary categories in the field whose troubling is overdue. In particular, the paper moves through several layers that highlight the lack of settlement regarding the endowment of objects for study with the status of the scientific. It traces how some “invisible” things have been included within the purview of curriculum history as objects of study and not others. The focus is the making of things deemed invisible into scientific objects (or not) and the specific site of analysis is the work of William James (1842-1910). James studied intensely both child mind and the ghost, the former of which becomes scientized and legitimated for further study, the latter abjected. This contrast opens key points for reconsideration regarding conditions of proof, validation criteria, and subject matters and points to opportunities to challenge some well-rehearsed foreclosures within progressive politics and education.

What does the review of the Australian Curriculum mean for History in the Primary Years?

The recent introduction of the Australian Curriculum: History as a timetabled school subject has enhanced the teaching of history in the primary years. Previously, history was integrated with geography, economics and civics and citizenship; however, in the new curriculum students are introduced to history from their first year at school. The review addresses significant concerns about the scope and content in history in an over-crowded primary curriculum (Donnelly & Wiltshire, 2014; APPA, 2014). However, the history curriculum provides a rare opportunity to explore distinctive content and develop agency by investigating personal, local, national and international contexts. This paper examines the recommendations of the review and the implications for history in the primary years.

Anna Clark (2008) History’s Children: History Wars in the Classroom. UNSW Press, Sydney, 178 pages

“History’s Children” stems from Anna Clark’s 2004 postdoctoral research into the ways in which Australian students connect with the past, and aims at bringing some classroom perspectives into the public debates about Australian history education. Although the title makes reference to the “History Wars”, there is little evidence of contestation, engagement, passion or intellectual excitement in Clark’s conclusions about what happens in history classrooms. Rather, Clark’s small focus groups with 182 high school students in 34 high schools around Australia indicate that “it got a bit dismal hearing student after student being so dismissive of Australian history” (p. 143). Apart from some enthusiasm for the study of Australians at war, a sort of resigned boredom seems to characterise what students have to say about learning Australian history, despite their acknowledgement that it is important to “know about” it.

Supervising freedom : the English profile : English curriculum; English pedagogy

This paper reflects on the development of the Profile - English as the first attempt in Australia to provide national guidelines for this subject area. It attempts to unpack the divided positions that inevitably accompany attempts to develop national curricula in a country where schooling is ruled by state and territory jurisdictions. The paper argues that English as a subject area promotes a particular understanding of schooling as either a failed attempt to achieve emancipatory goals on behalf of individuals or as a too-successful attempt to inequitably train individuals for the routines of labour. The attempt to produce a nationally consistent (English) curriculum appears to confront this understanding of schooling. The paper draws on the work of Ian Hunter (1988, 1994a) to suggest some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between schooling and English curriculum

Re-imagining and re-imaging the nation through the history curriculum.

Nationalism is not a naturally occurring sentiment, but rather needs to be carefully nurtured and sustained in the social imaginary through the production and circulation of unifying narratives that invoke the nation’s imagined community. The school curriculum is crucial in this process, legitimating and disseminating selected narratives while de-legitimating and marginalising other accounts and their voices. Certain watershed events in nations’ histories have always posed political problems in history curricula (Cajani & Ross, 2007) –however the pressures and concerns of current times now suggest political solutions in history curricula. This paper briefly examines recent political debates in Australia to argue that the school history curriculum has become a site of increasing interest for the exercise of official forms of nationalism and the production of a nostalgic, celebratory national biography. The public debates around school history curriculum are theorised as nostalgic re-nationalising efforts in response to the march of cultural globalisation and its attendant uncertainties.

“I am a secondary teacher and I teach history and SOSE” : negotiating pre-service teacher identities in times of curriculum change

Secondary social education in Australia is set to change with the new national history curriculum but integrated social education will continue in the middle years of schooling. Competing discourses of disciplinary and integrated social education approaches create new challenges for pre-service teachers as identification with a teaching area is an important aspect of developing a broader teacher identity. Feedback on a compulsory, final year curriculum studies unit revealed the majority of secondary pre-service teachers identified with at least one social science discipline. However, only a small number listed the integrated social education curriculum of Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE), even though SOSE was an essential part of their brief. More complex identities were revealed in post-teaching practice interviews. In times of curriculum change, attention to pre-service teachers’ disciplinary knowledge is critical in developing a stable subject identity.

Rethinking the notion of culture in the national history curriculum

Major global changes are placing new demands on the Australian education system. Recent statements by the Prime Minister, together with current education policy and national curriculum documents available in the public domain, look to education’s role in promoting economic prosperity and social cohesion. Collectively, they emphasise the need to equip young Australians with the knowledge, understandings and skills required to compete in the global economy and participate as engaged citizens in a culturally diverse world. However, the decision to prioritise discipline-based learning in the forthcoming Australian history curriculum without specifically encompassing culture as a referent, raises the following question. How will students acquire the cultural knowledge, understandings and skills necessary for this process? This paper addresses this question by situating the current push for a national history curriculum, with specific reference to the study of Indigenous history and the study of Asia in Australia.

Background to the development of a curriculum for the history of “cyber” and “communications” security

For any discipline to be regarded as a professional undertaking by which its members may be treated as true “professionals” in a specific area, practitioners must clearly understand that discipline’s history as well as the place and significance of that history in current practice as well as its relevance to available technologies and artefacts at the time. This is common for many professional disciplines such as medicine, pharmacy, engineering, law and so on but not yet, this paper submits, in information technology. Based on twenty five elapsed years of experience in developing and delivering Cybersecurity courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, this paper proposes a rationale and set of differing perspectives for the planning and development of curricula relevant to the delivery of appropriate courses in the history of cybersecurity or information assurance to information and communications technology (ICT) students and thus to potential information technology professionals.

The National Curriculum and history school textbooks in Australia and the Russian Federation

This chapter analyses recent policy reforms in the national history curriculum in both Australia and the Russian Federation. It analyses those emphases in the national curriculum in history that depict new representations and historiography and the ways in which this is foregrounded in History school textbooks. In doing so, it considers the debates about what version of the nation’s past are deemed significant, and what should be transmitted to future generations of citizens. In this discussion of national history curricula, consideration is made of the curriculum’s officially defined status as an instrument in the process of ideological transformation, and nation-building. The chapter also examines how history textbooks are implicit in this process, in terms of reproducing and representing what content is selected and emphasised in a national history curriculum.