1052333

research-article2021
RERXXX10.3102/00346543211052333PopaOperationalizing Historical Consciousness

Review of Educational Research

April 2022, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 171­–208
DOI: 10.3102/00346543211052333
https://doi.org/

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

  © The Author(s) 2021. https://journals.sagepub.com/home/rer

Operationalizing Historical Consciousness:

A Review and Synthesis of the Literature on
Meaning Making in Historical Learning

Nathalie Popa
McGill University

In response to the growing need for more relevant school history, the notion
of historical consciousness has come to represent a way to help students
understand the links between past, present, and future. However, translating
the construct into practice in an ongoing puzzle in the field. Recently, efforts
have been made to operationalize historical consciousness via a competency-
based approach, but this is arguably problematic, because its proponents
view historical consciousness as a hermeneutic quest for meaning yet opera-
tionalize it as a set path of mental processing. This article explores a different
approach based on meaning-making practice. It does so through an extensive
review and synthesis of the relevant literature, and based on the results, it
suggests operationalizing historical consciousness through negotiating the
presence of the past, inquiring about the past with the help of disciplinary and
everyday habits of mind, and building a sense of historical being.

Keywords: history education, historical consciousness, historical competence

Lately, the field of research on history education has paid a great deal of atten-
tion to making school history more relevant for students. This is generally consid-
ered a timely task for history educators and researchers alike, as recently
showcased in the 2019 EuroClio (European Association of History Educators)
Annual Conference, titled Bringing History to Life, where members came together
to discuss two questions: “How can we better engage students in history?” and
“How can we make history teaching meaningful for them?” (De Julio, 2019).
Research shows that students generally have difficulty seeing the value of school
history and how it relates to their lives. Studies suggest that many struggle to
grasp the purpose or importance of learning history (Haydn & Harris, 2010; Lee
& Howson, 2009; Van Straaten et al., 2015, 2018), or alternatively, are able to
recognize its interest, but feel dismissed or disengaged from the way it is taught in
schools (Angvik & von Borries, 1997; Grever et al., 2011; Traille, 2007;

171
Popa
VanSledright, 2011; Virta, 2016). In the attempt to make history more relevant, a
constructivist pedagogical approach has increasingly been promoted in curricula,
studied by researchers, and used in classrooms over the past decades (Carretero
et al., 2017; Davies, 2017; Köster et al., 2014). According to this approach, his-
tory should be taught as a form of thought and inquiry into human life in time. It
should aim to help students become engaged thinkers who can examine historical
sources and understand how historical knowledge is produced and contested, as
well as reflective agents who understand how history shapes the world they live
in and how they are themselves actors within ongoing historical developments. As
part of the ongoing conversation about aims, content, and instructional strategies
that make historical learning more relevant, scholars have developed various
notions, namely, historical thinking, historical understanding, historical reason-
ing, historical literacy, historical mindedness, use-of-history, historical empathy,
historical agency, historical identity, heritage education, historical narrative, and
historical consciousness. Although they often with overlapping meanings and
implications, these notions hold great potential to rethink school history so as to
make it more relevant to students’ lives.
This article focuses on historical consciousness, but the construct is broadly
conceptualized as meaning-making practice, and this review thus includes notions
that are commonly considered outside of what is typically conceived of as histori-
cal consciousness. Historical consciousness is generally viewed as a process by
which people understand the links between past, present, and future to position
themselves in time (Clark & Grever, 2018; Clark & Peck, 2019; Karlsson, 2011;
Körber, 2015; Lee, 2004; Rüsen, 2004, 2012; Seixas, 2012, 2017; Van Straaten
et al., 2015; von Borries, 2011; Zanazanian & Nordgren, 2019). The concept is
rooted in various traditions of modern Western philosophy and historical thought,
namely, idealism, historicism, hermeneutics, and phenomenology. These tradi-
tions posit history as a form of experience or mode of existence. This perspective
was mainly adopted by theorists and researchers in West Germany in the 1960s to
1970s, the first to conceptualize the notion of historical consciousness for history
education (Ahonen, 2001; Rüsen, 1987). Interest in historical consciousness in
educational research increased in Germany during the 1980s and expanded during
the 1990s to other countries following a large-scale, cross-cultural, quantitative
study into European youth’s historical consciousness, and construction of histori-
cal meaning (Angvik & von Borries, 1997). In the 1990s, historical consciousness
became a widely used concept in international scholarship and even an explicit
curricular goal in different countries. At the turn of the 2000s, it was viewed as a
chief component in what was termed the “new enterprise known as research on
history teaching and learning” (Stearns et al., 2000, p. 5). Since then, significant
international efforts have been made to theorize the notion in English (Seixas,
2004). Today, history educationists around the world discuss the concept by draw-
ing on historical theory, educational psychology, sociology, and anthropology,
and also interdisciplinary fields such as memory and heritage studies, media stud-
ies, and museum studies.
Interest in the educational implications of historical consciousness has been
blooming and there is minimal dispute over its importance. However, translat-
ing the theoretical construct to teaching and learning is a pressing concern. As

172
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
a leading scholar states, the field is currently faced with the “challenge in mov-
ing from the theoretical to an educational program [ . . . ] a framework that
would offer guidance for developing young people’s understanding” (Seixas,
2017, p. 61). That being said, important efforts have recently been made to
operationalize historical consciousness for educational purposes. Following
from pressures to promote standardized domain-specific competences, the idea
of a historical sense-making competence has become especially influential at a
curricular level in various countries. The appeal of this competency-based
approach is attributable to recent trends in educational discourse, driven by
desires for measurable outcomes and real-world learning goals like critical
thinking, methodological inquiry skills, and multiperspectival understanding
(Körber, 2015). In this respect, research has investigated levels of knowledge,
developmental processes, learning achievements, forms of assessment, and
teaching practices for such a competence. Scholars have produced frameworks
that draw on historical consciousness to elaborate a historical competence.
These have been produced, for example, by scholars in Canada (Duquette,
2015); Austria, Germany, and Switzerland (Körber & Meyer-Hamme, 2015;
Waldis et al., 2015); and Sweden (Eliasson et al., 2015). These mostly empha-
size higher order mental processes of historical thinking and/or narrative think-
ing, namely, being able to devise and deal with historical questions; to review
and develop historical judgments; to examine, interpret, and evaluate historical
sources; and to know and use historical concepts and categories as well as
epistemological and procedural concepts. These frameworks, or “competence
models” (Körber, 2015), serve to translate historical consciousness into
explicit, measurable, and transferable learning objectives that can be taught
and evaluated in a systematic way.
While these models of historical competence are undoubtedly useful, they tend
to adopt a cognitive developmental standpoint. They view historical conscious-
ness as a set of clear-cut mental operations that serve to effectively respond to a
situation in the context of historical learning, or in other words to adequately
address cognitive difficulties by thinking historically or narratively. Several
scholars have already expressed concerns with regard to operationalizing histori-
cal consciousness in this manner (Friedrich, 2014; Grever & Adriaansen, 2019;
Nordgren, 2019; Thorp & Persson, 2020), because it fails recognize how relation-
ships between people, cultural tools, practices, situations, contexts, and communi-
ties shape historical meaning making, and thus how students learn history. There
is arguably a tension between, on one hand, viewing historical consciousness as
an existential and hermeneutic quest for meaning that encompasses a vast, rich,
and ambiguous array of ways in which people and societies situate themselves in
time and represent their past to themselves and others; and on the other hand,
operationalizing pedagogical goals and practices in terms of a precise, narrow set
of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to carry out cognitive procedures that
model those of the academic discipline. The intention of this article is not to give
a systematic review of where the field stands on the topic of historical conscious-
ness. Rather it seeks to explore what the field knows about meaning making and,
based on this knowledge, to propose a more actionable conceptualization of his-
torical consciousness.

173
 Guiding Perspectives and Methods for the Review
In this review, I define historical consciousness as a disposition to engage with
history so as to make meaning of past human experience for oneself, or in other
words, to make the historical past one’s own. This disposition is manifested in
three interrelated abilities—sensitivity toward the past, understanding of the past,
representation of oneself in relation to history—and each ability is associated with
a particular meaning-making process—respectively, experiencing historical tem-
porality, interpreting historical material, and orientating in practical life through
history. This definition is strongly inspired by Boix Mansilla and Gardner’s (2007)
and Nordgren and Johansson’s (2015) understandings of historical consciousness.
In examining how the construct of global consciousness applies to classroom
instruction in different subjects, Boix Mansilla and Gardner (2007) define global
consciousness as “the capacity and the inclination to place our self and the people,
objects, and situations with which we come into contact within the broader matrix
of our contemporary world” (p. 57). In their view, global consciousness positions
the self along an axis of space, and historical consciousness does so along an axis
of time (Boix Mansilla & Gardner, 2007, p. 59). They draw on Rüsen’s (2004)
view of historical consciousness and on Damasio’s (1999) neuropsychological
understanding of human consciousness as a complex mental capacity that enables
the construction of an autobiographical self. Based on those ideas, they claim
there are three cognitive–affective capacities at play in historical consciousness:
sensitivity “toward objects [and circumstances] in our environment [ . . . ] with
which the self comes into contact”; understanding, or the “organization [ . . . ] of
mental representations” that enable us to “reinterpret experience” thus “confer-
ring new meaning on our experiences”; and self-representation, or “the reflective
capacity to understand ourselves as knowers and feelers—and as historical actors”
(Boix Mansilla & Gardner, 2007, p. 58). Rüsen’s (2005) notion of historical con-
sciousness also inspires Nordgren and Johansson’s (2015) conceptual framework
of intercultural learning. They propose this framework “to analyse and heuristi-
cally raise questions about intercultural dimension in history education, or to
guide the practical planning of history lessons” (Nordgren & Johansson, 2015, p.
3). Their framework similarly outlines historical consciousness as three abilities:
the ability to experience which is “expressed as sensitivity to the presence of the
past around us”; the ability to interpret, which amounts to “mak[ing] sense of the
past in the form of history” and thus “understanding the significance (or meaning)
of an event, the causes behind a process of change, and the structure of historical
narratives”; and the ability to orient, which means utilizing experience and inter-
pretation “for the purpose of making sense of contemporary situations and for
identifications” (Nordgren & Johansson, 2015, pp. 4–5). Because I was more con-
cerned with practice than theory, the definition of historical consciousness that
guides this review only borrows from Rüsen (2004, 2005) the basic structure that
Boix Mansilla and Gardner (2007) and Nordgren and Johansson (2015) draw on,
but does not engage with his theoretical work, notably his typology of the ontoge-
netic development of historical consciousness, his views on historical culture,
moral consciousness, and narrative competence, or his disciplinary matrix of his-
toriography and everyday life.

174
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
Importantly, there are several assumptions that support this conception of his-
torical consciousness. First, history refers to a body of knowledge, a method of
inquiry and a form of social memory, and thus broadly represents a lens through
which we as humans can be aware of and understand remnants of the past that
people over time have preserved and given meaning to; thus, it is also a transfor-
mative lens through which meaning can be made by connecting us with a world
beyond our own existence (Becker, 1932; Lee, 2011; Osborne, 2006). Accordingly,
and second, consciousness refers, as for Boix Mansilla and Gardner (2007)
inspired by Damasio’s (1999) work, to the construction of the subjective mind in
mutual interaction with the world, which involves a complex, integrated interplay
of embodied mental processes, such as memories, knowledge, reflection, motiva-
tions, feelings, emotions, and expectations, that relate our experiences of the
world to our changing autobiographical self. This is what is meant by “making the
past one’s own.” Students come to their history lessons already possessing this
disposition. They enhance it not by progressing toward and ultimately attaining,
through proper practice, a more sophisticated sense-making competence, but
rather by continually and in no particular order transforming how they relate to
the world and how they understand themselves.
This is as much about subjective sensations and perceptions, as it is about
reasoning and thinking, as it is about affect and identity, as it is about participat-
ing in the situated practices, discourses, and norms of a community, no matter
what age and level of education. Such learning takes place not only in the class-
room but also, and likely even more so, beyond the classroom, as it is inter-
twined with socialization into systems of meaning. Thus, and third, to cultivate
the disposition of making the historical past one’s own is to learn to make mean-
ing. Several theories, namely, cultural–historical psychology, pragmatism, con-
structivism, and social constructionism, view learning as meaning making. This
review largely embraces this shared notion without subscribing to a single the-
ory. It adopts the comprehensive understanding formulated by Jarvis (2018),
who defines learning as

the combination of processes throughout a lifetime whereby the whole person—body

(genetic, physical, and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values,
emotions, beliefs and senses)—experiences social situations, the perceived content of
which is then transformed cognitively, emotively, or practically (or through any
combination) and integrated into the individual’s biography resulting in a continually
changing (or more experienced) person. (p. 19)

With these views on historical consciousness and learning as meaning making, I

was able to broaden the scope of the review. I was intent on not circumscribing
historical consciousness within a narrow conception, precisely because my aim is
to consider a pedagogy of historical consciousness in terms of meaning-making
practice rather than competence development.
Based on those definitions and assumptions, the guiding question of the review
was, “How can students cultivate historical consciousness when they learn his-
tory?” This included the following subquestions: what do the abilities of sensitiv-
ity to the past, understanding of the past, and self-representation in relation to

175
Popa
history entail; what is involved in the processes of experiencing historical tempo-
rality, interpreting historical material, and orienting in practical life through his-
tory; and how does the experience of temporality foster a sensibility toward the
past, how does the interpretation of historical material foster an understanding of
the past, and how does orientation in practical life through history foster the rep-
resentation of self in relation to history? In what follows, I present the parameters
I used for searching and selecting literature to answer these questions, as well as
the strategies I employed to analyze the selected papers.
I wanted the review to be as comprehensive as possible. My aim was to
locate all relevant recent research and include as much variability as possible. I
included conceptual and theoretical pieces, literature reviews, meta-analyses,
and empirical studies in history education. I also purposely included scholarship
that takes diverse disciplinary perspectives and epistemological positions,
including psychological, cognitive science, sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and
critical theory, and that employs different qualitative and quantitative method-
ological traditions, including quasi-experimental studies, large-scale surveys,
and interpretative, ethnographic, and case studies. Aspects such as the study
design, participants, sample, settings, and risk of bias of empirical studies did
not constitute criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Though I cast a wide net, an
iterative and systematic search process was undertaken from January 2017 to
February 2019. To identify and retrieve relevant papers, I conducted electronic
searches of bibliographic databases, namely, Education Research Information
Center (ERIC) and Google Scholar.
To retrieve papers, I first identified relevant keywords and subject words
based on a preliminary search in each database. With that set of terms, I then
experimented with different Boolean search strings. Ultimately, the search
query I used was TI,AB,SU((“history education*” OR “history didactic*” OR
“learning history” OR “teaching history” OR “history instruction*”) AND
(“historical consciousness” OR “historical thinking” OR “historical understand-
ing” OR “historical reasoning” OR “historical literacy” OR “historical minded-
ness” OR “historical culture” OR “heritage education” OR “use-of-history” OR
“historical agency” OR “historical empathy” OR “historical narrati*” OR “his-
torical identit*” OR “historical meaning*” OR “historical sense* OR “sense of
the past”)). I included peer-reviewed articles and chapters from published aca-
demic books and conference proceedings. I limited the search to academic, pub-
lications written in English between 1998 and 2018. I did not include
non-peer-reviewed practitioner-oriented sources such as instructional programs,
materials, or lesson plans. I also left out dissertations and opinion/advocacy
pieces. Moreover, I employed a “snowball” strategy to include publications that
my database search might have missed by searching reference lists in the rele-
vant papers. I screened the results of my queries by titles, abstracts, and full text
to assess the suitability of retrieved articles, removing ineligible or less relevant
studies and duplicates at each stage. I selected papers based on the extent to
which they provided answers to the following questions in the field of K–12
history education: what kind of meaning do students derive from the study of
history; how do students make, communicate and/or perform meaning; what
obstacles hinder students from making meaning; what pedagogical practices

176
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
support student meaning making; and what decisions do teachers make about
curriculum and instruction to encourage student meaning making?
As a result of this filtering process, 187 relevant papers were selected for
closer examination. Given the heterogeneity of the papers, I employed an inter-
pretive as opposed to integrative approach to synthesis, which as Dixon-Woods
et al. (2005) write, helps “achieve synthesis through subsuming the concepts
identified in primary studies into a higher-order theoretical structure” (p. 46).
My definition of historical consciousness as three meaning-making abilities and
processes served as such a structure, and I excluded papers when I was unable
to subsume concepts identified in the literature within this frame, or in other
words, when there were no codes related to (a) sensitivity toward the past by
experiencing historical temporality, (b) understanding of the past by interpret-
ing historical material, or (c) representation of oneself in relation to history by
orientating in practical life through history. With the help of Atlas.ti, a qualita-
tive data analysis computer software, I applied strategies of thematic analysis to
examine the literature. More concretely, the analysis consisted of cursory and
occasionally in-depth reading, writing summaries, coding, and generating
descriptive and conceptual categories to facilitate comparison across the litera-
ture in order to develop themes. For example, I coded “timeline knowledge,”
“sense of chronology,” and “big pictures of the past” in several texts, developed
the descriptive category “making sense of historical time” based on those and
other codes, and by comparing different patterns I developed the conceptual
category “awareness of difference, change and contingency in historical tempo-
rality,” thus subsuming those codes in the theoretical structure as “sensitivity
toward the past by experiencing historical temporality.” I synthesized these cat-
egories into three main themes with subthemes, which are presented in the next
section. This coding process was neither linear nor sequential but involved
going back and forth between the texts and emerging concepts, patterns and
categories. The final selection of literature consisted of 100 papers; these are
denoted with an asterisk in the reference list. The results described below do not
focus exclusively on empirical findings but also include theoretical, conceptual,
and methodological insights. It is worth noting that I do not critique the selected
literature for specific ways in which authors discuss and use historical con-
sciousness. The interpretive scope of the review is certainly a limitation in this
sense. Integrative reviews on a single theme could allow for critical analysis and
nuanced evaluation of the literature.
Results of the Literature Review and Synthesis
Three themes emerged as a result of the review and synthesis. The first theme
suggests that experiencing historical temporality to cultivate sensitivity toward
the past can be done by negotiating the presence of the past. The second theme
suggests that interpreting historical material to cultivate an understanding of the
past can be done by inquiring about the past with the help of disciplinary and
everyday habits of mind. The third theme suggests that orienting in practical life
to cultivate self-representation in relation to history can be done by building a
sense of historical being. I elaborate on these themes and their subthemes in the
following sections.

177
 Negotiating the Presence of the Past
The object of study of history (i.e., the past) is particular, because by its very
nature of being passed, it is somewhat irretrievable; in other words, its reality is
beyond direct experience. People cannot do and see things of the past, or have
past events and experiences happen to them. However, fragmentary traces and
accounts of the past are everywhere. Some are embedded in people’s minds and
bodies, or in objects and places of our immediate environments. Others are less
tangible and subsist in practices, images, discourses, and knowledge claims in our
cultures. Others yet are historical representations preserved in books, institutions,
and public sites. Thus, any effort to study history begins with an encounter with
such traces and accounts. Making sense of past reality from those encounters
relies on a particular experience, not of the actual events of the past, but of the
temporality that both separates and connects present reality and past reality. There
is a “tension,” as Wineburg (2001) describes “between the familiar and the
strange, between feelings of proximity and feelings of distance” which underlies
“every encounter with the past” (p. 5). Lowenthal (2000) also articulates this as
involving a negotiation between hindsight, on one hand, or the “awareness that
knowing the past is not like knowing the present and that history changes as new
data, perceptions, contexts, and syntheses go on unfolding,” and familiarity, on
the other hand, or the “ability to recognize and situate a substantial common store
of references about a consensually shared past” (p. 64). Similarly, my review
shows that negotiating the presence of the past involves making sense of historical
time, or experiencing the past as distant, and personally connecting to the past,
thus experiencing the past as close.

Making Sense of Historical Time: Awareness of Difference, Change, and

Contingency
A significant body of research examines how students negotiate the presence
of the past by developing an awareness of difference, change, and contingency
within historical temporality. However, what exactly is implied in making sense
of historical time varies. Some researchers have examined chronological under-
standing as a way for students to make sense of historical time (Dawson, 2004;
De Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2014; Hodkinson, 2009; Levstik & Barton, 2008;
Stow & Haydn, 2000). Chronological understanding is more than timeline
knowledge or being able to recall and identify historical events in their order of
occurrence. Dawson (2004) and De Groot-Reuvekamp et al. (2014) identified
several characteristics of chronological understanding: making an appropriate
use of dating systems and basic time-related vocabulary and concepts; sequenc-
ing past events, people, places, objects, eras, and situating them in their correct
period; recognizing characteristic features of a period; identifying changes, dif-
ferences, and similarities in the ways people lived; and making comparisons
across periods. The extent to which such knowledge and skills should be judged
against adult standards and disciplinary conventions is a debated matter.
According to Hodkinson’s (2009) findings, subjective time phrases, such as
“the past,” “history,” and “a long time ago,” tend to confuse history students,
and Hodkinson (2009) urges educators to teach specific time vocabulary and the

178
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
dating conventions used by historians. By contrast, Levstik and Barton (2008)
found that children in their study were able to make temporal distinctions,
despite not relying on dates and conventional time terminology. To estimate the
time of, and chronologically sequence, a set of images and describe them in
relation to one another, the primary students in their study used subjective terms
such as “close to now” and “in-between” to sequence images, “the old days,”
“back then,” “modern,” and “ancient,” and also drew on cultural or historical
background knowledge to place the images in relation to another, such as “when
the cowboys were around,” “the rocking fifties,” “like something out of Little
House on the Prairie.” These findings suggest that chronological understanding,
when looked at from a sociocultural theoretical lens, does not necessarily have
to be specific to history or neatly fit formal curricula for students to make sense
of historical time in a meaningful way.
In addition to chronological understanding, making sense of historical time,
according to a number of studies requires understanding temporal concepts
(Blow, 2011; Blow et al., 2012) and the use of relevant cultural tools (Barton,
2002; Levstik & Barton, 2008). For example, several investigations with
British students suggest that though they may be able to sequence dates, place
people or events in time, and identify the characteristics of periods or eras,
students do not necessarily comprehend the nature of change, duration, and
concurrence in history (Blow et al., 2012). These studies also indicate that
students wrongly apply familiar everyday notions of time to historical mate-
rial. Namely, they make anachronistic judgments of people’s beliefs and
actions, or equate human intentions and actions to their effects and often unin-
tended consequences. To address these issues, Blow et al. (2012) believe his-
tory lessons must develop students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of
second-order temporal concepts. Aiming to do so for the concepts of change,
continuity, and development, Blow (2011), for example, outlined an empiri-
cally grounded six-level progression.
Understanding historical time concepts, however, does not seem to be exclu-
sive to domain-specific thinking. For example, drawing upon a sociocultural per-
spective on history education, Levstik and Barton (2008) examined semiotic
practices related to primary children’s ideas about the past and how it changes
over time. Students in their study mostly recognized changes in material culture
(technology, clothing, architecture, food, etc.) and also in the social patterns of
everyday life. Moreover, students invoked a variety of sources: conversations
with family members and friends; family activities, such as vacation trips, visits
to museum or historic sites; popular culture, such as television programs, news,
movies and shows, the Bible and church, as well as fictional and nonfictional
books. Their conceptions of time did not require applying second-order concepts,
but rather participating “in history communities” (Levstik & Barton, 2008, p.
115). Similarly, drawing on mediated action theory, Barton (2002) suggests
understanding historical time is not confined to the mind of the learner, but can
also refer to something students do while engaged in specific tasks or actions with
the help of cultural tools, in other words, the material objects, representational
systems, procedural rules, and other cultural factors that mediate the interaction
between humans and their environments.

179
Popa
Another point to emerge in recent research, which complements research on
chronological understanding and temporal understanding, is that students make
sense of historical time with the help of a temporal frame of reference (Blow
et al., 2015; Duquette, 2015; Howson, 2007; Lee & Howson, 2009; Shemilt,
2009; Wilschut, 2012). Such a frame of reference acts like a “tool for orientation”
because it serves to contextualize prior and new historical knowledge (Wilschut,
2012, p. 91). It is often described as a dynamic mental process that involves going
backwards and forwards in time, jumping from one reference point in time to
another. These usable frameworks are also referred to as images, big pictures or
comprehensive narratives of the past (Blow et al., 2012; Blow et al., 2015;
Howson, 2007; Lee & Howson, 2009; Shemilt, 2009). Duquette (2015), for exam-
ple, examined how students refer to and access available historical pasts to con-
sider current and future issues. Her findings suggest that students are not inclined
to make temporal references, or alternatively, when they are, they mostly do not
connect them to historical knowledge or understanding. Based on such findings,
some researchers have proposed frameworks for developing students’ ability to
make temporal connections. Blow et al. (2015), for example, proposed a tentative
progression model. Wilschut (2012) proposed teaching history using imagina-
tive–associative frameworks, based on results from his design experiment with
two groups of Dutch high school classrooms. Teaching in this sense involves
building contexts with the help of visual and narrative cues and evocative era
descriptions, and then gradually increasing and refining those contexts with prior
and new knowledge, to finally incorporate them into a comprehensive associative
framework. In sum, to make sense of historical time is also to grasp the past as an
interconnected whole.

Personally Connecting to the Past: A Sense of Familiarity and Involvement

In contrast to most of the studies described above, there seems to be another
perspective on how students negotiate the presence of the past. This literature
stresses the importance of personally connecting to the past and viewing it as
close and relatable. This contrast is due in part to differences in conceptual or
ideological commitments among researchers. Allowing a sense of connectedness
in the study of the past could be seen as opening the door to anachronism and
presentism. However, as the following body of research indicates, connectedness
does not necessarily entail believing the past is equal to the present or applying
present-day lenses and assumptions to interpret the values, beliefs and actions of
people in the past. Rather it involves establishing familiarity with the past. This
allows students to imagine what things were like and what historical events might
have meant for people living them, and also to have certain feelings, beliefs, and
emotions with regard to what happened in the past and how that transfers to the
present. The body of research described below sheds light on the presence of the
past can be negotiated by building such connections, notably: engaging in past-
related activities and caring.
First, students can potentially derive meanings from history by engaging in
past-related activities in daily life. This is indeed what large-scale nationally
representative studies conducted in Australia (Ashton & Hamilton, 2009),
Canada (Conrad et al., 2013), and the United States (Rosenzweig & Thelen,

180
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
1998) suggest, based on their analyses of how people in general engage in such
activities. Though these survey studies were conducted at different times, used
different sampling sizes and techniques, and also differed in data collection
strategies, all three report that most respondents actively pursued the past. For
instance, such activities for the respondents in Rosenzweig and Thelen’s (1998)
survey involved: going to a history museum, reading about history, doing
research on family history (using diaries, family trees, photo albums, personal
memories), visiting historic sites or historic reenactments, watching films or TV
programs about the past, or participating in a group devoted to studying, pre-
serving, or presenting the past. Though these activities specifically relate to
practices of historical remembrance, other activities relate to history in less
obvious ways: learning about something’s origin (e.g., collecting objects, look-
ing at antiques, and reading plaques), inheriting objects from parents/grandpar-
ents or keeping objects to pass on to their children, and getting together with
family or community members to celebrate holidays like Thanksgiving or
Martin Luther King day (Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1998).
The three survey reports indicate that when engaging in “history-making activ-
ities,” respondents were able to “make the past familiar” (Ashton & Hamilton,
2009, p. 29). In other words, those activities made the past not only present but
part of the present: “The most powerful meanings of the past came out of the
dialogue between the past and the present, out of the ways the past can be used to
answer pressing current questions about relationships, identity, mortality, and
agency” (Wertsch, 2000, p. 280). The researchers of these reports argue that
school history ought to engage students with history in such ways, like studying
family, social, and oral history, as well as enabling them to manipulate and marvel
at ordinary and everyday objects of material and immaterial heritage using an
experience- and inquiry-based approach (Gosselin & Livingstone, 2016;
Henderson & Levstik, 2016; Jones, 2016). For example, Henderson and Levstik
(2016) studied the specific curricular context and the teacher’s learning goals in a
Grade 5 elementary unit on archeology in the U.S. state of Kentucky. The unit
adopted a hands-on disciplinary approach to engage students in the investigation
and interpretation of material culture to better understand past human activity. It
provided opportunities for object-based activities, an immersive field project, a
museum field trip, and lab experiences. Based on comparative analyses of group
student interview tasks, the researchers found, among other things, that handling
artifacts was “personally motivating” (Henderson & Levstik, 2016, p. 508) for
most of the fifth-graders; they enjoyed holding, sorting, and cleaning archeologi-
cal objects, the element of discovery and puzzlement, and the opportunity to spec-
ulate about the ways of life of people so remote from them. This resonates with
Lemisko’s (2004) recognition of the importance of “historical imagination” in
historical learning and knowing, adapting philosopher and historian R.G.
Collingwood’s ideas to instructional strategies. Indeed, she argues that creating an
imaginative picture of the past can be facilitated by exploring primary source
documents through two sets of guiding questions: a main inquiry question and
subsequent questions to critically probe the sources, on one hand; and on the other
hand, questions that encourage students to reenact and interpolate from the
sources, thus filling the gaps in an informed yet subjective or creative way.

181
Popa
A second way to negotiate the presence of the past by building personal con-
nections, as the literature reviewed indicates, is to feel care and concern in rela-
tion to it (Ammert et al., 2017; Barton & Levstik, 2004; Chinnery, 2013; Simon,
2004). From the sociocultural perspective embraced by Barton and Levstik
(2004), the notion of care in history education can be conceptualized as a “tool”
that helps build affective connections to the past in various ways: caring about
people and events because they are interesting and meaningful, caring that par-
ticular events developed the way they did and had the impacts they did; caring
for people in response to their painful and tragic experiences; and caring to
change our attitudes and actions in the present because of what is known about
the past. From a philosophical perspective, Chinnery (2013) has conceptualized
the notion of care in history education as an ontological stance. Her ideas are
inspired by Nel Nodding’s ethic of care and Roger Simon’s conception of living
historically. This existential approach toward history helps us recognize that the
lives of people who preceded our birth mattered. To “be touched by the memo-
ries of others” (Simon, 2004, p. 188) and to care “for others across distances of
time” (Chinnery, 2013, p. 255) establishes a relationship with the past in which
people feel the moral demand the past makes on the present. As Simon (2004)
writes, drawing on Jacques Derrida’s notion of learning to live with ghosts, this
is a “relation with the absent presence that—through the trace of testament—
arrives asking, demanding something of us” (p. 187). Telling and listening to
individuals’ first-hand experiences can be facilitated, for example, by incorpo-
rating oral history as a pedagogical tool in the history classroom (Llewellyn &
Ng-A-Fook, 2019). Indeed, oral history has become popular since the rise of
social history’s emphasis on public spaces and the voices of ordinary people,
and thus presents an opportunity to teach students in a way that promotes more
affective connections to people in the past and their personal stories grounded
in seeing and hearing, as an alternative to a more analytic approach focused on
reading historical sources and traces.
Whether it is conceived as a tool or an ontological stance, the notion of care is
relevant for meaning making in history in at least two ways. First, it makes the
study of the past worthwhile or personally relevant (Barton & Levstik, 2004). For
example, based on two classroom investigations with fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-
graders, Barton and Levstik (2004) observed that when given the opportunity to
look into topics they cared about, many students felt “inspired, moved, and some-
time angered” (p. 231) by what they were learning, and also felt motivated to
learn more about people and events of the past. They were especially interested in
aspects of past daily life (e.g., clothing, education, work, family relations, and
immigration) and how people experienced dramatic or extreme events (e.g., war,
violence, discrimination, etc.). Many students were interested in topics that
allowed them to draw comparisons with their own experiences or those of people
they knew. For instance, they were overtly curious about their teachers’ personal
timelines, enjoyed building their own personal history projects, and demonstrated
interest in children and families from the past during a field trip to a nearby cem-
etery. Barton and Levstik concluded that caring for the topic of study gave stu-
dents the possibility to see personal relevance in what they were learning and
motivated them to learn more. Second, learning to care for the past helps students

182
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
engage in the “ethical dimension” of history: to judge past actors and actions; to
deal with past violence, injustice, crime, hatred, and suffering of which the effects
can still be felt today, and with postconflict reconciliation and reparation; and also
to reflect on the duty to memorialize past actors and actions, notably victims and
heroes (Seixas, 2015). For example, Ammert et al. (2017) argue that encouraging
students to care about the past by teaching about controversial and sensitive issues
in history can enhance their reflection on moral culture. Moral culture, according
to these researchers, goes beyond explicit instruction about values norms and ethi-
cal standards. It can also be found in “narratives and practices with implicit moral
content that abound in everyday encounters” (p. 5). Encouraging students to feel
care and concern toward the past and present-day issues and historical culture is
also a way to discuss and evaluate them, and thus serves as an opportunity to col-
lectively engage in democratic “deliberation over the common good” (Barton &
Levstik, 2004, p. 234). In sum, learning situations should create the conditions for
students to build personal and affective connections to the past by fostering care
for those who lived before them and reflecting on their own opinions and preju-
dices toward ethically touchy issues in history.
Inquiring About the Past With the Help of Disciplinary and Everyday Habits of
Mind
Whereas many scholars acknowledge that a sensitivity toward the past is
conducive to meaning making, most of the literature reviewed seems to adopt
the view that history education should principally aim to develop historical
understanding. This involves actively turning “what happened” into history.
Although the experience of temporality helps engage with the past that is every-
where around, interpreting historical material serves to credibly reconstruct
what went on in the past or how things came to be the way they are. Through
temporal experience, people attribute meaning to the past, but through historical
interpretation they represent and organize meaning in a coherent and communi-
cable way. In this sense, as Lee and Ashby (2001) argue, “teaching historical
understanding is in part an exercise in giving students a different intellectual
apparatus, different assumptions and strategies” (p. 25). Whereas a large major-
ity of researchers would indeed agree with this notion, what such an apparatus
includes is still up for debate.
One of the principal areas of disagreement in this debate has to do with the
distinction between the view of history as a single domain and as several inter-
secting domains. On one hand there is the notion that school history represents an
exercise in disciplined knowledge. From this point of view, history is a scientific
discipline that is guided by particular forms of thinking, specific language, and
analytical skills to productively investigate historical material, gather and weigh
evidence, form explanations, reach conclusions, and debate differing accounts.
The underlying educational goal, from this cognitivist perspective, is to help stu-
dents, or novices in the domain, to think and perform in ways similar to those of
historians, the domain experts. This means progressively transforming their nov-
ice beliefs, intuitions, and assumptions into more sophisticated knowledge—not
only content or substantive but also second-order knowledge. On the other hand,
drawing in turn on a sociocultural lens, history can be conceived as several

183
Popa
“intersecting domains, each marked by semiotic practices that provide the context
against which history–whether written, oral or visual–is recognizable and mean-
ingful” (Levstik & Barton, 2008, pp.108–109). As such, history is not guided by
the aim of moving away from, but rather of building on, students’ everyday
knowledge and reasoning, as well as on their surrounding culture and discourse
communities. The assumption that students must be able to do what historians do
can lead educators and researchers, according to Barton and Levstik (2004), to
focus on students’ misconceptions and stereotypical ideas, and consequently
judge their understandings to be deficient or flawed. The focus accordingly should
rather be on descriptive contexts and visual images, and mediating actions involv-
ing the use of effective cultural tools that are already available to learners for
dealing with materials related to the past.
Encompassing domain-specific and context-dependent approaches, I suggest,
based on the review of literature, that historical understanding can be operational-
ized by inquiring into the past using disciplinary and everyday habits of mind. I
employ the term habit of mind in a broad sense as a mental pattern, developed by
the human mind over time and in social context, to direct the mind’s attention and
facilitate the perception, comprehension, and evaluation of information. In ana-
lyzing literature grounded in narrative psychology, cognitive and social psychol-
ogy, educational philosophy, and memory studies, three subthemes emerged as
salient habits of mind: investigation, narrative, and perspective.

Investigation
A number of studies suggest that students develop historical understanding by
learning to investigate historical traces and accounts. Such investigation is essen-
tially based on ways of reasoning with sources of information about the past,
such as written documents, images, and objects, so as to examine or produce
descriptive, causal, comparative, and/or evaluative claims about phenomena
from the past based on empirical evidence. Developing students’ ability to reason
in such ways is seen by many as one of the most important goal of history educa-
tion. In fact, Seixas (1999) argued that “good history teaching [ . . . ] exposes the
process of constructing warranted historical accounts so that students can arrive
at their own understandings of the past through processes of critical inquiry” (p.
332). This represents a complex process and implies several strategies and skills
of historical reasoning. Lee (2011, p. 141), for example, suggests that historical
reasoning refers to: asking appropriate questions when encountering primary or
secondary historical sources, knowing how to answer those questions, and com-
prehending the issues involved in constructing or deconstructing historical inter-
pretations as well as the criteria involved in evaluating them. Similarly, van Drie
and van Boxtel (2008) outline in their theoretical framework of historical reason-
ing six main components: “asking historical questions, using sources, contextu-
alization, argumentation, using substantive concepts, and using meta-concepts”
(p. 89). The researchers derived these components from an extensive review of
empirical research and from analysis of their own data. Frameworks like those
are helpful because they lay out key thinking patterns and skills for educators to
elicit in their students, each individual element garners its own sub-field of
research, with its own empirically based schemes, models of progression,

184
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
teaching material, and assessment tools (cf. Lee & Shemilt, 2003, 2009; Seixas,
2015; Wineburg, 2001).
As a whole, these elements of historical reasoning encourage students to
develop expertise in disciplinary literacy and disciplined inquiry, which are cru-
cial to investigation. To gain proficiency in accessing and processing of historical
information and actively constructing knowledge, learners must be mentored and
guided into the conventions of inquiry in the domain, including conceptual, pro-
cedural, and metacognitive knowledge. As some scholars believe, students must
develop historical literacy (Monte-Sano, 2010; Nokes, 2013; Reisman &
Wineburg, 2012; Wineburg, 2001; Wineburg et al., 2015). More precisely, stu-
dents should practice sourcing (i.e., considering the document’s source and pur-
pose); contextualization (i.e., placing the document in temporal and spatial
context); corroboration (i.e., comparing the accounts of multiple sources against
each other); and close-reading a text. Other scholars, namely Saye (2017, p. 341),
stress that classroom instruction should be designed as a supportive inquiry learn-
ing environment where learners: are engaged and motivated to spend intellectual
effort on problem or project-based learning tasks; learners take part in classroom
discourse and collaborative activities to learn the practices and language of his-
torical inquiry; and students’ expertise is gradually developed through coaching
and scaffolding, such as modeling investigative procedures and guided discus-
sion. Moreover, domain-specific metacognitive and self-regulated learning strate-
gies can help students monitor and control the cognitive activity required for
text-studying and problem-solving according to Poitras and Lajoie (2013).
Although the investigative activities of historical understanding rely on a form
of reasoning that has distinct skills and strategies, they also crucially depend on
how young people encounter traces and accounts of the past in everyday life. As
Lowenthal (2015) suggests, students come across representations of history in
several spheres of life, whether at school, in popular culture, family stories, the
news media, collective traditions, and public art and architecture. Often, these
encounters can be quite different and even conflicting, yet they coexist in various
ways. Therefore, although analyzing sources, formulating and substantiating
claims, and producing explanations are necessary components of historical under-
standing, comprehending what makes evidence or accounts historical is equally
crucial. As such, students’ beliefs about the nature of historical knowledge and
inquiry shape the meanings they attribute to traces and accounts. For example,
Boix Mansilla (2005) investigated how a group of 16 exceptional high school
students in Massachusetts discerned between two conflicting accounts of the past.
Her aim was to portray students’ assumptions about the standards by which a
historical account can be deemed acceptable, to assess the degree to which such
assumptions form a group of isolated ideas or are part of a cohesive system of
beliefs, and to see whether differences in epistemological beliefs could be linked
to students’ particular education in science or in history. Content analyses of tran-
scribed interview tasks revealed that students favored one of two distinct episte-
mological views of history: “reproduce the past as it was” and “organize the past
for people today” (p. 94). As a consistency analysis of students’ references to
standards of acceptability demonstrates, these distinct orientations tended to oper-
ate as coherent frameworks. The former involved

185
Popa
(a) a strong emphasis on accuracy in the sense of an exact representation of the past as
it really was; (b) a tendency to believe that, eventually, and at least in principle, a
complete account of the past could emerge from historians’ ongoing collective inquiry
and (c) a view of historians as striving for objectivity (e.g. distinct separation between
past and present, fact and opinion, knowledge and value, subject and object). (Boix
Mansilla, 2005, p. 94)

The latter also involved “establishing past facts, producing rich explanations,
understanding actors’ worldviews and contexts and generating powerful narra-
tives” but was furthermore characterized by

(a) [understanding] the role that narrative and explanatory structures play not only in
final reporting, but also in the very process of inquiry (e.g., as historians select and
interpret sources, as they decide which actors and events to pursue); (b) [awareness] of
the temporal distance and perspective that defines historians’ relationships to their
object of study. (Boix Mansilla, 2005, p. 99)

Interestingly, Boix Mansilla’s (2005) coherence analysis suggests that the objectiv-
ist orientation was more prevalent among students with a scientific disciplinary
background, and exemplary history students were more likely to exhibit the con-
structivist orientation. Thus, epistemological beliefs about accounts and traces have
a role to play in the process of interpreting the past, and Lee and Shemilt (2003)
have proposed a way to characterize the progression from everyday preconceptions
to more sophisticated epistemological understandings of traces and accounts.

Narrative
The nature of narrative and its role in historical interpretation has been largely
studied in the fields of historical theory and philosophy of history. Drawing on
this literature, as well as scholarship in cultural psychology, sociology, memory
studies, and educational studies, the notion of narrative in the field of research on
history education generally draws on the idea that narrative is a fundamental way
of knowing that helps make sense of human activity as it unravels and acquires
meaning over time. The “narrative turn” witnessed in the humanities and social
sciences revealed how narrative influences the ways students think, imagine,
remember, and make sense of history. Indeed, according to Barton and Levstik
(2004), narrative “offers an accessible format to mentally structure historical
information/knowledge” because it selects and arranges “facts into a sequence
that is not random, but temporally and causally linked, typically, including a set-
ting, actor, agent, goal, and instrument” (pp. 131–132).
A significant body of literature focuses on the role that a psychological narra-
tive competence plays in students’ understanding of history. Contributions to this
scholarship generally refer to historical consciousness as a theoretical construct
with which to discuss historical–narrative acts of meaning construction (Rüsen,
2004; Straub, 2005). Interested in theorizing and empirically studying the “pos-
sible forms of human reasoning” (p. xv), researchers working in this line of
thought, according to Straub (2005), are concerned with “whether or how the
constitution and representation of time and history necessarily depend on

186
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
narrative acts of meaning construction” (p. xiv). One of the main arguments in the
rationale motivating this research program is that historical consciousness fulfills
a crucial temporal orientative function in practical life and thus guides human
action (Rüsen, 2004). Rüsen (2004) claims “the operations by which the human
mind realizes the historical synthesis of the dimensions of time simultaneous with
those of value and experience lie in narration: the telling of a story” (p. 69). These
mental procedures are necessary to situate our life in the pregiven historical cul-
ture of our society (Rüsen, 2012), and thus have moral–ethical implications. He
delineates three subcompetencies, which correspond to three elements that
together constitute a narrative: the ability to have a temporal experience, which
corresponds to the content of a narrative; the ability to interpret, which corre-
sponds to the form of the narrative; and the ability to orient, which corresponds to
the function of narrative. Moreover, Rüsen (2004) suggests that the way in which
historical narration realizes its orienting function has implications for an individ-
ual’s moral consciousness. He considers four types of historical consciousness,
which he furthermore believes can be ontogenetically developed: the traditional
(i.e., to abide by pregiven and omnipotent narratives about the origins of personal
values and ways of living); the exemplary (i.e., to treat the past as a universal
storehouse of cases or examples that embody rules of human conduct and lessons
for the present); the critical (i.e., to question and critique what has been passed
down, demonstrating moral reasoning, and producing counternarratives); and the
genetic (i.e., to historicize temporal change and accept multiple and differing
standpoints by viewing them as products of specific historical contexts; Rüsen,
2004). Students can adopt either one depending on their moral orientation, but
history education should strive toward the genetic one.
Though Rüsen’s and others’ theoretical reflections have set the tone for
research on narrative psychology in history education, some scholars have
attempted to provide the discussion with empirical perspective. For example,
Kölbl and Straub (2011) conducted a qualitative case study of young people’s
historical consciousness. More precisely, they carried out group discussions to
examine the content, structure, function and development of their historico-nar-
rative competence. With one group of 13- to 14-year-old grammar-school stu-
dents in the southwest of Germany, topics of discussion included the Middle
Ages, the life of a working-class family at the end of the 19th century, postcards
of an aristocratic family or workers on strike, tape recordings of a radio adver-
tisement from the 1950s, and an object of their choice associated with history.
They mainly analyzed the transcribed discussion using constant comparison and
grounded theory methods. The researchers found that to a large extent students’
thinking about history and historical self-awareness appeared specifically mod-
ern, in the sense that they exhibited scientific–methodical standards of rational-
ity. Most students can be said to have a critical understanding of the constructed
nature of historical knowledge, which was displayed in their comments and use
of language when referencing historical content and media of historical represen-
tation, and when employing conceptual instruments and thinking operations to
reflect on the concept of time and history and the methods of history. Based on
these findings, the authors claim students’ historico-narrative abilities and their
development are underrated.

187
Popa
In addition to cognitive narration capacities, history educationists in this
review are also interested in the epistemic status and structure of narrated stories
students believe as interpreters of history. Building on philosophy of history and
narrative theory, Levisohn (2010) suggests

students of history, whether professional historians or relative novices, are always

dealing with events that are already narrativised by others. [ . . . ] The constructive work
of the historical inquirer, then—the creation of historical narratives—is always a
product of a negotiation among multiple narratives, both “first level” primary-source
narratives and “second-level” historiographical narratives. (p. 12)

Young people attend their history classes already knowing a wide array of preex-
isting narratives they have encountered throughout their lifetime, which vie for
their attention against the ones they study, scrutinize, and construct as part of their
lessons. This necessary negotiation process is part of any work of historical
inquiry according to Levisohn (2010). The narratives that make up the epistemic
landscape of this process arrive in a variety of forms such as textbooks, teachers,
family members, politicians, memoirs, novels, films, Internet videos, exhibitions,
historical monuments, newspaper articles, social media posts, and so on. However,
they are not provided in a “tidy collection of stories, each neatly packaged, with
coinciding beginnings, middles, and ends” (Levisohn, 2010, p. 13). Rather, narra-
tives come in different “shapes and sizes,” each with their own authors and their
own audiences, some are explicit, whereas others are embedded in larger stories;
some are specific, whereas others are archetypes; some are prototypes, whereas
others are elaborated (Levisohn, 2010, p. 16). Thus, historical understanding has
less to with the attempt to reconstruct the most faithful or accurate narrative,
which might be generated and evaluated on the basis of reasoning procedures or
standards of acceptability. Rather, it is in the process of negotiation itself, making
sense of the “bewildering array” of stories encountered and “weaving” them
together (Levisohn, 2010, p. 17), that students derive meaning from history. As
Levisohn (2010) argues, students should be taught to become “good interpreters”
(p. 17) who carry out interpretation in a creative, responsible, bold yet modest
way, with an openness to challenging further negotiation.
Wertsch (2004) makes a similar point. He believes, drawing on Alasdair
McIntyre’s idea that humans are storytelling animals and Jerome Bruner’s analy-
sis of narrative as acts of meaning, that stories are not created “out of nothing” (p.
49); they are drawn on from an immense pool of stories and cultural tools avail-
able and embedded in the historical, cultural, and institutional environments peo-
ple navigate in as part of our daily lives. According to Wertsch, who adopts a
sociocultural perspective and engages with memory research in psychology, a
clear distinction can be made between two levels of narrative organization in col-
lective memory. Indeed, findings from his comparative analysis of historical nar-
ratives of Soviet and post-Soviet generations reveals this distinction. On one
hand, there are “specific narratives,” which are more focused on episodic recount-
ing of a “temporally ordered set of explicitly mentioned and differentiated events”
typically carried out by particular and representative individuals or groups (2004,
p. 51). On the other hand, there are “schematic narrative templates” which have

188
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
generalized forms and functions, constitute underlying patterns in the storytelling
tradition of a particular cultural setting, are used unreflectively, and can be instan-
tiated in several ways depending on the collective remembering purposes (p. 54).
Both levels play an important role in historical understanding. Moreover, Wertsch
(2002) makes a distinction between two stances toward narrative: knowing and
believing. He argues that instruction of official national historical narrative might
lead students to know the narrative, that is, master cultural tools that enable cogni-
tive functioning, but not necessarily to believe it or use it as “identity resources”
(p. 41). Similarly, students who “believe” alternative unofficial versions of the
national narrative have appropriated it in a way that helps them build “emotional
ties and forms of attachment” to the nation, but they might not have “cognitive
mastery” of it (p. 41).
Focusing on the sociocultural process of negotiating multiple narratives, by
contrast to the cognitive competence of narration, helps shed light on at least three
crucial aspects of meaning making as it pertains to historical interpretation. First,
a whole subfield of scholarship deals with the ways in which students negotiate
the power dynamics and divisions, which are inherent in narratives that relate to
national identity and the sense of belonging in ethnic, racial, or religious groups
or a wider imagined community, especially when there is a clash or interplay
between official or dominant narratives on one hand, and counter or minority nar-
ratives on the other (Anderson, 2017; Barton, 2001; Barton & McCully, 2010;
Epstein, 2009; Létourneau, 2017; Lopez et al., 2014; Van Alphen & Carretero,
2015; Wertsch, 2004; Zanazanian, 2015). Second, an increasing body of literature
highlights the role of the affective domain in the process of negotiation, showcas-
ing how feelings, intuition, imagination, values, relationality, and desires to iden-
tify with what is being studied shape the stories students tell about the past and the
ways they interpret it (Colby, 2008; Rudolph & Wright, 2015). A third area of
scholarship, though relatively marginal, brings to light the ways in which stu-
dents’ engage in the process of attributing significance to some stories over others
(Barton, 2005; Chinnery, 2010; Kansteiner, 2017; Levstik, 2000; Simon, 2004),
especially when it comes to attending to the difficult and serious facts, traces,
images and testimonies, or trauma narratives that “demand a reckoning” (Simon,
2004, p. 186) because they “wound” or “haunt” us today (p. 190), thereby partici-
pating in a public practice of remembrance as a form of “ethical learning” (p.
187). These three areas within the discussion on narrative as a habit of mind to
interpret the past help reduce the importance of cognitive psychological factors in
narrative meaning construction. Although the view of narrative as a psychological
capability is useful in history education because it provides a framework for his-
torical understanding, the view of narrative as a cultural tool that students and
teachers use to make sense of the past and history can engage students in a process
of negotiation between different narratives and thereby help them come to grapple
with the ways in which historical interpretation can oversimplify, constrain and
even distort their historical understanding. For instance, drawing on both psycho-
logical and sociocultural dimensions of historical narrative, Zanazanian and Popa
(2018) adapted Jörn Rüsen’s concept of narrative competence and James V.
Wertsch’s notion of schematic narrative template to operationalize a pedagogical
tool, the narrative tool template (designed by Zanazanian, 2017), for educators to

189
Popa
effectively teach historical interpretation through a narrative lens, and also encour-
aging and validating minority group stories in the teaching of national historical
narratives.

Perspective
A significant body of literature argues that to understand history meaningfully,
students must develop historical empathy, which requires a rigorous intellectual
effort to understand people’s worldviews and the beliefs, values, and attitudes that
shaped their thinking and motivated their actions. In the past years, scholars have
defined historical empathy, examined how students display it, and suggested
instructional methods and strategies to foster it in the classroom. But the notion
that human beings from the past had feelings, motivations, and needs, and also
might have had a different set of values due to circumstances that differ from
those of today, is sometimes difficult to grasp. Because of this, students may expe-
rience trouble relating to, or explaining past people’s lived experiences, decisions,
or actions, and take presentist or judgmental stances in the attempt to understand
them. Findings from a large-scale study that involved 320 British 7- to 14-year-
olds (Lee & Ashby, 2001) indicate that students generally explain historical
actions, social practices, or institutions based on ideas about change and progress
that serve well in everyday life, but that this do not translate well when it comes
to constructing inferences about the past. In this study, students’ explanations gen-
erally assumed that people from the past might have had wrong beliefs or behav-
iors because they were ignorant or did not have the technological means, but they
eventually realized their beliefs and practices were incorrect or unreasonable,
they changed. Such findings inspired the development of a model of progression
for developing historical empathy (Lee & Shemilt, 2011) that leads students from
very primitive to more nuanced forms of explanations:

1) “explanation by description”; 2) “explanation by assimilation to the known present

or by identification of deficits in the past”; 3) “explanation by stereotype”; 4)
“explanation by means of everyday empathy”; 5) “explanation by means of historical
empathy”; 6) “explanation with reference to mentalités—“forms of life” in which
material, social and symbolic cultures are symbiotically linked and mutually
sustaining. (p. 41)

These researchers propose that instruction take into account students’ prior ideas
and assumptions about why people in the past thought and acted in certain ways,
and accordingly help them progress through these levels to achieve more sophis-
ticated empathetic explanations. Without such explanations, students tend to con-
fuse behaviors with actions and actions with outcomes and are tempted to judge
past beliefs and actions as irrational, unreasonable, evil, or backward (Lee &
Shemilt, 2011). For these researchers, historical empathy is “a way of explaining
past forms of life that were different from ours, and a disposition to recognise the
possibility and importance of making them intelligible” (p. 48). Because it is
about inferring an explanation from knowledge about perspectives, some research-
ers adopt the view that historical empathy is a distinctly rational ability (Davis
et al., 2001; Yeager et al., 1998).

190
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
However, according to more recent research (Brooks, 2009; Endacott &
Brooks, 2013; Yilmaz, 2007), the view that historical empathy is a knowledge-
based analytic ability or achievement, embedded in or resulting from the histori-
cal method, is problematic. To walk in the shoes of people living in the past or see
the world through their eyes, metaphorically speaking, requires “a skill to re-
enact” (Yilmaz, 2007, p. 331). Thus, to really understand the mentality, frames of
reference, beliefs, values, intentions, and actions of people in the past, the “pro-
cess of forming affective connections” (Endacott & Brooks, 2013, p. 42) is also
needed. Recent efforts indicate a shift away from the view of historical empathy
as analytic or purely explanatory toward a more comprehensive conceptualization
that encompasses both cognitive and affective processes. Sensing with their own
emotions, such as joy, pity, or surprise, how historical actors experienced their
lives can cause students, according to Logtenberg et al. (2011), to feel motivated
to contextualize the past, and does not, according to De Leur et al.’s (2017) find-
ings, “necessarily have to lead to excessive fantasy” (p. 347). Moreover, accord-
ing to Husbands and Pendry (2000), having students imagine how someone in the
past might have felt or been affected can enable learning about their own feelings
and emotions. People from the past are not only difficult to access due to their
“otherness” and “remoteness” but also because they are adults. Historical empa-
thy can thus be developed in dialogic questioning and discussions that bring stu-
dents to articulate, examine, challenge, and develop their own emotions (Husbands
& Pendry, 2000).
Furthermore, as Nilsen (2016) argues, it is important to recognize that seem-
ingly similar perspective-taking tasks, themes or materials actually require differ-
ent empathetic acts. In his study, Nilsen asked four young adults from Stanford
University to take the perspective of a victim or perpetrator at the Salem Witch
Trials and in a Holocaust-era massacre, with the aim of understanding how those
individuals “invoke multiple selves” (p. 378) to perform the task. To investigate
this question, he drew on the notion of identity, and thus assumed that learners’
perspective-taking is shaped by their socioculturally constructed, dynamic and
plural sense of self. Based on an analysis of think-aloud protocols, Nilsen identi-
fied four different “self-perspectives” in these individuals’ constructions of past
selves, called: the now-self, the hypothetical past self, the imagined past self, and
the timeless generalized other. Though such findings relate to adult historical
empathy, they nonetheless suggest that engaging with historical perspectives in
this vicarious form can enable meaningful historical understanding.
Similarly, the view of historical empathy as analytic or purely explanatory
does not acknowledge that there is sometimes a moral dimension involved in the
attempt to understand actors and actions from the past. Indeed, some perspectives
invite “reflection on how, and why, moral judgments may differ in different peri-
ods of time” (Ammert et al., 2017, p. 3). When students are required to understand
the differences between ways of thinking and doing of today and those of bygone
societies, they cannot always take a neutral moral stance. This is especially true
when teaching controversial and sensitive issues that include dilemmas with
moral content. Such as studying the actions and consequences of American slave-
holders, German Nazis, and Spanish conquistadors. Students might also feel a
sense of shame, guilt, or responsibility toward past generations, for example,

191
Popa
when they study historical injustices, wrongdoing, tragedies, and crimes of the
past. Issues like those raise difficult questions such as the following:

Who if any[one] was accountable for the unjust actions in the past, who has a moral
right to speak on behalf of the perpetrators and the victims of past injustices now, and
can people of a distant past be judged by today’s moral standards, and on what premises?
(Löfström & Myyry, 2017, p. 69)

Answering such questions requires inquiring into to the past in a way that goes
beyond providing an objective explanation, and has more to do with moral rea-
soning abilities, seeing potential interconnections between the past, present, and
future, and giving history moral meanings.
There is clearly, as Retz (2015) suggests, a “fluid and cross-functional nature
of the empathic process–integrating cognitive, emotional, moral and social struc-
tures” (p. 214). This process, importantly, is not one of taking perspectives, but
rather of recognizing them. Adopting one perspective is practically impossible,
because our own present-day perspectives are themselves historically situated,
and this influences how people make sense of the past. As Seixas (2015) writes,
the questions asked of the past, the language used to talk about it, and the struc-
tures used to narrate it all constitute an “unavoidable imposition of the present on
a past” (p. 603). This ties to Retz’s (2015) argument for a moderate hermeneuti-
cal approach to empathy in history education. He believes that the application of
Gadamerian hermeneutics can potentially help history educators see that stu-
dents to not need to “banish” their own perspectives in order to empathize in
history, but rather they can draw on those to engage in a “conversation” with a
historical text and also acknowledge how their perspectives provide unique ave-
nues for understanding, not only the historical text, but also themselves, through
the “dialogical exchange” (p. 224). Through his reading of Gadamer’s account of
tradition, prejudice, and temporal distance, Retz argues that pretending to be able
to suspend prejudgment or believing that our own standards and worldviews
matter less than those under study, can possibly foster misunderstanding. Indeed,
it increases the risk that students fail to notice how their own position shapes the
encounter and understanding of a historical other. Thus, his Gadamerian view
reveals that “our understanding of people in the past will only acquire meaning
in our lives when our questioning of them occurs hand-in-hand with a question-
ing of ourselves” (Retz, 2015, p. 224).
Building a Sense of Historical Being
A final theme that emerged from the review suggests that students can make
meaning in history by building a sense of historical being. The assumption under-
lying this theme is that an individual person’s life can transcend the limits of birth
and death through identifying with the histories of the communities in which their
life is embedded. This transcendence is not physical but refers rather to a view
from which a person can have an image of who she is, where she is situated in
time, and what she does as a participant in ongoing history. Such awareness hinges
on our personal needs for orientation in present daily life. As Clark and Grever
(2018) write, drawing on Rüsen’s (2004) notion of historical consciousness, this

192
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
orientation comprehends both external and internal “spheres of life”: the former is
“manifested as an awareness of the impermanence of socially created conditions,”
whereas the later sheds light on the “temporal dimension of human subjectivity,”
and is “accompanied by the development of self-understanding and awareness
which takes the form of a historical identity” (Clark & Grever, 2018, p. 182).
Thus, an interesting distinction that the small body of literature in this theme
raises, by contrast to the two themes described so far, is that historical meaning
making is not only a matter of knowing, it is also a matter of being. History educa-
tion according to Seixas (2011, 2012) ought to pay attention to this ontological
dimension of historical meaning making, and thus “promote students’ understand-
ing of their own historicity, their embeddedness in historical processes” (Seixas,
2011, p. 446). Wineburg (2000) refers to this as “developing a historical self” (p.
312). Another way to understand this epistemological-ontological distinction is
articulated by Karlsson (2011) in his description of the “duality of man’s encoun-
ters with history” (p. 36):

On the one hand, we are history, or with a somewhat less deterministic expression, have
a history. In this sense, we cannot ever avoid and evade history, even if we sometimes
would like to. [ . . . ] On the other hand, [ . . . ] we do history, by actively and
genealogically using memories, experiences, and other knowledge of the past, in the
service of life and hope for the future. (p. 35)

The literature I present in this final theme draws on different perspectives rang-
ing from cognitive science, to developmental and sociocultural psychology, to
memory studies, to critical pedagogy, to existential philosophy and historical
theory. It has in common the notion that students can meaningfully engage with
history by viewing themselves in relation to ongoing historical developments for
the purpose of navigating their everyday life or articulating a sense of self as posi-
tioned in time. VanSledright (1998) examined the idea of positionality and its
implications for pedagogy. According to him, students bring to the learning con-
text a wide variety of images, ideas, and conceptions about the past, which reflect
socioculturally mediated assumptions about the world and reveal hints of a sense
of self. These internalized memories, cultural codes, and contexts constitute stu-
dents’ historical positionality, a frame of reference that guides their interpreta-
tions of life experiences. From a constructivist viewpoint, VanSledright argues
that such temporal bearings must be taken into account, because they constitute
prior knowledge and background experience to build on in the process of learning
historical thinking and developing historical understanding. VanSledright grounds
his argument on previous empirical evidence that shows how students’ already
formed conceptualizations and culturally mediated memories of the past influ-
ence what and how they learn history. In his view, teachers who want to facilitate
the process of historical understanding ought to take students historical position-
ing seriously and work with their temporal bearings to encourage learners to inter-
rogate and self-reflect on the ways in which their taken-for-granted points of view,
beliefs, and worldviews shape their encounters with and constructions of histori-
cal meanings. More precisely, there are three strategies teachers can use. First,
they should “question their students” and “teach students how to ask each other

193
Popa
questions” (VanSledright, 1998, p. 9). Such questioning requires explaining and
justifying positionality-based beliefs and interpretive actions, and builds

a community of inquirers who learn to prize interrogations over declarations, to honor

the evidence-based contributions of inquirers over textbook claims, and to value
continuing curiosity and reflection on their historical positionalities as much as and
perhaps more than the possession of deep factual knowledge about the past.
(VanSledright, 1998, p. 9)

In addition to questioning, teachers should also “listen closely” to students’

responses, and pay attention to how their positionalities “shift and change (and if
not, why not) with each new round of historical study,” which makes way for new
questions that are “targeted at students’ reformulated positions” (VanSledright,
1998, p. 10). Third, teachers should engage learners in inquiry into “rich historical
contexts” that enable them to recognize their positionalities through past–present
analogies to “problematic issues like progress and decline, change and continuity,
and assessing human agency” (VanSledright, 1998, p. 11). With these three strate-
gies, according to VanSledright (1998), teachers can better take into account stu-
dents’ historical positionalities, and in so doing not only contribute to historical
thinking but can provide opportunities for “change and growth” (p. 13).
Wineburg (2000) addresses this topic but from a slightly different perspective.
Rather than speaking of positionality, he is interested in how adolescents conceive
of themselves as “historical beings” (p. 312). With his colleagues (Wineburg,
2000; Wineburg et al., 2007), he interviewed 15 eleventh-grade history students
from different backgrounds and three different high schools in the Seattle area, as
well as their parents and teachers, and also conducted classroom observation and
scrutinized a variety of documents. Utilizing an intergenerational approach and
drawing on the notion of collective memory, the analysis focused on how those
ordinary individuals thought about the past and used it to interpret their present
(Wineburg, 2000, p. 321). The emphasis was not on their historical knowledge,
but rather on the complex interplay of “forces that act to historicize today’s
youth,” namely, the home, the school, the community, and popular culture
(Wineburg et al., 2007, p. 40). An important finding from this project suggests
that there are “common beliefs” (Wineburg et al., 2007, p. 42) that are passed
down from previous generations through the various channels of collective mem-
ory. These are widely shared and understood and have a powerful impact on the
way students develop as historical beings. Stories and images are especially
impactful, namely, contemporary popular movies and television. As such, the
researchers conclude that educators must recognize the importance of these com-
mon beliefs and develop a cultural curriculum so as to incorporate them in their
lessons; this would make them “better equipped” (Wineburg et al., 2007, p. 68) to
help students become “cultural critics and astute observers” (Wineburg et al.,
2007, p. 69) of the history they derive meaning from to navigate in the present.
Such findings reinforce the argument against maintaining a sharp demarcation
between canonical knowledge determined by the curriculum and collective mem-
ory in teaching and learning history. Indeed, recent research has shifted its atten-
tion to forms of pedagogy that support more personalized, interactive, and

194
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
curiosity-driven forms of engagement in historical meaning making, such as film
media (cf. Paxton & Marcus, 2018), digital simulations and games (cf. Wright-
Maley et al., 2018), and museums, public sites, and informal educational contexts
(cf. Stoddard et al., 2018). In sum, to articulate a sense of historical being, stu-
dents can learn to recognize, question, and likely change their temporal bearings
and common beliefs.
The literature converges to support the idea that a culturally responsive learn-
ing environment is needed to articulate a sense of historical being, where students’
prior cultural knowledge and experiences are not ignored or neglected, but rather
are welcomed and respected, and learners’ interactions with educational contexts
outside the classroom are valued, because they can help students communicate
something about who they are, what they like, what they believe in, the lives they
are living, and what the world is like. In this sense, forms of identification are a
crucial component of learning. Recent literature has significantly attended to how
students’ identities—personal heritage and background, and their lived experi-
ences as members of different family, ethnic, racial, and cultural groups and as
consumers of mainstream and popular media—play a crucial role in their con-
struction of historical knowledge. In fact, in a recent review of the international
scholarly literature on how identity shapes historical understanding, Peck (2018)
identified five ways in which students’ national, ethnic, and Indigenous identities
influence their perspectives and understandings of history: their construction of
historical narratives, their evaluation of historical evidence, their judgment of his-
torical actors’ decisions and actions, their perceptions of progress and decline in
history, and their ascription of historical significance to people and events of the
past. Taking identity into account in building a sense of historical being means
acknowledging how students make sense of their own place in, or sense of belong-
ing to, a constructed historical continuum.
The notion of being part of a continuum relates to the idea that historical con-
sciousness, as Clark (2014) writes, has a hereditary function. In this manner, the
past is something that is continually and intricately “passed on,” a sort of inheri-
tance that must be negotiated. Based on findings from a large-scale qualitative
study called Whose Australia? Popular Understandings of the Past, which sought
to “uncover how people negotiate family and community histories as well as
national narratives, and why” (Clark, 2014, pp. 90–91), when some participants
reflected on what they wanted to received or not, and what they wanted to trans-
mit to the next generation, they experienced “moments of historical connection”
whereby they created meaning about themselves or their lives by placing it within
“intergenerational life events” (Clark, 2014, p. 93). Moreover, her analysis rein-
forces what historians have already stressed, which is that “inheritance has its
corollary in forgetting” (Clark, 2014, p. 95). Silences and absences, which in par-
ticipants’ interviews took the form of ellipses or an awareness of narrative omis-
sions in family histories, are also an important part of historical inheritance of
sadness, shame, or protection of future generations as Clark (2014) notes.
Interestingly, forgetting, or historical “unconsciousness” (Clark, 2014, p.
97) are also fundamental aspects of historical meaning making when it comes
to defining our self in a historical continuum. Research shows that this has
implications when it comes to students from minority groups—as demonstrated

195
Popa
in Virta’s (2016) study of what adolescents of migrant origins in Finland
believe is and should be taught in their history lessons, or in Zanazanian’s
(2015) study of how English-speaking adolescents’ interact with the French-
speaking Québécois dominant narrative promoted in the curriculum—because
it emphasizes otherness and legitimizes pride based on fragmentary private
histories. The notion of historical inheritance becomes particularly important
when attributing significance to heritage in the context of multicultural class-
rooms and in communities with “sensitive,” “difficult,” or ‘”dark” pasts, or in
other words, collectively traumatic or controversial events (Gross, 2014;
Savenije et al., 2014; Trofanenko, 2011; Van Boxtel et al., 2016). Students
clearly derive meanings from the past when they engage with historical culture
or heritage to orientate in practical life.
Research in this direction points out the need to rethink history education in
order to give students opportunities to recognize how history with a capital H
relates to their own local or family histories and autobiography. Bellino and
Selman (2012), Grever et al. (2008), and Levy and Sheppard (2018) argue for a
greater inclusion of student interests and heritage histories in their high school
classrooms. For example, interested in exploring “which facets of history were of
interest to [students], what history they believed should be taught in schools, their
views on the purposes of school history and history in general, and how they
viewed their own sense of identity” (Grever et al., 2008, p. 80), Grever et al.
(2008) adopted a survey and a comparative approach to examine existing attitudes
among a diverse population of students and to identify and measure differences
and similarities between students in England and the Netherlands, and also
between different groups (i.e., ethnic minority backgrounds, sex, age, level of
education, and first or second generation of migration). The authors collected data
through a questionnaire distributed to 442 English and Dutch students, aged
between 14 and 18 years, attending schools located in metropolitan areas. The
authors found that, given a choice among six periods of history, students in both
countries and across groups prefer ancient and contemporary history. Moreover, a
substantial majority of respondents in both countries and across all backgrounds
agree with the statement that knowledge of history is important. More students in
England seem to believe that knowing the history of their country is important,
yet there appears to be a strong consensus among respondents from all back-
grounds for teaching the national past without erasing its darker aspects, and also
a feeling of pride in the history of their families. As for what history students
prefer and how they perceive their identities, the findings suggest differences
between students from indigenous and ethnic minority backgrounds, mainly for
national and religious history.
Similarly but on a smaller scale, Levy (2017) examined how three groups (17
students in total) of public high school students (Hmong, Chinese, and Jewish)
made sense of three events that were defining in terms of their own historical
culture (respectively, the Vietnam War, Modern China, and the Holocaust) and
found that those student appreciated the inclusion of their families’ pasts in the
official curriculum learned in class. Moreover, the participants were able to
engage in rigorous historical thinking about topics that were actually emotionally
charged. Findings from Bellino and Selman’s (2012) study also point in this

196
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
direction. Their qualitative examination of 621 responses by 9th and 10th graders
from seven metropolitan locations across the United States to questions asked in
a case study about ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia toward the end of the
20th century revealed that students willingly engaged in ethical reflection about
historical agency in rigorous ways, namely, by using logical arguments and ana-
lytic methods. Based on their findings, the researchers suggest incorporating
“moments of disorientation [ . . . ] where students are afforded the space to strug-
gle with decisions made in the past and the choices they themselves face as civic
agents and narrators of the past” (p. 198) in history teaching, and thus allowing
students to express

both personal opinion (What would you have done if you were a historical agent in this
particular context?) and moral judgment (What do you think about the actions of this
historical agent in this particular context—are they fair and just?) (Bellino & Selman,
2012, p. 193)

without the fear of it leading to unbridled presentism.

Two theoretical models have recently outlined ways in which teachers can
enable students’ self-representation in relation to history for purposes of orienta-
tion in practical life. First, Nordgren (2016) captures this idea with the concept of
use-of-history. In his view, using history refers to the performance of a communi-
cative action, which is articulated from an existing repertoire of cultural resources,
and is enacted and given meaning within a web of communicative interactions.
Such uses are expressions of historical consciousness and there are three essential
reasons, according to Nordgren’s reading of Nietzsche and Rüsen, for using his-
tory: “to explain the surrounding world, to form identities, and to exert influence”
(p. 488). Based on this concept and speech act theory, he proposes an analytic
model to understand communicative acts of use-of-history by distinguishing
between encoder, message, and decoder, along four interpretive levels: “1) iden-
tify and contextualize the communicative setting; 2) interpret the performative
action; 3) interpret the basic reasons as expressions of historical consciousness
and historical culture; and 4) interpret the interaction between the actors”
(Nordgren, 2016, p. 494). History teachers can use this model, he argues, to
encourage students to explore how they themselves and others use history in
everyday life for different purposes and also to incorporate aspects of everyday
life outside school in history education.
The second model I will mention before concluding this theme is developed by
Van Straaten et al. (2018). For these researchers, there is a disjoint between on one
hand curriculum developers’ and educators’ desire to provide relevant history
education and on the other hand the lack of clarity about what learning activities
can support students in transferring content knowledge and historical thinking
skills beyond the classroom. The authors sought to address this disjoint between
pedagogical goals and practice by investigating how teachers can guide learners
toward connecting the past, present, and future. Van Straaten et al. (2015) identi-
fied three pedagogical approaches that could potentially help: enduring human
issues; longitudinal lines, or long-term developments; and historical analogies
(HA). Though these approaches are not new, little empirical research exists on

197
Popa
their efficacy. With this study, the authors aimed to explore whether these
approaches could feasibly be applied to real-life educational settings without
changing daily teaching practice or revising curricular requirements in major
ways. For each approach, the authors aimed to understand:

1. To what extent do students apply knowledge about the past in their orientation on
current affairs? 2. How do teachers experience applying the approach in their daily
teaching practice [ . . . ]? 3. Does application of the approach affects students’ appraisals
of the relevance of history? (Van Straaten et al., 2018, p. 51)

To investigate these questions, the authors drew on a pragmatic lens.

Pragmatism evaluates theories and ideas based on their practical relevance and
outcomes. Accordingly, the authors employed educational design research. This
practice-oriented approach emphasizes developing and evaluating educational
interventions or innovations, in context and in close collaboration with teachers,
to generate products and theories that improve educational practices. The research-
ers conducted three different case studies, each consisted of teaching a lesson unit
with one of the three approaches. They collected data from five classrooms and
four teachers in two Dutch secondary schools. Data collection included both
quantitative and qualitative methods. Mixed methods is indeed a common meth-
odological choice in pragmatic educational inquiry. For the first question, the
authors used writing tasks in pre- and posttest settings, as well as semistructured
interviews with 14 randomly selected students from one case study for the first
question. For the second, they used a closed format questionnaire and open-ended
interviews. For the third, they administered a 24-item questionnaire, the Relevance
of History Measurement Scale in pre- and posttest settings for the third question.
Data were analyzed through multiple methods, namely, content analysis, thematic
analysis, and statistical analysis. The authors found that of the three approaches,
HA appeared to enhance students’ use of the past toward reflecting on contempo-
rary contexts, and also elicited their enthusiasm. All three approaches were useful
and interesting from the teachers’ perspectives, but HA by contrast was less com-
plicated to work within the existing curriculum and time constraints. Finally, only
enduring human issues apparently had a positive effect in shifting students’ per-
ceptions of history’s relevance.
Conclusion
I defined historical consciousness at the onset of this article as the disposition
to engage with history so as to make meaning of past human experience for one-
self, and I conceptualized it as three interrelated abilities (i.e., sensitivity toward
the past, understanding of the past, and representation of oneself in relation to
history), each with a respective but interlinked meaning-making process (i.e.,
experiencing historical temporality, interpreting historical material, and orientat-
ing in practical life through history). As a result of my review and synthesis, I
found that historical consciousness can correspondingly be operationalized for
education through: the negotiation of the presence of the past, that is, its distance
on one hand and its closeness on the other; the inquiry of historical material with
the help of disciplinary and everyday habits of mind, namely investigation,

198
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
narrative and perspective; and the building of a sense of historical being. The
first theme indicated that students should learn to make sense of time by increas-
ing their awareness of difference, change, and contingency through time.
Activities that enable them to develop chronological understanding, understand-
ing of temporal concepts, and temporal orientation via an associative framework
of references are helpful in this respect. Students should also learn to personally
connect with traces and accounts of the past through activities that help them
take part in past-related activities and develop care and concern toward the past.
The second theme suggested that to develop historical understanding students
should develop mental patterns that enable: the investigation of traces and
accounts (i.e., reasoning with sources of information about the past, which
involve specific strategies and skills, historical literacy and disciplined inquiry,
as well as a constructivist approach to history); the cognitive competence of nar-
ration and the sociocultural negotiation of multiple narratives; and the recogni-
tion of perspectives, both past and present, through activities that help students
build explanations of the worldviews, beliefs, values, intentions, and actions of
people in the past but also examine their own feelings and emotions, their values,
and their historically situated assumptions about people and societies. The third
theme indicated that students should communicate who they are, where they are
situated in time, and how they may act as participants in ongoing history. In this
respect, instruction should use disorienting dilemmas, dialogic questioning, and
a culturally relevant curriculum to encourage students to reflect on their histori-
cal positionality, identities, heritage, family histories and interests, and focus on
activities that build connections between the past, present, and future and exam-
ine how history is used in communicative acts.
This study constitutes one of the first systematic reviews on historical con-
sciousness with the scope of operationalizing the construct for meaning-making
practice. The resulting themes represent a view of learning as the making of
meaning for oneself, rather than the development of competence. Given that his-
torical consciousness has principally been operationalized through a competency-
based approach, these results are particularly pertinent for history education
research. I call upon the scholarly community to consider the potential of this
approach to complement students’ development of competencies, and possibly
even motivate it. Indeed, a meaning-centered approach could promote a conscious
engagement with what is being learned, whereas a competency-based approach
could promote a disciplinary or expert stance toward it. The former would enable
students to see the value of what is being learning to make sense of their world,
and thus how and why it may be worthwhile to learn it, whereas the latter would
enable students to master the domain-specific knowledge, skills, and ways of
thinking that help effectively respond to a subject-based problem and to transfer
those to new problems. There seems to be a clear distinction between the two and
a clear purpose for each. As Nordgren (2017) points out in an article in which he
argues for the use of Michael Young’s concept of “powerful knowledge” in inter-
cultural education:

Disciplinary skills and concepts are crucial in giving us insights beyond common sense
and finding perspectives that can be generative, but it is equally possible that a

199
Popa
disciplinary approach can reduce history to exercises of sourcing or exegetics without
any relation to something living or meaningful. (p. 669)

In closing, the three themes point toward promising directions in building this
relation and outline a vision of history teaching and learning that makes history
relevant to students’ lives. Deeper examination of the complex relationships
between these pedagogical processes and practices, combined with empirical
research in varied educational settings would greatly contribute to achieving this
vision.

Note
This research was financially supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Société
et culture under Grant 197281.

References
Ahonen, S. (2001). The past, history, and education. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
33(6), 737–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270110061729
*Ammert, N., Edling, S., Löfström, J., & Sharp, H. (2017). Bridging historical con-
sciousness and moral consciousness: Promises and challenges. Historical
Encounters, 4(1), 1–13.
*Anderson, S. (2017). The stories nations tell: Sites of pedagogy, historical conscious-
ness, and national narratives. Canadian Journal of Education | Revue Canadienne
de l’éducation, 40(1), 1–38.
Angvik, M., & von Borries, B. (Eds.). (1997). Youth and history: A comparative
European survey on historical consciousness and political attitudes among adoles-
cents. Korber-Stiftung.
*Ashton, P., & Hamilton, P. (2009). Connecting with history: Australians and their
pasts. In P. Ashton & H. Kean (Eds.), People and the pasts: Public history today (pp.
23–41). Palgrave Macmillan.
*Barton, K. C. (2001). A sociocultural perspective on children’s understanding of his-
torical change: Comparative findings from Northern Ireland and the United States.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 881–913. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00028312038004881
*Barton, K. C. (2002). “Oh, that’s a tricky piece!” Children, mediated action, and the
tools of historical time. Elementary School Journal, 103(2), 161–185. https://doi.
org/10.1086/499721
Barton, K. C. (2005). Primary sources in history: Breaking through the myths. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86(10), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508601006
*Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2010). “You can form your own point of view”:
Internally persuasive discourse in Northern Ireland students’ encounters with his-
tory. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 142–181.
Becker, C. (1932). Everyman his own historian. American Historical Review, 37(2),
221–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/1838208
*Bellino, M. J., & Selman, R. (2012). The intersection of historical understanding and
ethical reflection during early adolescence: A place where time is squared. In M.

200
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. Rodriguez-Moneo (Eds.), History education and the
construction of national identities (pp. 189–202). Information Age Publishing.
*Blow, F. (2011). “Everything flows and nothing stays”: How students make sense of
the historical concepts of change, continuity and development. Teaching History,
145, 47–55. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ960982
*Blow, F., Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2012). Time and chronology: Conjoined twins or
distant cousins? Teaching History, 147, 26–34. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ982086
*Blow, F., Rogers, R., Shemilt, D., & Smith, C. (2015). Only connect: How students
form connections within and between historical narratives. In A. Chapman & A.
Wilschut (Eds.), Joined-up history: New directions in history education research
(pp. 279–315). Information Age Publishing.
*Boix Mansilla, V. (2005). Between reproducing and organizing the past: Students’
beliefs about the standards of acceptability of historical knowledge. In R. Ashby, P.
Gordon, & P. Lee (Eds.), International review of history education (Vol. 4, pp. 91–
106). Routledge.
Boix Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2007). From teaching globalization to nurturing
global consciousness. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era:
International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 47–66). University
of California Press.
*Brooks, S. (2009). Historical empathy in the social studies classroom: A review of the
literature. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 213–234. https://eric.ed.
gov/?id=EJ854189
Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.). (2017). Palgrave handbook of research
in historical culture and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
*Chinnery, A. (2010). “What good does all this remembering do, anyway?” On his-
torical consciousness and the responsibility of memory. Philosophy of Education,
2010, 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2013.878083
*Chinnery, A. (2013). Caring for the past: On relationality and historical conscious-
ness. Ethics and Education, 8(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2013
.878083
*Clark, A. (2014). Inheriting the past: Exploring historical consciousness across the
generations. Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness
Historical Cultures and History Education, 1(1), 88–102. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.
au/bitstream/10453/35522/3/2013005288.pdf
*Clark, A., & Grever, M. (2018). Historical consciousness: Conceptualizations and
educational applications. In S. A. Metzer & L. M. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley interna-
tional handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 177–201). Wiley-Blackwell.
Clark, A., & Peck, C. (2019). Contemplating historical consciousness: Notes from the
field. Berghahn Books.
*Colby, S. R. (2008). Energizing the history classroom: Historical narrative inquiry
and historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 30(3), 60–79. https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1050.7007&rep=rep1&type=
pdf
*Conrad, M., Ercikan, K., Friesen, G., Létourneau, J., Muise, D., Northrup, D., &
Seixas, P. (2013). Canadians and their pasts. University of Toronto Press.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of
consciousness. Harcourt.
*Davies, M. (2017). Teaching sensitive and controversial issues. In I. Davies (Ed.),
Debates in history teaching (2nd ed., pp. 261–272). Routledge.

201
Popa
*Davis, O. L., Yeager, E. A., & Foster, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Historical empathy and
perspective taking in the social studies. Rowman & Littlefield.
*Dawson, I. (2004). Time for chronology? Ideas for developing chronological under-
standing. Teaching History, 117, 14–24. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1069451
*De Groot-Reuvekamp, J. M., Van Boxtel, C., Ros, A., & Harnett, P. (2014). The
understanding of historical time in the primary history curriculum in England and
the Netherlands. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 487–514. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00220272.2013.869837
De Julio, A. (2019, April 15). How can we truly bring history to life? Reflections and
takeaways from the annual conference 2019. EuroClio. https://www.euroclio.eu/tag/
bringing-history-to-life/
*De Leur, T., Van Boxtel, C., & Wilschut, A. (2017). “I saw angry people and broken
statues”: Historical empathy in secondary history education. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 65(3), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1291
902
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., & Young, B. (2005). Journal of Health Services
Research & Policy, 10(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819052801804
*Duquette, C. (2015). Relating historical consciousness to historical thinking through
assessment. In E. Ercikan & P. Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing historical
thinking (pp. 51–63). Routledge.
Eliasson, P., Alven, F., Yngveus, C. A., & Rosenlund, D. (2015). Historical conscious-
ness and historical thinking reflected in large-scale assessment in Sweden. In K.
Ercikan & P. Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing historical thinking (pp.
171–182). Routledge.
*Endacott, J. L., & Brooks, S. (2013). An updated theoretical and practical model of
historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 41–58.
*Epstein, T. (2009). Introduction. In Interpreting national history: Race, identity, and
pedagogy in classrooms and communities. Routledge.
Friedrich, D. (2014). Democratic education as a curricular problem: Historical con-
sciousness and the moralizing limits of the present. Routledge.
*Gosselin, V., & Livingstone, P. (2016). Introduction. In V. Gosselin & P. Livingstone
(Eds.), Museums and the past: Constructing historical consciousness (pp. 3-17).
UBC Press.
*Grever, M., & Adriaansen, R. J. (2019). Historical consciousness: The enigma of dif-
ferent paradigms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(6), 814–830. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/00220272.2019.1652937
*Grever, M., Haydn, T., & Ribbens, K. (2008). Identity and school history: The
perspective of young people from the Netherlands and England. British Journal
of Educational Studies, 56(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2
008.00396.x
*Grever, M., Pelzer, B., & Haydn, T. (2011). High school students’ views on history.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(2), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.
2010.542832
*Gross, M. H. (2014). Struggling to deal with the difficult past: Polish students con-
front the Holocaust. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 441–463. https://doi.org
/10.1080/00220272.2014.923513
*Haydn, T., & Harris, R. (2010). Pupil perspectives on the purposes and benefits of
studying history in high school: A view from the UK. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
42(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270903403189

202
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
*Henderson, A. G., & Levstik, L. S. (2016). Reading objects: Children interpreting
material culture. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 503–516. https://doi.
org/10.7183/2326-3768.4.4.503
*Hodkinson, A. (2009). To date or not to date, that is the question: A critical examina-
tion of the employment of subjective time phrases in the teaching and learning of
primary history. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and
Research, 8(2), 40–50.
*Howson, J. (2007). Is it the Tuarts and then the Studors or the other way round? The
importance of developing a usable big picture of the past. Teaching History, 127,
140–147). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43259280
*Husbands, C., & Pendry, A. (2000). Thinking and feeling. Pupils’ preconceptions
about the past and historical understanding. In J. Arthur & R. Phillips (Eds.), Issues
in history teaching (pp. 125–135). Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2018). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.),
Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists . . . In their own words (2nd
ed., pp. 15–28). Routledge.
*Jones, S. (2016). Unlocking essences and exploring networks: Experiencing
authenticity in heritage education settings. In C. Van Boxtel, M. Grever, & S.
Klein (Eds.), Sensitive pasts? Questioning heritage in education (pp. 130–152).
Berghahn Books.
*Kansteiner, W. (2017). Film, the past, and a didactic dead end: From teaching history
to teaching memory. In M. Carretero, S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave hand-
book of research in historical culture and education (pp. 169–190). Palgrave
Macmillan.
*Karlsson, K. G. (2011). Historical consciousness—The fundament of historical think-
ing and history teaching. In K. Nordgren, P. Eliasson, & C. Rönnqvist (Eds.), The
processes of history teaching. An international symposium held at Malmö University,
Sweden, March 5th–7th 2009 (pp. 34–41). Karlstad University Press.
*Kölbl, C., & Straub, J. (2011, September). Historical consciousness in youth: Theoretical
and exemplary empirical analyses. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung,
2. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/904
Körber, A. (2015). Historical consciousness, historical competencies—and beyond?
Some conceptual development within German history didactics, 56S, Article 9529.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1524.9529
Körber, A., & Meyer-Hamme, J. (2015). Historical thinking, competencies, and their
measurement. In K. Ercikan & P. Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing histori-
cal thinking (pp. 89–101). Routledge.
Köster, M., Thünemann, H., & Zülsdorf-Kersting, M. (Eds.). (2014). Researching
history education: International perspectives and disciplinary traditions.
Wochenschau.
Lee, P. (2004). “Walking backwards into tomorrow.” Historical consciousness and
understanding history. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and
Research, 4(1), 69–114. https://doi.org/10.18546/herj.04.1.03
Lee, P. (2011). Historical thinking and transformative history. In L. Periklous & D.
Shemilt (Eds.), The future of the past: Why history education matters (pp. 129–154).
Association for Historical Dialogue and Research.
*Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2001). Empathy, perspective taking and rational understanding.
In O. Davis, E. Yeager, & S. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective tak-
ing in the social studies (pp. 21–50). Rowman & Littlefield.

203
Popa
*Lee, P., & Howson, J. (2009). Two out of five did not know that Henry VIII had six
wives: Historical literacy and historical consciousness. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut
(Eds.), National history standards: The problem of the canon and the future of teach-
ing history (pp. 211–264). Information Age Publishers.
*Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2003). A scaffold, not a cage: Progression and progression
models in history. Teaching History, 113, 13–23. https://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/43259908
*Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2009). Is any explanation better than none? Over-determined
narratives, senseless agencies and one-way streets in students’ learning about cause
and consequence in history. Teaching History, 137, 42–49. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/43259418
*Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2011). The concept that dares not speak its name: Should
empathy come out of the closet? Teaching History, 143, 39–49. https://eric.ed.
gov/?id=EJ944270
*Lemisko, L. S. (2004). The historical imagination: Collingwood in the classroom.
Canadian Social Studies, 38(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1073911.pdf
*Létourneau, J. (2017). Teaching national history to young people today. In M.
Carretero, S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in his-
torical culture and Education (pp. 227–242). Palgrave Macmillan.
*Levisohn, J. A. (2010). Negotiating historical narratives: An epistemology of history
for history education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 44(1), 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2010.00737.x
*Levstik, L. (2000). Articulating the silences: Teachers’ and adolescents’ concep-
tions of historical significance. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.),
Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 284–305). New York University
Press.
*Levstik, L., & Barton, K. C. (2008). Researching history education: Theory, method,
and context. Routledge.
*Levy, S. (2017). How students navigate the construction of heritage narratives. Theory
& Research in Social Education, 45(2), 157–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/0093310
4.2016.1240636
*Levy, S., & Sheppard, M. (2018). “Difficult knowledge” and the Holocaust in history
education. In S. A. Metzer & L. M. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook
of history teaching and learning (pp. 365–387). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781119100812.ch14
*Llewellyn, K. R., & Ng-A-Fook, N. (2019). Introduction. In K. R. Llewellyn & N.
Ng-A-Fook (Eds.), Oral history, education, and justice: Possibilities and limitations
for redress and reconciliation (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
*Löfström, J., & Myyry, L. (2017). Analysing adolescents’ reasoning about historical
responsibility in dialogue between history education and social psychology.
Historical Encounters, 4(1), 68–80.
*Logtenberg, A., Van Boxtel, C., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Stimulating situa-
tional interest and student questioning through three types of historical introductory
texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 179–198. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10212-010-0041-6
*Lopez, C., Carretero, M., & Rodriguez-Moneo, M. (2014). Telling a national nar-
rative that is not your own: Does it enable critical historical consumption?
Culture & Psychology, 20(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x
14554156

204
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
Lowenthal, D. (2000). Dilemmas and delights of learning history. In P. Stearns, P.
Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National
and international perspective (pp. 63–82). New York University Press.
Lowenthal, D. (2015). The past is a foreign country—Revisited. Cambridge University
Press.
*Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the his-
torical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539–
568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.481014
*Nilsen, A. P. (2016). Navigating windows into past human minds: A framework of
shifting selves in historical perspective taking. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
25(3), 372–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1160830
*Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical literacies: Learning to read and
reason with historical texts and evidence. Routledge.
*Nordgren, K. (2016). How to do things with history: Use of history as a link
between historical consciousness and historical culture. Theory & Research in
Social Education, 44(4), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.121
1046
Nordgren, K. (2017). Powerful knowledge, intercultural learning and history educa-
tion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(5), 663–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220
272.2017.1320430
Nordgren, K. (2019). Boundaries of historical consciousness: A Western cultural
achievement or an anthropological universal? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(6),
779–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1652938
Nordgren, K., & Johansson, M. (2015). Intercultural historical learning: A conceptual
framework. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
220272.2014.956795
Osborne, K. (2006). “To the past”: Why we need to teach and study history. In R. W.
Sandwell (Ed.), To the past: History education, public memory, and citizenship in
Canada (pp. 103–131). University of Toronto Press.
*Paxton, R. J., & Marcus, A. S. (2018). Film media in history teaching and learning.
In S. A. Metzer & L. M. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history
teaching and learning (pp. 579–601). Wiley-Blackwell.
*Peck, C. (2018). National, ethnic, and indigenous identities and perspectives in his-
tory education. In S. A. Metzer & L. M. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international hand-
book of history teaching and learning (pp. 311–334). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781119100812.ch12
*Poitras, E. G., & Lajoie, S. P. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated
learning: The cognitive and metacognitive activities involved in learning through
historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 213–234. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11409-013-9104-9
*Reisman, A., & Wineburg, S. (2012). Ways of knowing and the history classroom:
Supporting disciplinary discussion and reasoning about texts. In M. Carretero, M.
Asension, & M. R. Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction of national
identities (pp. 239–255). Information Age Publishers.
*Retz, T. (2015). A moderate hermeneutical approach to empathy in history education.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(3), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013
1857.2013.838661
*Rosenzweig, R., & Thelen, D. (1998). Introduction. In The presence of the past:
Popular uses of history in American life. Columbia University Press.

205
Popa
*Rudolph, S., & Wright, S. (2015). Drawing out the value of the visual: Children and
young people theorizing time through art and narrative. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 47(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1006685
Rüsen, J. (1987). The didactics of history in West Germany: Towards a new self-aware-
ness of historical studies. History and Theory, 26(3), 275–286. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/2505063
*Rüsen, J. (2004). Historical consciousness: Narrative structure, moral function, and
ontogenetic development. In P. Seixas (Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness
(pp. 63–85). University of Toronto Press.
Rüsen, J. (2005). History: Narration, interpretation, orientation. Berghahn Books.
Rüsen, J. (2012). Forming historical consciousness: Towards a humanistic history
didactics. Antiteses, 5(10), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.5433/1984-3356.2012
v5n10p519
*Savenije, G., Van Boxtel, C., & Grever, M. (2014). Sensitive “heritage” of slavery in a
multicultural classroom: Pupils’ ideas regarding significance. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 62(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.910292
*Saye, J. W. (2017). Disciplined inquiry in social studies classrooms. In M. McGlinn
Manfra & C. Mason Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research
(pp. 336–359). John Wiley.
*Seixas, P. (1999). Beyond content and pedagogy: In search of a way to talk about
history education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 317–337. https://doi.
org/10.1080/002202799183151
Seixas, P. (2004). Introduction. In P. Seixas (Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness
(pp. 3–20). University of Toronto Press.
*Seixas, P. (2011). Hermeneutics, history and memory. Paedagogica Historica, 47(3),
443–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2010.531529
*Seixas, P. (2012). Progress, presence and historical consciousness: Confronting past,
present and future in postmodern time. Paedagogica Historica: International
Journal of the History of Education, 48(6), 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309
230.2012.709524
*Seixas, P. (2015). A model of historical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
49(6), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1101363
Seixas, P. (2017). Historical consciousness and historical thinking. In M. Carretero, S.
Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and
education (pp. 59–72). Palgrave Macmillan.
*Shemilt, D. (2009). “Drinking an ocean and pissing a cupful”: How adolescents make
sense of history. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.), National history standards:
The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history (pp. 141–210).
Information Age Publishers.
*Simon, R. I. (2004). The pedagogical insistence of public memory. In P. Seixas (Ed.),
Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 183–201). University of Toronto Press.
Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing, teaching and learn-
ing history: National and international perspectives. New York University Press.
*Stoddard, J. D., Metzer, S. A., & Harris, L. M. (2018). Learning history beyond
school: Museums, public sites, and informal education. In S. A. Metzer & L. M.
Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning
(pp. 631–656). Wiley-Blackwell.
*Stow, W., & Haydn, T. (2000). Issues in the teaching of chronology. In J. Arthur & R.
Phillips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching (pp. 83–97). Routledge.

206
 Operationalizing Historical Consciousness
*Straub, J. (Ed.). (2005). Introduction. In Narrative identity, and historical conscious-
ness. Berghahn Books.
Thorp, R., & Persson, A. (2020). On historical thinking and the history educational
challenge. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(8), 891–901. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00131857.2020.1712550
*Traille, K. (2007). “You should be proud about your history: They made me feel
ashamed:” Teaching history hurts. Teaching History, 127, 31–37. https://doi.
org/10.18546/RET.26.2.08
*Trofanenko, B. M. (2011). On difficult history displayed: The pedagogical challenges
of interminable learning. Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(5), 481–495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2011.621733
Van Alphen, F., & Carretero, M. (2015). The construction of the relation between
national past and present in the appropriation of historical master narratives.
Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 49(3), 512–530. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12124-015-9302-x
Van Boxtel, C., Grever, M., & Klein, S. (Eds.). (2016). Sensitive pasts: Questioning
heritage in education. Berghahn Books.
*van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for
analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychological Review,
20(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1
*Van Straaten, D., Wilschut, A., & Oostdam, R. (2015). Making history relevant to
students by connecting past, present, and future: A framework for research.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(4), 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027
2.2015.1089938
*Van Straaten, D., Wilschut, A., & Oostdam, R. (2018). Exploring pedagogical
approaches for connecting the past, the present and the future in history teaching.
Historical Encounters, 5(1), 46–67.
VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices,
theories, and policy. Routledge.
*VanSledright, B. A. (1998). On the importance of historical positionality to thinking
about and teaching history. International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 1–18.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ598173
*Virta, A. (2016). Whose history should be dealt with in a pluricultural context—
Immigrant adolescents’ approach. Intercultural Education, 27(4), 377–387. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1216950
von Borries, B. (2011). Historical consciousness and historical learning: Some results
of my own empirical research. In L. Perikleous & D. Shemilt (Eds.), The future of
the past: Why history education matters (pp. 283–321). The Association for
Historical Dialogue and Research.
Waldis, M., Hodel, J., Thünemann, H., Zülsdorf-Kersting, M., & Ziegler, B. (2015).
Material-based and open-ended writing tasks for assessing narrative competence
among students. In K. Ercikan & P. Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing his-
torical thinking (pp. 117–131). Routledge.
Wertsch, J. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge University Press.
*Wertsch, J. (2004). Specific narratives and schematic narrative templates. In P. Seixas
(Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 49–62). University of Toronto Press.
*Wertsch, J. V. (2000). How Americans use and think about the past: Implications from
a national survey for the teaching of history. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg
(Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international per-
spective (pp. 262–283). New York University Press.

207
Popa
*Wilschut, A. (2012). Introduction. In Images of time: The role of a historical con-
sciousness of time in learning history. Information Age Publishing.
*Wineburg, S. (2000). Making historical sense. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg
(Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international per-
spectives (pp. 306–325). New York University Press.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future
of teaching the past. Temple University Press.
*Wineburg, S., Mosborg, S., Porat, D., & Duncan, A. (2007). Common belief and the
cultural curriculum: An intergenerational study of historical consciousness.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 40–76. https://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/30069471
*Wineburg, S., Reisman, A., & Gillis, V. (2015). Disciplinary literacy in history: A
toolkit for digital citizenship. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(8), 636–
639. https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jaal.410
*Wright-Maley, C., Lee, C. K., & Friedman, A. M. (2018). Digital simulations and
games in history education. In S. A. Metzer & L. M. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley inter-
national handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 603–629). Wiley-Blackwell.
*Yeager, E. A., Foster, S. J., Maley, S. D., Anderson, T., & Morris, J. W., III. (1998).
Why people in the past acted as they did: An exploratory study in historical empa-
thy. International Journal of Social Education, 13(1), 8–24. https://eric.ed.
gov/?id=EJ605742
*Yilmaz, K. (2007). Historical empathy and its implications for classroom practices in
schools. The History Teacher, 40(3), 331–337. https://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/30036827
*Zanazanian, P. (2015). Historical consciousness and being Quebecois: Exploring
young English-speaking students’ interactions with Quebec’s master historical nar-
rative. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 47(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1353/
ces.2015.0013
*Zanazanian, P. (2017). Teaching history for narrative space and vitality: Historical
consciousness, templates, and English-speaking Quebec. In H. Elmersjö, A. Clark,
& M. Vinterek (Eds.), International perspectives on teaching rival histories (pp.
107–131). Palgrave Macmillan.
Zanazanian, P., & Nordgren, K. (2019). Revisiting historical consciousness as a theoretical
construct and exploring its broad understanding for contemporary education and edu-
cational research [Special issue]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(6), 771–868.
*Zanazanian, P., & Popa, N. (2018). Using a narrative tool to help Quebec English-
speaking students produce personal histories of belonging. LEARNing Landscapes,
11(2), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v11i2.969

Author
NATHALIE POPA holds a PhD in Educational Studies from McGill University,
845 Sherbrooke St W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 0G4; email:
[email protected]. Her previous publications include a cowritten article
with Dr. Zanazanian on a narrative pedagogical tool that aims to help students produce
personal histories of belonging to their community, published in LEARNing Landscapes
(2018 Special Issue: Teaching and Learning with Stories, 11(2), 365–379), and a litera-
ture review article on the concept of historical consciousness in Canadian history didac-
tics, published in the Canadian Journal of Education (2017 Special Capsule on
Historical Consciousness, 40(1), 1–25).

208