View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Structural and Functional Differentiation of Knowledge for the History Curriculum

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Structural and Functional Differentiation of Knowledge for the History Curriculum
Language: English
Authors: Wouter Smets (ORCID 0000-0002-6570-3116), Geerte Savenije (ORCID 0000-0003-1774-8771)
Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2025 57(4):495-506.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: History Instruction, Curriculum Development, Epistemology, Educational Objectives
DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2025.2455687
ISSN: 0022-0272
1366-5839
Abstract: Which historical knowledge is worthwhile teaching? Over the last decades, this question has been answered differently by history scholars. In many Western countries, arguments to avoid Eurocentric and nationalistic curricula challenge the current selections of historical knowledge in the curriculum. Epistemology in history education also changed following the appreciation of historical thinking and reasoning. Yet most scholars agree that a certain basis of orientation knowledge is needed to achieve the key targets of the history curriculum. Consequently, it is difficult for curriculum developers to select knowledge for history teaching. The aim of this article is to scaffold curriculum developers' content selection by proposing guiding questions. It aggregates and elaborates theories of knowledge in the field of history education. Young and Muller's concept of powerful knowledge is applied to the subject of history teaching. Arguments for a structural differentiation of vertical and horizontal discourses are presented. Also, the functional aspect of history teaching is elaborated by relating three purposes of education to knowledge selection.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1493554
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGCAbdmbgNnFjpnOPT0_KBtAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCJHC7PFvBRHvDDxdgIBEICBm2RYfEMymQolFPnnEsowPXCC563BOAehGhGkpNz051xEXBJcaN_8YpiXvis3oTK51KkK_3iOFlWnvrv_OTkpO-EPHqW581srRqNniCGgD7K3wwGjQFwaIodMCzQUiiG6Py9dKvf647NXIN1TIYrs89YeFGHDcT1QyF5wHhWpRF8jZiIyMeJPHan8VNyhuPqRmrUr4Q6ZMGepgNQJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186807475;b9j01aug.25;2025Jul24.02:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186807475-1">A structural and functional differentiation of knowledge for the history curriculum </title> <p>Which historical knowledge is worthwhile teaching? Over the last decades, this question has been answered differently by history scholars. In many Western countries, arguments to avoid Eurocentric and nationalistic curricula challenge the current selections of historical knowledge in the curriculum. Epistemology in history education also changed following the appreciation of historical thinking and reasoning. Yet most scholars agree that a certain basis of orientation knowledge is needed to achieve the key targets of the history curriculum. Consequently, it is difficult for curriculum developers to select knowledge for history teaching. The aim of this article is to scaffold curriculum developers' content selection by proposing guiding questions. It aggregates and elaborates theories of knowledge in the field of history education. Young and Muller's concept of powerful knowledge is applied to the subject of history teaching. Arguments for a structural differentiation of vertical and horizontal discourses are presented. Also, the functional aspect of history teaching is elaborated by relating three purposes of education to knowledge selection.</p> <p>Keywords: History curriculum; functions of education; powerful knowledge; content selection</p> <hd id="AN0186807475-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The role of content knowledge in history education is a topic of intense debate both among scholars and practitioners. Both teachers and national programme assessors find efforts aimed at memorizing facts about historic personalities or events disappointingly unsuccessful (Wineburg, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>]). It has been repeatedly argued that memory loss jeopardizes the long-term effects of history education. Wineburg criticizes for instance US history assessments with multiple-choice questions about specific events during the American Civil War. Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]) describes rote learning as what happens when anyone 'possesses relevant knowledge but is unable to use that knowledge to solve problems' (p. 227). Likewise, assessment in history education is often excessively focused on the memory of factual knowledge (Humphrey et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]). Mayer proposes meaningful learning as a more ambitious alternative to rote learning. This involves recognizing that knowledge can be transferred to new situations or new problems. 'It requires that instruction go beyond simple presentation of <emph>Factual Knowledge</emph> and that assessment tasks require more of students than simply <emph>recalling</emph> or <emph>recognizing Factual Knowledge</emph>' (p. 227). Recent discussions on the role of knowledge in history education keep on reconsidering the subject-specific implication of these arguments (Chapman, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]). One of the objectives of learning in history education is to establish meaningful insights based upon a certain basis of orientation knowledge that allow to engage with more complex cognitive processes. Even though a broad consensus exists that learning in history education should be meaningful, it is not clear how factual knowledge and complex historical thinking interrelate.</p> <p>Historians have diverse views on what the stature and scope of historical knowledge is, hence it is conceptualized using a variety of terms. Traditionally substantive and disciplinary concepts are discerned as elements of knowledge in the field of history (Luís & Rapanta, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]; van Boxtel & van Drie, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref6">46</reflink>]), sometimes also first- and second-order concepts are used to describe the same distinction. Substantive knowledge is a term used to describe events, changes or characteristics in history. Substantive knowledge of history can be more or less conceptual, hence the knowledge-base upon which it is drawn is equally more or less context-specific. Some first-order concepts such as imperialism or nationalism can be applied to diverse settings and societies, whereas others are more specific to time or place (e.g. Kristallnacht, night of the long knives). Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]) discerns general and historical concepts (such as 'assassination') from singular factual propositions (such as 'X shot Y on date Z') and colligations (such as 'World War II').</p> <p>Disciplinary knowledge such as concepts to understand time, change, causation and others is used to structure, understand and describe the substantive content that is being learned in the history classroom. These disciplinary elements of knowledge have in common that they are context-independent constructs that are used to describe and compare characteristics of diverse places or times that are being studied in history. Peck and Seixas ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]) consider six concepts to be essential components of disciplinary knowledge, around which the history curriculum must be structured, namely historical significance, cause and consequence, continuity and change, evidence, historical perspectives and ethical dimension. Harris, however, noted 'an undue focus on developing second-order concepts while neglecting questions about the status of the knowledge that underpins the explanations or arguments advanced may be hindering students' understanding of history as a discipline' (Harris, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>], p. 121). Hammond ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]) illustrated how historical claims are substantiated [flavoured] with substantive historical content. This aligns with arguments that draw on cognitive psychology: when processing complex problems, our brain uses prior knowledge. In the absence of prior knowledge, processing of complex problems faces cognitive overload (van Merrienboer & Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref11">47</reflink>]). Thus, effective historical thinking practice rests on students' mastery of knowledge (VanSledright & Frankes, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref12">48</reflink>]; Willingham, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref13">51</reflink>]). This means that when students are engaging with complex aspects of historical thinking, knowledge that was earlier memorized serves as a catalyst to solve complex problems.</p> <p>In the context of reflections on the role of knowledge in history education, curriculum developers are reconsidering which knowledge needs to be included into curricula. Curriculum development is seen as a practice of educational professionals at the macro-, meso- and micro-levels: curriculum is made by a series of professionals involved (Priestley et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>]). In many countries, fierce debates are held about the need to innovate or not compulsory aspects of content in history education (Gibson & Peck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]; Taylor & Guyver, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]). Bertram documented this trend by comparing content selection in the national curricula in South Africa and Rwanda (Bertram, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]). Curriculum development, however, is often not only a matter of concern for national or regional decision-makers. If more or less generalistic curriculum standards are articulated, teachers and teacher teams at the micro-level of education also have a role in selecting the needed aspects of knowledge. Therefore, curriculum developers in diverse educational settings are facing the challenge to select relevant knowledge as a basis for the history curriculum (Girard et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]). Harris ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]) illustrated some of the teachers' considerations for curricular decisions: they need to decide whether to revisit particular content or to include new content. Ormond ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]) concluded that curriculum making places a heavy burden of responsibility upon teachers. Given the enormous amount of substantive historical knowledge, it is difficult for curriculum developers to select which historical knowledge is worthwhile teaching. Hence, educational professionals at all these levels of education are involved in decisions regarding the content knowledge to be addressed. The aim of this article is to inform epistemology in history education curricula. Therefore, the following paragraphs present a theoretical framework with a structural and functional differentiation of knowledge for the history curriculum. Such a theory of content intends to facilitate discussion on and selection of content for the history curricula.</p> <hd id="AN0186807475-3">The position of knowledge in history education</hd> <p>The position of knowledge in history and history education has been a much-discussed topic of scholarship for decades. We see several recurrent and intertwined trends in this discussion: first the contingency and context-dependence of historical knowledge, second the role of reasoning skills in developing and constructing historical knowledge, third the role of epistemic cognitions and of orientation knowledge from which all historical reasoning is dependent.</p> <p>Inspired by historians like Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, the new history movement ('nouvelle histoire') challenged the position of knowledge in history over the past decades (Carbonell, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]). Historical knowledge has ever since mostly been seen as contextually contingent (Gadamer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]; Thorp & Persson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]). Historical knowledge was consequently framed as understanding or interpreting the past (Rockmore, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]). This new history movement urged history educators to reconsider the role of knowledge in the history curriculum from the 1970s onwards. Kincheloe ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]) argued for a critical constructivist epistemology. Social sciences teachers were to expose knowledge and its covert, ideological functions, rather than to transmit it. Largely encyclopaedical history curricula were increasingly adapted to deconstruct historical mythologies (Ahonen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]). These approaches to history education have in common that they rely on a disciplinary approach of history teaching. Students should, consequently, learn to think and reason as a historian (Harris, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]; Luís & Rapanta, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]; Wineburg, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref29">52</reflink>]). Diverse conceptualizations were used to describe comparable ideas: history teaching is supposed to strive towards historical reasoning and thinking (Schreiber et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]; Seixas, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>]; van Boxtel & van Drie, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref32">46</reflink>]). This disciplinary approach to history education focuses strongly on critical sourcing and on argumentation. Diverse actors in the field such as Seixas' influential 'big six' benchmarks of historical thinking and the English national school history project accelerated the integration of second-order knowledge into curricula (Peck & Seixas, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Epistemology in these curricula changed radically, compared with the predecessors. The very foundations of historical knowledge were under scrutiny (Nitsche et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). The ''doing history' approaches are fundamentally based on (...) producing interpretations of historical phenomena' (Luís & Rapanta, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>], p. 4). Knowledge, particularly historical knowledge, became considered to be situated in the specific context it was constructed. Stoel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref36">42</reflink>]) argue that history education should challenge students' epistemic beliefs. Drawing on Gadamer, the specificity of the knower and known was stressed by Thorp and Persson ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]): 'the aim of history education should not be whether students can apply a stipulated list of concepts or ideas to solve historical (or epistemological) problems, but rather if they can perceive history and their own approaches to it as culturally and contextually contingent' (p. 897). Memorizing of facts, dates, names or events, is then seen as at most subsidiary to other learning goals, or even as irrelevant. Some history scholars claim memorization to be not only useless but even detrimental to the higher goal of targeting historical thinking and reasoning (Trofanenko, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, other scholarship again challenges the epistemology of history teaching. Some scholars draw on cognitive psychology to rethink the place of knowledge in the history curriculum. Competence-oriented curricula with a strong focus on skills and attitudes received criticism for inadequately integrating knowledge. Wineburg's plea for a disciplinary approach to history education ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref39">53</reflink>]) must not be confused with an exclusive focus on skills. He warned that 'without a framework for understanding the world becomes unintelligible and reading a newspaper virtually impossible' (p. 25). Also, van Boxtel and van Drie ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]) argued that historical reasoning importantly draws on students' background knowledge, more specifically, that knowledge to situate phenomena in time and place is needed to practice diverse aspects of historical reasoning. Counsell ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>]) argued that curriculum planners should make certain items non-negotiable for memorization. It is by using background knowledge that historians succeed in critically reading and understanding primary sources. Hence, the division between 'knowing what' and 'knowing how' is seen as artificial. From a different perspective Santiago and Dozono ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]) also add to this trend in history education: they criticize the implicit and explicit claims of objectivity that are regularly used in history education. Following Santiago and Dozono, history education necessarily implies a critical epistemology and hence should embrace associated knowledge.</p> <p>Overviewing these epistemological discussions in history education, it is sometimes difficult to discern the arguments that are empirically grounded, from those seeking to restore encyclopaedical history teaching with a conservative political agenda. Curricular reforms in England and Canada that sought to readdress the role of knowledge were fiercely criticized as being retrograde, and the overly prescriptive nature of what was deemed necessary was seen as politicized and irrelevant. Also, Kelly et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]) clearly take position in the discussion regarding the US history curriculum: 'we would argue that directing the question, "what of history", toward exploring the nature of historical knowledge (...) proves to be far more valuable than asking what will be on the test' (p. 136). The epistemological debate in history education should not be reduced to simply more or less substantive knowledge (Gericke et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]). Deng ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]) concluded that a theory of content is needed to move this debate forwards.</p> <p>This article seeks to synthesize theoretical arguments in the debate on the role of disciplinary and substantive knowledge in history education. We align with Benger who makes an argument for more engagement of curriculum makers with the discipline of history education when discussing the inclusion of disciplinary and substantive knowledge. In line with Hordern ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]) Benger draws attention to the differences between epistemology in the academic discipline of history and in history as a curricular practice. In the present study, we aim to avoid prescriptive arguments on what history educators should do or not. Rather, we have sought to propose a set of arguments that can structure discussions on knowledge selection in any history curriculum. By drawing on Young & Muller's concept of powerful knowledge, and on Biesta's functional differentiation of education, a theoretical framework is aggregated to inform and assess content selection in history curricula. Drawing on and in addition to synthesizing relevant literature in the field, we propose a set of practical questions that allow curriculum developers to discuss the role of knowledge in specific history curricula.</p> <hd id="AN0186807475-4">Young & Muller's concept of powerful knowledge</hd> <p>Young and Muller coined the term powerful knowledge (Young & Muller, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref47">54</reflink>]), which is now widely used for curriculum development. Powerful knowledge originates from a social realist epistemological position. Young and Muller 'differentiate knowledge from our opinions and experience because it explicitly recognises, even if we do not always know how or why, a relationship to a reality that is independent of us' ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref48">55</reflink>], p. 230). Young and Muller seek to address concerns about the selection, structure and place of knowledge in present-day curricula. Powerful knowledge differentiates knowledge regimes. The use of powerful knowledge may be seen as an attempt to overcome the binary division between so-called 'traditional' and 'innovative' approaches to curricula; it problematizes under-socialized concepts of knowledge, such as those used in traditional curricula. Concurrently it also problematizes competences-based curricular structures, in which knowledge is integrated in a generalized and not in a subject-specific way.</p> <p>After more than a decade of debate, considerable space for interpretation of the term remains (White, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]). We limit our use of the concept to two aspects of power in powerful knowledge. Both are used in this section to articulate a theoretical framework for content selection for history education. Knowledge can be seen as powerful when it is structurally differentiated from everyday knowledge. Knowledge may also be seen as powerful based on its potential to change people's existence. In the next sections, both aspects of powerful knowledge are explained and related to content selection in the history curriculum. Table 1 summarizes the key questions that derive from it.</p> <p>Table 1. A structural and functional differentiation of knowledge for the history curriculum.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Knowledge differentiation</td><td>Curricular content choices can be informed using questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Structural: What is the epistemological character of knowledge in the history curriculum</td><td><bold>Which knowledge(s) [specialised or non-specialised, single or multiple perspectives] has the potential to change students' narrative framework or world view?</bold> Which specialized historical knowledges are needed to construct students' frameworks of orientation knowledge? To what extent is there consensus among experts on this knowledge? To what extent is inclusion of non-consensual knowledges relevant? If so, which co-existing knowledges [specialised or non-specialised, historical or actual perspectives] will be used to analyze and discuss knowledge construction in historiography?</td></tr><tr><td>Functional: What is the educational purpose of knowledge in the history curriculum?</td><td><bold>Which knowledge is needed to realise the main purposes of education?</bold> Qualification: which knowledge [substantive and disciplinary] is selected to learn to act and think as an historian? Socialization: which knowledge is selected to explain the world? Which knowledge is selected to link past and present and to relate to local, regional, national and global communities? Subjectification: which knowledge is selected to allow students to relate to the curriculum? Which knowledge allows students to explore their ideals and desires, for themselves and in relationship to the society they a part of, and how they may (not) act upon them by rethinking or reframing existing orders in society?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186807475-5">Powerful knowledge has a structural aspect</hd> <p>Powerful knowledge is, at least to a certain extent, time- and context-specific. It allows for refinement or revision of propositions to ensure that they represent powerful knowledge. The variety of knowledge that could be integrated in history curricula is sheer endless. From well-established theories to emerging facts and controversial issues, from iconic events to new and challenging perspectives on phenomena. Therefore, structural differentiation is needed to discern which elements could be seen as worthwhile teaching depending on the particular aims and context. Knowledge in history suffers from the problem that many concepts used in the field remain difficult to define or conceptualize. Concepts like, for instance, imperialism or globalization are therefore seen as fuzzy concepts (Lakoff, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]) which cannot be as precisely defined as in the exact sciences (e.g. concepts like gravitation or radiation). As a result, competing conceptualizations, theories or perspectives tend to coexist. A history teacher who, for example, addresses questions on the Armenian genocide in 1917 needs to decide whether or not to use the concept genocide to describe what happened. This teacher may choose to compare different perspectives on this question, or to prioritize one particular position. Likewise, a teacher who chooses to discuss slavery in the classroom could include historical and actual perspectives on slavery in the curriculum, or compare how slavery is differently conceptualized by multiple authors. In history education, it is not always desirable to prioritize those perspectives that are best supported by research evidence, nor is it always desirable to select knowledge around which academic consensus exists. It has been noted that discourses of transformative academic knowledge, or popular and personal knowledge aid students to understand structures of power (Banks, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]; Smets, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]). Hence, history education navigates between more relativistic epistemic positions that pose all historical knowledge at the same structural level, and more positivist epistemic positions that give stronger weight to certain discourses. Therefore, history educators are to differentiate knowledge. The quantity of knowledge integrated in any curriculum is necessarily a choice to be made. The structural quality of historical knowledge can also be an argument to be considered.</p> <p>Young and Muller draw on Bernstein's concept of horizontal and vertical discourses. They differentiate horizontal discourses, which are everyday non-specialized types of knowledge, from vertical discourse. Bernstein described horizontal discourse as local, context-dependent, specific, tacit and multilayered; it is segmentally organized. However, this does not imply that all segments have equal importance: 'development in the case of a horizontal knowledge structure, cannot be a function of the greater generality and integrating property of the knowledge (...)' (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>], p. 165).</p> <p>Ordinary day-to-day knowledge is differentiated from the specialized and disciplinary knowledge that is generated through, for instance, communities of scholars. Vertical discourse 'takes the form of a coherent, explicit, and systematically principled structure, hierarchically organised, as in the sciences, or it takes the form of a series of specialised languages with specialised modes of interrogation and specialised criteria for the production and circulation of texts, as in the social sciences and humanities' (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>], p. 159). A singular property of specialized knowledge is that it is emergent, it is separable from its context: specialized knowledge is produced by social conditions and contexts but cannot be reduced to the social conditions in which it is produced. 'The value of the knowledge is independent of these originary contexts and their agents. If it is not, if knowledge remains "contextual", then specialization and therefore the reliability and the "power" of the knowledge will in a determinable sense remain limited' (Young & Muller, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>], p. 237). Figure 1 summarizes Bernsteins knowledge typology visually.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Bernstein's typology of vertical and horizontal discourse.</p> <p>In the social sciences, also in history, it is often found to be difficult to generate robust and generally agreed-upon knowledge-claims. Young and Muller argue that in most disciplines, even those where considerable controversial issues exist, scholars to a certain extent are able to find agreement on some propositions (Young & Muller, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref56">55</reflink>]). Disciplinary communities are generally able to agree upon criteria 'to distinguish the best proposition from other likely contenders' (Young & Muller, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>], p. 236). At some point, a choice between co-existing knowledge is possible using empirical procedures. Hence, even though academic disciplines such as history do not operate with the same knowledge structures as the natural sciences, they do differentiate more and less powerful knowledge.</p> <p>In the abovementioned example that addresses the Armenian genocide, the emerging consensus among scholars [vertical discourse] in a specific disciplinary community about the genocidal character of the events might be an argument to inform content selection. It is a typical example of what Bernstein describes as a horizontal knowledge structure. A curriculum developer would need to make a choice to select the most credible knowledge [e.g. the most academically convincing stance on the Armenian genocide] or to select diverse co-existing knowledge [of academic or of non-specialized nature] regarding the Armenian genocide in a curriculum.</p> <p>It is important to emphasize the words 'disciplinary communities' here and to acknowledge the (essentially finite) scope of such communities and the power dimensions accompanying them. Nevertheless, differentiation of specialized and everyday knowledge, and understanding of horizontal knowledge structures, allows the targeting of epistemic bestness in a particular context. It also allows for reflection on how selected knowledge represents public knowledge or diverse cultural perspectives. A structural differentiation of historical knowledge may inform knowledge selection or appraisal in history education. Curricular content choices can be informed using the following questions: Which specialized historical knowledge is needed to construct students' frameworks of orientation knowledge? Which co-existing knowledge and horizontal discourse will be included to analyse and discuss knowledge construction in historiography and society?</p> <p>Specialized historical knowledge holds the potential to design a powerful history curriculum. It is knowledge that enables students to understand the world as it is. Key concepts, for instance about governance of states, characteristics of culture or trade, or violence and crime enable students to gain understanding of the world. Specialized knowledge of these concepts has the power to unlock an unknown world for students, even though social sciences scholars do not always agree on how to conceptualize these elements of knowledge. 'The originating contexts may leave their mark on the knowledge; what kind of a mark and how significant the mark can be disputed. However, the value of the knowledge is independent of these originary contexts and their agents' (Young & Muller, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref58">55</reflink>], p. 237). Nonetheless, in history education vertical discourse is not necessarily exclusively prioritized above horizontal discourse. Although vertical discourse at first seems to be able to make stronger epistemological claims, it may be useful in history education to also include elements of horizontal discourse in a history curriculum. Discourse analysis of historiography that has come to be out-dated by recent scholarship might retain its educational value when used to discuss the nature and genesis of historical production. Also, if the history curriculum is used to challenge and discuss or criticize society as it is ('knowledge of the powerful'), then co-existing horizontal languages or non-specialized horizontal discourse may be presented and assessed by teachers and students. The epistemic grounding of what is described in these choices is structurally different. Some aspects of knowledge are not yet or not entirely vertically integrated, differently stated they are not validated academically, yet they still hold their value to history education.</p> <p>To illustrate this idea, we imagine ourselves in the mind of a history teacher in a Western European context who needs to decide how and what to teach about the period from 500 to 1500 AC in a lesson unit of 10 lessons in secondary education. The prescribed curriculum often permits teachers to make their own choices regarding particular content, emphasis and perspectives. A focus on specialized knowledge on which there is consensus among experts in this particular context would probably include a discussion of the feudal system, christianization, the spread of Islam, the crusades, demographic and urban growth, the rise of urban bourgeoisie and new trade systems. Zooming in on one of these topics, christianization, this teacher could, for instance, explain how missionaries and Frankish kings worked together and spread Christian faith in Europe by christianizing the local rulers and building churches and monasteries. Germanic customs and traditions were integrated with Christian culture. The literate clergy increasingly gained influence in these Christian societies and monasteries became important centres of culture, education and science. With this choice, the teacher would present an image of christianization that is supported by historical evidence and by a broad consensus among historians. Students would gain an understanding of the process of christianization and the factors and actors of influence in this process. However, this teacher could also approach this same topic from the perspective of change in historiography, hence presenting different co-existing knowledge in the vertical discourse. Teachers could use excerpts of 20th century historiographers with a more or less Eurocentric approach to examine with students these co-existing languages. This allows the teacher to give insight into how historiography implies imagery of the past that adopts diverse perspectives. Another possibility would be that the teacher would want to include non-specialized knowledge related to christianization. If this teacher, for instance, used a historic novel or a television series in which the topic of medieval christianization is addressed, this could be an opportunity to use and eventually also problematize knowledge that does not have the specialized character of academic historical knowledge. The current example illustrates how these choices highly influence and depend on the purposes that the teacher pursues with these lessons on Christianity. Therefore, we will now discuss the functional aspect of powerful history knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0186807475-6">Powerful history knowledge has a functional aspect</hd> <p>Qualification, socialization and subjectification are Biesta's well-known functions of education (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>]). These functions are used to describe and discern the fundamental <emph>why-</emph>questions of education. Biesta's model not only discerns three functions of education, but it also illustrates how these diverse functions of education can intersect. In history education, Nordgren has used Biesta's functions of education to elaborate the purposes of this particular field, and how it intersects with the broader fields of social sciences education, intercultural education, or citizenship education (Nordgren, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref60">32</reflink>]). Depending on which educational function is pursued, elements of knowledge may be selected or disputed. Socialization is distinguished, for instance, here from enculturation as an intended process of providing orientation in the world. Although the latter can be a result of history education, our focus lies here on the former because of the intentional character of curriculum development. We focus here on the purposes with which curriculum is made, and hence on intentions rather than on effects. The functions of education help to get to grips with what is intentionally pursued in history education, and consequently which knowledge is deemed suitable to realize these purposes.</p> <p>The qualification function of history education is primarily focused on what is regarded as significant to master the discipline of history. The American History Association specifies four types of historical knowledge to qualify history students (Hyde, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref61">22</reflink>]): (a) information in order to convey both the particularity of past lives and the scale of human experience; (b) knowledge on how humans in the past shaped their own unique historical moments and were shaped by those moments; (c) knowledge with breadth of time and place in order to discern context; (d) knowledge to distinguish the past from present. These or comparable elements of knowledge specify what is needed to realize the qualification function of history education. Diverse calls have been made to reconsider the content knowledge that needs to be prioritized for this purpose. It is, for instance, argued to adapt history education to global perspectives (Popp, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref62">35</reflink>]), to deconstruct national mythologies (Carretero et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]), or sought to integrate the findings of feminist historians in history education. Moreover, arguments are described to rethink the entire epistemological paradigm of history education from a critical theory perspective (Santiago & Dozono, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>]). In doing so, these scholars essentially align the subject content of history education with the subject of interest of the discipline of academic history. Over the past decades, the focus of the discipline shifted from encyclopaedic history teaching to an approach with more focus on the disciplinary knowledge that is needed to think as a historian, as discussed above. In conclusion, depending on the scholars' stance, knowledge related to the qualification function of history education may be more focused on substantive or disciplinary knowledge.</p> <p>When aiming for the socializing function of history education one may focus on issues of meta-narratives and knowledge communities. It has been the focus of considerable scholarly attention because of history education's powerful potential to give insight in societies as they exist, or to influence the future development of societies (Nordgren, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]). History education incorporates knowledge that helps students understand society as it functions today. Nordgren describes this as the use of history 'to explain the world' (Nordgren, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>], p. 488). Biesta ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]) notes that subject disciplines must aid students to acknowledge what the world is asking from them. Relating past, present and eventually also future is in the context of history education then seen as a way to make history relevant for students (Van Straaten et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref68">49</reflink>]). It is also related to diverse ways of using history to construct identities or to give insight into this process of construction (Nordgren, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]). Hence, knowledge selected to socialize students serves to link past with present and to relate to their local, regional, national and global communities. Banks ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]) call for deepening students' understanding of the present-day cultural diversity is another dimension of the socializing role of history teaching: 'As cultural, ethnic, language and religious diversity increases in [...] the world, the challenge of educating citisens to function effectively in a pluralistic democratic society deepens' (p. 17). Hirsch ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]) and Ladson-Billings ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]) take this argument one step further, arguing that knowledge selected for a curriculum is a matter of social and cultural equity. Aligning with this argument, several authors reflect upon the socializing role of the history curriculum: they argue that knowledge should be integrated in history curricula to foster equity in multicultural education. Particularly for those students growing up in deprived conditions, a focus on substantive knowledge is then seen as an elementary source of socialization (Nordgren, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nordgren describes Biesta's third function of history education: 'subjectification puts the everyday world in relation to specialised knowledge, not as an alternative form of knowledge, but as an arena where students' space for engagement and participation is historically and discursively constructed' ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>], p. 671). Joris ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>]) urged curriculum designers to reflect upon the ambitions of social sciences teaching to reproduce existing types of knowledge in a particular society. Rather than reproducing existing social orders, history education can also challenge to reinvent or reframe them. These arguments resonate with critical race theorists who see the disciplinary character of history as related to diverse types of social injustice (Santiago & Dozono, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref76">38</reflink>]). When targeting for subjectification, history education can thus aim to provide students with knowledge that enables them to explore their ideals and desires, for themselves and in relationship to the society they part of, and how they may (not) act upon them (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref77">5</reflink>]). Scholars in the German <emph>Bildung</emph>-tradition regard the pursuit of historical consciousness as a way of relating the individual to the curriculum. Although a plethora of conceptualizations of <emph>Bildung</emph> exist, Fishler summarizes concisely: it is 'the process of personal development and the result of this development process' (Fischler, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref78">11</reflink>], p. 33). Clearly, these arguments have in common that they show potential interrelatedness of both socialization and subjectification functions of history education.</p> <p>A functional differentiation of historical knowledge may inform knowledge selection or appraisal in history education. Curriculum scholars and practitioners that need to make curricular content choices can use the questions based on Biesta's purposes of education to inform their choices. It is not necessarily possible to entirely disentangle Biesta's purposes of education of each history topic that is addressed. It is, however, useful to understand that the process of knowledge selection relates to that of educational purpose. Is knowledge selected to target qualification, socialization or subjectification, or a combination of functions? Related to each of these questions one can reflect on which knowledge is deemed necessary to realize these purposes.</p> <p>We recapture the example of the teacher discussed earlier who needs to decide on teaching about christianization to illustrate this. For knowledge selection, it matters if this teacher strives primarily for qualification purposes or rather targets socialization and subjectivation. To realize qualification purposes the teacher could draw on key concepts to explain the christianization, or to draw on disciplinary concepts such as change and causation. When aiming for socialization, the teacher could draw on conceptual knowledge of suppression, violence and appropriation. This teacher could link past and present, and discuss the ways in which the integration of Germanic customs and traditions and the cooperation between missionaries and Frankish rulers can be understood as an historical example of appropriation, or could compare actual and historical examples of suppression. Using a parallel to the spread of other monotheistic religions or an analogy to current examples of suppression and appropriation, the teacher could bring the process of christianization closer to the present and use history to explain the world today. Studying Christianity and christianization in the past could thus be used to discuss the role of religion in the past and present. Likewise, the teacher can strive to integrate subjectification goals in the curriculum. If this teacher finds it important to allow students to position themselves as subjects in this world, then knowledge about how different historical actors had more or less agency in the christianization process may be helpful. Understanding actions, motives and intentions of historical figures can broaden students' perception of possible ways to position oneself in the world and stimulate reflection on what they believe is important to strive for.</p> <hd id="AN0186807475-7">Conclusion</hd> <p>The theories and examples that were developed in this paper illustrate that the process of knowledge selection for a history curriculum is very complex. Careful selection of knowledge is a prerequisite for any history curriculum development. The use of factual and conceptual substantive knowledge, as well as disciplinary historical knowledge allows learners to engage with complex historical problems. Curriculum developers and history teachers need to make difficult choices selecting historical knowledge. Diverse scholars have put forward arguments to put more focus on disciplinary content, while the role of substantive knowledge in the history curriculum is also being reconsidered. This study explicitly avoids taking a stance in the knowledge selection debate. Rather, it provides a theory-based framework of guiding questions that allows scholars and practitioners to explicate their own considerations and intentions and make informed decisions for knowledge selection in the history curriculum. We posit that it is not up to scholars alone to argue for one or another choice, it is also up to curriculum developers and practitioners to do so. We do, however, see an important role of scholarship in this debate. Providing clarity about the epistemological underpinnings of a history curriculum is a necessary prerequisite curriculum development. As curriculum choices made on structural or functional arguments may not always chime, more attention for coherence considerations may well narrow the choices available.</p> <p>An added value of this study is that it assembles different theories in the field to an aggregated theory on knowledge selection for history education. We draw on the concept of powerful knowledge to improve understanding of how diverse types of knowledge are used in the history curriculum. Two aspects of powerful knowledge were discussed in this study. A structural differentiation may provide arguments to select knowledge in a history curriculum. Vertical or horizontal discourses, and, within vertical discourse, a differentiation of hierarchical or horizontal knowledge structure can provide arguments to reflect upon power in the history classroom without falling into relativism. Non-specialized discourse can be used in history education to discuss and challenge content that is based on vertical knowledge structures. Moreover, content selection not only depends on the epistemological structure of knowledge. The functional aspects of knowledge allow differentiation of the purposes that are targeted in education, and hence also the knowledge that is needed to realize these qualification, socialization and subjectification purposes. The structural and functional differentiation of knowledge that was developed in this study allows teachers to gain a more nuanced understanding of how factual and conceptual substantive knowledge, and also disciplinary knowledge, interrelate in history education. A second added value to this study is that it provides curriculum developers with a set of discussion questions that can be used to more theoretically grounded select knowledge of history education curricul</p> <hd id="AN0186807475-8">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0186807475-9"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahonen, S. (2020). The construction and deconstruction of national myths. A study of the transformation of Finnish history textbook narratives after world war II. European Politics and Society, 21 (3), 341 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2019.1645427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref51" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Banks, J. (2016). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (6th ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref53" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20 (2), 157 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bertram, C. (2019). What is powerful knowledge in school history? Learning from the South African and Rwandan school curriculum documents. The Curriculum Journal, 30 (2), 125 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1557536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref59" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2021). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carbonell, C.-O. (2002). La Nouvelle Histoire. In L'historiographie (pp. 108 – 121). Presses Universitaires de France.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref63" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carretero, M., Rodríguez-Moneo, M., & Asensio, M. (2012). History education and the construction of a national identity. In History education and the construction of a national identity (pp. 1 – 14). Information age publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chapman, A. (Ed.). (2021). Knowing history in schools powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge. UCL press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14t477t</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref41" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Counsell, C. (2017). The fertility of substantive knowledge: In search of its hidden generative power. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 80 – 99). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deng, Z. (2022). Powerful knowledge, educational potential and knowledge-rich curriculum: Pushing the boundaries. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54 (5), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2089538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischler, H. (2015). Bildung. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadamer, H. (2013). Truth and method. Trans. Weinsheimer, Joel; Marshall, Donald G. (revised 2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gericke, N., Hudson, B., Olin-Scheller, C., & Stolare, M. (2018). Powerful knowledge, transformations and the need for empirical studies across school subjects. London Review of Education, 16 (3), 428 – 444. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.3.06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, L., & Peck, C. (2018). The place of history in the Alberta social studies curriculum. Active history. https://activehistory.ca/2018/05/alberta-social-studies-curriculum/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Girard, B., Harris, L. M., Mayger, L. K., Kessner, T. M., & Reid, S. (2020). "There's no way we can teach all of this": Factors that influence secondary history teachers' content choices. Theory & Research in Social Education, 49 (2), 227 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2020.1855280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammond, K. (2014). The knowledge that 'flavours' a claim: Towards building and assessing historical knowledge on three scales. Teaching History, 157 (december), 18 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, R. (2020). Disciplinary knowledge denied? In A. Chapman (Ed.), Knowing history in schools (pp. 97 – 128). UCL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, R. (2021). Risk aversion in a performativity culture - what can we learn from teachers' curriculum decision making in history? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53 (5), 659 – 674. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1884294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, E. D. (2016). Why knowledge matters : Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hordern, J. (2019). Exercise and intervention: On the sociology of powerful knowledge. London Review of Education, 17 (1), 26 – 37. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.1.03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humphrey, D., Chang, C., Donnelly, M., Hersh, L., & Skolnik, H. (2005). Evaluation of the teaching American history program. US Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyde, A. (2023). History discipline core. https://<ulink href="http://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/why-study-history/careers-for-history-majors/history-discipline-core">www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/why-study-history/careers-for-history-majors/history-discipline-core</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joris, M. (2022). Burgers in de maak? Burgerschapsvorming op school anders bekeken. Pedagogische Studiën, 98 (3), 221 – 235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, T., Meuwissen, K., & Vansledright, B. (2007). What of history? Historical knowledge within a system of standards and accountability. International Journal of Social Education, 22 (1), 115 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social Studies/social sciences in the twenty-first century. Peter Lang Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.K.A. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 74 – 84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2 (4), 458 – 508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luís, R., & Rapanta, C. (2020). Towards (re-)defining historical reasoning competence: A review of theoretical and empirical research. Educational Research Review, 31, 100336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 226 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nitsche, M., Mathis, C., & O'Neill, D. K. (2022). Editorial: Epistemic cognition in history education. Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness, Historical Cultures, and History Education, 9 (1), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.52289/hej9.101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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/10.1080/00933104.2016.1211046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordgren, K. (2021). Powerful knowledge for what? History education and 45-degree discourse. In A. Chapman (Ed.), Knowing history in schools. Powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge (pp. 152 – 176). UCL press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ormond, B. M. (2016). Curriculum decisions - the challenges of teacher autonomy over knowledge selection for history. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49 (5), 599 – 619. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1149225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peck, C., & Seixas, P. (2008). Benchmarks of historical thinking: First steps. Canadian Journal of Education, 31 (4), 1015 – 1038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popp, S. (2020). World history, global history, big history: Some reflections on terminology in international history didactics. In A. Ecker, J. Rüsen, & B. Paireder (Eds.), Historical consciousness - historical thinking - historical culture. Core concepts of history didactics in transnational and intercultural perspective (pp. 470 – 485). Palgrave MacMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42 (2), 191 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rockmore, T. O. M. (2000). Interpretation as historical, constructivism, and history. Metaphilosophy, 31 (1/2), 184 – 199. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439304">http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439304</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santiago, M., & Dozono, T. (2022). History is critical: Addressing the false dichotomy between historical inquiry and criticality. Theory & Research in Social Education, 50 (2), 173 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2048426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreiber, W., Körber, A., Von Borries, B., Krammer, R., Leutner-Ramme, S., Mebus, S., Schöner, A., & Ziegler, B. (2006). Historisches Denken. Ein Kompetenz-Strukturmodell. Ars Una.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seixas, P. (2016). A history/Memory matrix for history education. Public History Weekly, 2016 (6). https://doi.org/10.1515/phw-2016-5370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smets, W. (2024). The purposes of historical canons in multicultural history education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56 (3), 297 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2328050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoel, G., Logtenberg, A., & Nitsche, M. (2022). Researching epistemic beliefs in history education: A review. Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness, Historical Cultures, and History Education, 9 (1), 11 – 34. https://doi.org/10.52289/hej9.102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, T., & Guyver, R. (2012). History wars and the classroom: Global perspectives. IAP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trofanenko, B. M. (2009). Rote memorization of historical facts adds to collective cluelessness. Illinois news bureau. https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/206040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. M. Harris (Eds.), International handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 142 – 161). Wiley & Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 147 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanSledright, B. A., & Frankes, L. (2000). Concept- and strategic-knowledge development in historical study: A comparative exploration in two fourth-grade classrooms. Cognition & Instruction, 18 (2), 239 – 283. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233869">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233869</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, J. (2018). The weakness of 'powerful knowledge'. London Review of Education, 16 (2), 325 – 335. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.2.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willingham, D. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109 (4), 21 – 32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past (critical perspectives on the past). Temple University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wineburg, S. (2018). Why learn history (when it's already on your phone). Chicago University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45 (1), 11 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01413.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1 (3), 229 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wouter Smets and Geerte Savenije</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref78"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1493554
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Structural and Functional Differentiation of Knowledge for the History Curriculum
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wouter+Smets%22">Wouter Smets</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6570-3116">0000-0002-6570-3116</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Geerte+Savenije%22">Geerte Savenije</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1774-8771">0000-0003-1774-8771</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Curriculum+Studies%22"><i>Journal of Curriculum Studies</i></searchLink>. 2025 57(4):495-506.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22History+Instruction%22">History Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Epistemology%22">Epistemology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Objectives%22">Educational Objectives</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00220272.2025.2455687
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0272<br />1366-5839
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Which historical knowledge is worthwhile teaching? Over the last decades, this question has been answered differently by history scholars. In many Western countries, arguments to avoid Eurocentric and nationalistic curricula challenge the current selections of historical knowledge in the curriculum. Epistemology in history education also changed following the appreciation of historical thinking and reasoning. Yet most scholars agree that a certain basis of orientation knowledge is needed to achieve the key targets of the history curriculum. Consequently, it is difficult for curriculum developers to select knowledge for history teaching. The aim of this article is to scaffold curriculum developers' content selection by proposing guiding questions. It aggregates and elaborates theories of knowledge in the field of history education. Young and Muller's concept of powerful knowledge is applied to the subject of history teaching. Arguments for a structural differentiation of vertical and horizontal discourses are presented. Also, the functional aspect of history teaching is elaborated by relating three purposes of education to knowledge selection.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1493554
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1493554
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00220272.2025.2455687
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 495
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: History Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epistemology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Objectives
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Structural and Functional Differentiation of Knowledge for the History Curriculum
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wouter Smets
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Geerte Savenije
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0272
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1366-5839
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Curriculum Studies
              Type: main
ResultId 1