Intercultural historical learning: a conceptual
framework
KENNETH NORDGREN and MARIA JOHANSSON
This paper outlines a conceptual framework in order to systematically discuss the
meaning of intercultural learning in history education and how it could be advanced. We
do so by bringing together theories of historical consciousness, intercultural competence
and postcolonial thinking. By combining these theories into one framework, we identify
some specific and critical aspects of historical learning that are relevant for today. We
have constructed a matrix with three rows of narrative abilities intersecting with three
columns of intercultural dimensions. This generates a matrix that consists of nine cells.
By formulating a set of questions and answers for each cell, we outline learning applications
and demonstrate how the historical and intercultural concepts are mutually enriching.
The framework addresses two issues: firstly, the intercultural historical competence
that may result; and secondly, how it can be developed. This can be used by researchers
to analyse the intercultural elements of historical learning, in schools and in society, and
by educators to construct relevant learning activities.
Keywords: history instruction; intercultural competence; multicultural
education; cultural diversity; school history
History as a subject in school has been accorded legitimacy on the
grounds of its presumed capacity to provide students with an understanding
of contemporary society (e.g. Symcox & Wilschut, 2009). However, it
is indeed a matter of debate how we perceive contemporary society as
well as what tools are needed to understand it. All school subjects are
formed by the constant tension between tradition and change, and perhaps
more so than others, the subject of history. While long-standing historical
narratives may remain for decades, new findings widen or change
what is considered established knowledge. Objectives, methods and content
of education are altered as they are subjected to often contradictory
pressures from teaching strategies, textbook traditions and social and
political transformations. For some time now, globalization and increasingly
diverse societies have challenged the understanding of what should,
and could, be the task of history in schools (e.g. Banks, 2009; Carretero,
Asensio, & Moneo, 2012; Nash, Crabtree, & Dunn, 2000).
Kenneth Nordgren is a senior lecturer of history in the Department of Political, Historical,
Religious and Cultural Studies, Karlstad University 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden; email:
kenneth.nordgren@kau.se. His interests include theory and practice of history education
and its relation to multicultural education. He leads the research project The processes of
history teaching in a multicultural society, funded by the Swedish research Council (VR).
Maria Johansson is a doctoral student of history in the Department of Political,
Historical, Religious and Cultural Studies, Karlstad University 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden.
Her interests centre on instruction and learning of history, historical consciousness and
intercultural education, particularly in the secondary classroom.
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2015
Vol. 47, No. 1, 1–25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.956795
In the second half of the 20th century, history education successively
widened its scope in many countries, from a narrow cultural sphere to
broader perspectives (Nygren, 2011; VanSledright, 2009). Gradually losing
its position as part of a homogenizing nationalistic project, history in
schools was eventually rendered a new task in a new project: to foster
citizens that could orient in a multicultural environment (Faas, 2011;
Wilschut, 2010). Several governments and policy-makers have since proposed
intercultural educational programmes that aim to include ethnic
minorities and transnational identities in the community of the nation
(e.g. Byram, Barrett, Ipgrave, Jackson, & Mendez Garcia, 2009;
UNESCO, 2006). In spite of these intentions, the meaning of intercultural
learning in history education, both as policy and practice, has
remained unclear (Bracey, Gove-Humphries, & Jackson, 2010; Faas &
Ross, 2012; Harris & Clarke, 2011; Luciak, 2006). Intercultural objectives
have often been expressed as ideas on the policy level without any
suggestions as to how the content of history education should be transformed.
Schools still teach an inherently ethnocentric heritage, and this is
the case even where history studies are not particularly nationalistic
(Barton, 2009; Dunn, 2009; Eikeland, 2004; Nordgren, 2006; TutiauxGuillon,
2012). For history teaching, fostering intercultural understanding
seems to be a far more ambiguous and vague project than was once the
project of fostering nationalism.
The process of going from policy to practice, of turning abstract
objectives into lessons, illustrates the challenge to actually reform the content
and methods of history in schools, as several questions arise and need
to be answered. What selection of content can present students with an
image of society that is relevant to its present diversity? How can teachers
outline and structure historical narratives so as to include a multitude of
experiences and voices, while at the same time being cautious not to create
fragmented versions of history that are pedagogically impossible to
handle?
This paper addresses these issues by proposing a conceptual framework
to achieve intercultural learning in history education, i.e. intercultural
historical learning. Two questions are raised: (1) how can history as a subject
in school contribute to intercultural competence? and (2) what are
the consequences for history education, concerning subject matter and
methods? The first question assumes that historical learning is vital with
regard to intercultural understanding. The second question follows logically
as new objectives will by necessity mean shifts in attributing importance
to certain aspects and in deciding what aspects to emphasize, as
well as in organizing learning activities to achieve this in the classroom.
Convinced that some eclecticism is fruitful, even imperative in this
case, we draw on theories from various fields. The main theoretical influences
are history education and intercultural education. Within the context
of history education, we base our reasoning on the theory of
historical consciousness (Jensen, 1997; Ru¨sen, 1987, 2005, 2007) while
also including concepts from the historical thinking tradition (Lee &
Ashby, 2000; Seixas, 2004, 2012; Shemilt, 1980). In our understanding
of intercultural education (see e.g. Banks, 2009; Sleeter, 2010), we draw
2 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
from mainly two inspirations: intercultural competence (e.g. Byram,
1997, 2008; Deardorff, 2006a, 2006b, 2009) and postcolonial theory
(Mignolo, 2002; Young, 2012). We argue that bringing these fields
together will help to clarify the meaning of intercultural learning in history
education. Kenneth Nordgren (2006) has previously linked the theory of
historical consciousness to theories of intercultural competence. Johansson
(2012) has developed the model further by incorporating concepts from
the tradition of historical thinking. In this paper we demonstrate how various
theories can be made to harmonize in a conceptual framework that
could be used to analyse and heuristically raise questions about intercultural
dimensions in history education, or to guide the practical planning
of history lessons.
‘Theoretical Approaches’ section introduces and briefly discusses the
main theoretical concepts used to construct the framework. ‘Intercultural
Historical Learning: Introducing a Conceptual Framework’ section (the
main part of the paper) presents the framework, allowing historical consciousness
to meet intercultural learning in a matrix consisting of nine
intersecting cells. The practical didactic implications of each intersection
(cell by cell) are then examined. ‘Shifting Viewpoints’ section, finally,
summarizes the arguments for adopting this framework in, possibly, both
research and teaching, and refers back to the introductory discussion
about fostering intercultural understanding through history education.
Theoretical approaches
Narrative competence: a way of conceptualizing historical learning
Our guiding hypothesis is that history, as a school subject, has to include
popular manifestations and people’s everyday assumptions about the past,
as well as expert narratives. Grounded in phenomenology, the theoretical
concept of historical consciousness is based on an understanding of history
as a phenomenon, not as a pre-defined body of knowledge. Thus, the
question from this perspective is how people construct historical meaning.
Karl-Ernst Jeismann (1979) describes historical meaning-making as a
symbiotic interrelation between interpretation of the past, understanding
of the present and perspective of the future. Jensen (1997) stresses that
people construct historical meaning at different levels of awareness. He
describes historical consciousness as a continuum, extending from the
pre-conscious to the fully considered and explicitly formulated. Hence, it
comprises both emotional and cognitive thinking processes and constitutes
part of our identity.1
Historical consciousness is closely connected to two other concepts,
historical culture and use-of-history. While being individual, historical
consciousness works in a communicative practice. Together people create
manifestations, e.g. artefacts, narratives and memorials and distribute
them through communication channels such as media, schools and museums.
The concept of historical culture refers to this collective meaningmaking
practice where we define history as accepted truths about the past
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 3
(Ru¨sen, 2004, 2012). Taking this into consideration, we understand that
history can be evoked for the purpose of influencing the future. The concept
of use-of-history refers to such actions and can be said to be the performative
side of historical culture.
Intercultural history teaching needs a broad definition of history, that
is to say, a definition that encompasses history as consciousness, as culture
and as use. The experience of diversity plays a significant part in a
given society’s historical culture and therefore has an impact on how we
understand that society and on the positions we take. In this way, historical
consciousness frames the article’s discussion of how historical learning
can contribute to intercultural learning in a fruitful way.
Applying historical consciousness
On an analytical level, the mental process of making sense of history (i.e.
to learn history) can be divided into three basic, although not separate,
procedures: to experience the past, to interpret it as history and to use it
for orientation (Ru¨sen, 2005).2
Applying historical consciousness to history
education, Ru¨sen (2005) conceptualizes the learning goal as narrative
competence. He defines narrative competence as ‘the ability to narrate a
story by means of which practical life is given an orientational locus in
time’. In this sense, all people possess a historical consciousness and,
thereby, also the ability to advance their narrative competence. Thus, the
purpose of history education cannot be to create historical consciousness
from nothing; but to advance students’ abilities to experience past phenomena,
to interpret them as history and to use such interpretations in
their practical lives. Drawing from Ru¨sen (2005), we argue that the three
basic procedures can be understood as learning abilities and made into
classroom objectives in the following way. (While given only an introductory
and schematic treatment at this point in the article, the narrative
competence abilities will be unpacked and elaborated separately at further
length in ‘Intercultural Historical Learning: Introducing a Conceptual
Framework’ section.)
 The ability to experience can be expressed as sensitivity to the presence
of the past around us. Through learning, students can expand
their content knowledge about time periods, processes of change,
events and historical concepts, thereby becoming more historically
sensitive and better equipped to understand the depth and variety
of the past.
 The ability to interpret is to make sense of the past in the form of history.
This implies understanding the significance (or meaning) of
an event, the causes behind a process of change, and the structure
of historical narratives. One way for students to advance this ability
is by studying historical sources from various aspects. Ultimately,
the purpose is to learn to connect different experiences into a
coherent narrative.
4 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
 The ability to orient relates to the act of using the abilities to experience
and interpret history for the purpose of making sense of contemporary
situations and for identifications. The orienting ability is
advanced when the study of history affords students with opportunities
to take considered positions in order to formulate standpoints
in practical life. With a broader knowledge base and analytic skills,
students can learn to be aware and reflective in their experiences
while making connections between past and present.
Conceptualizing historical consciousness in terms of competences and
distinct abilities makes it possible to break down the educational goal of
historical consciousness and allow it to guide history teaching in practice,
not just as a lofty ideal (cf. Eikeland, 2001; Johansson, 2012; Ko¨rber,
2011). The concept of competence, when it relates to education and
learning, is defined as the knowledge, skills and attitudes that people need
to solve domain-specific problems. The growing interest in competences
has been sparked by the trend of securing measurable outcomes (Deakin,
2008; Popham, 2009). While the use of competence in this context is
primarily instrumental, it does not contradict that it can also express complex
and advanced knowledge and learning processes. We understand
competence in this latter meaning.
Intercultural competence: a way of conceptualizing intercultural
learning
In this paper, we choose to discuss intercultural learning in terms of intercultural
competence. We choose the term intercultural before multicultural
for the following reasons. Multicultural is a descriptive term. It refers to a
situation where a society (locally, nationally or globally) consists of people
from different cultural communities. Their co-existence might be peaceful
or characterized by conflict; the term does not imply one or the other.
Intercultural, on the other hand, is a normative term. It refers to a desired
condition of mutual respect and interaction that transgresses and overcomes
real and imagined cultural divisions (Gundara & Portera, 2008).
One of the most commonly used definitions of intercultural competence
is: ‘the ability to interact effectively and appropriately in intercultural
situations, using one’s intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes’
(Deardorff, 2006a). Intercultural competence has cognitive, affective and
behavioural aspects that can be weighted differently to deal with various
intercultural situations. The term is common in educational training programmes,
which deal with the practical problems of cultural misunderstandings
(to secure more effective interactions, e.g. in business or in
student exchange). Intercultural competence is also, and more importantly,
used to develop and discuss education for citizenship in today’s
multicultural and globalized society (Aldred, Byram, & Fleming, 2006;
Byram, 2008). Schools play a part in developing intercultural competence
in a wider context, both as part of curricular generic skills and as embedded
in different school subjects as subject-specific abilities.
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 5
Before turning to the practical meaning of intercultural competence
for history education, we make some short remarks about the (notoriously
tricky) concept of culture. Our guiding assumption is that cultural identifications
and encounters, however blurred and changing, are constituent
factors of modern life and should play a part in history education. Therefore,
we need an approach that provides an explanation for the cultural
cohesion and allows us to explore cultural encounters, but without
resorting to essentialism.
Sewell (2005) makes a useful distinction between two different meanings
of ‘culture’. The first usage focuses on culture as a social category that
can be separated from other aspects of human life (such as economy, politics
or biology). Culture in this sense (always in the singular) is contrasted
without culture. The second usage refers to culture as a ‘concrete and
bounded body of beliefs and practices’ that adheres to a ‘society’ or some
other social subgroup. In this second meaning, one culture is seen as different,
and in some respect distinct, from other cultures (possible to use in
the plural); we can talk of Swedish, Indian or Malawi cultures or of middle-class
and upper-class cultures. Whereas the second usage (cultures as
bounded worlds of meanings) might be criticized for turning cultures into
overly strict and coherent entities, this is not how we see it. We mean that
cultures can be seen as cohesive as well as subject to dynamic changes. In
this sense cultures, those bounded worlds of meaning, are also contradictory
(they consist of human beings that define themselves as belonging to
several cultures simultaneously), loosely integrated (with internal inequalities
and questioned by different groups) and changing (due to trade,
migration, war, new technologies, etc.). Stephanie Rathje states that such
internal differences are vital for cohesion, as our familiarity with differences,
that we understand and recognize the differences within, can be
seen as the actual glue that creates cultures (cf. Andreotti, 2011; Burbules,
1997). Intercultural competence can then be specified as the process of
making unknown differences familiar and known. (Rathje, 2007)
Finally, one last reserve: with its goal to solve problems of understanding
and create efficient, perhaps even frictionless, communication,
intercultural competence tends to understate societal conflicts. Therefore,
we have also found it essential to turn to postcolonial ideas and analyses
as tools for understanding relations of power between majority and minority
cultures on a global as well as a national level (Young, 2012). In the
following discussion, we include strands of postcolonial theory in the
framework of intercultural historical learning.
Applying intercultural competence
Some scholars (Byram, 1997, 2008; Stier, 2003) take a hands-on
approach when constructing models of how studies in specific subjects
(such as foreign language) contribute to intercultural competence. These
models distinguish between discrete sets of knowledge, skills and
attitudes. Among them, we choose to highlight the following three
dimensions (mostly based on Byram, Nichols, & Stevens, 2001, pp. 4–7):
6 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
 Knowledge of social and cultural processes. This includes knowledge
about culture as a social and historical phenomenon as well as
about different cultures within and beyond national borders.
 The ability to interpret representations from other cultures, and to relate
these to representations of one’s own culture. This includes skills to take
another position, interpret unfamiliar representations, and mediate
between perspectives.
 The ability to decentre. According to Byram et al., this is ‘to relativise
one’s own values, beliefs and behaviours, not to assume that they
are the only possible and naturally correct ones, and to be able to
see how they might look from the perspective of an outsider who
has a different set of values, beliefs and behaviours’ (2001, p. 5).
These dimensions constitute essential components in intercultural
learning and can be seen as objectives for history education. If this is the
case, then we have to formulate how this generic competence could be
supported by the distinct features of history as a school subject. Moreover,
we also have to consider how the school subject has to adapt to the
demands of intercultural learning.
Intercultural historical learning: introducing a conceptual
framework
This section introduces a conceptual framework where narrative competence
and intercultural competence are brought together. In the overlap,
the three narrative abilities (to experience, to interpret and to orient)
intersect with the three intercultural dimensions (social and cultural processes,
representations from different cultures and decentred perspectives).
Expressed differently, this framework qualifies general historical
abilities (relevant for all learning of history), while adding an intercultural
direction.
For the benefit of clarity, we choose to present the framework in the
form of a matrix. The main part of this section outlines the structure and
further discusses the content of the framework. We discuss the matrix
row by row, starting with introducing each of the narrative abilities on a
comprehensive level, then treating each cell through the questions posed
and answers given in the matrix. The method being employed, where we
explore competences through questions and answers, indicates a useful
way of unpacking and linking narrative and intercultural competencies.
Ultimately, the conceptual framework claims to capture some prominent
components of intercultural historical learning.
Methodology
We have constructed a matrix where three rows of narrative abilities intersect
with three columns of intercultural dimensions (Figure 1). This
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 7
generates a matrix that consists of nine cells. Through the method of formulating
a set of questions and answers for each cell, we outline learning
applications and demonstrate how the historical and intercultural concepts
are mutually enriching. The framework addresses two issues: firstly,
what are the distinct features of intercultural historical competence; and
secondly, how can this competence be advanced.
Figure 1. Matrix of intercultural historical learning.
8 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
Each cell of the matrix has the same structure:
(1) a summarizing statement addressing how the specific narrative
ability is linked to a specific intercultural dimension,
(2) a question about the potential of history to promote intercultural
learning and
(3) an answer given in the form of content/activities (what history
studies could be about in the classroom).
The questions in the cells have been deduced from our theoretical
understanding. Narrative competence has guided us when discussing what
abilities are required to advance intercultural learning in history classrooms;
in a similar way, intercultural competence has directed us when
considering what content might be particularly beneficial. To be more
precise, we have let the ability to experience (to perceive the past) generate
questions about how to select a relevant content. We have specified
and sharpened them by relating to the intercultural dimensions. In turn,
this has resulted in questions that address what content may (a) facilitate
students’ opportunities to experience a multicultural past, (b) let students
meet a diversity of voices and (c) provide students with the grounds to
decentre their own culture. Correspondingly, from the ability to interpret,
we have generated questions about procedural knowledge and from the
ability to orient, questions about the use-of-history. We have further specified
them through the addition of intercultural dimensions. On the one
hand, it is important to stress that these questions should not be regarded
as exclusive questions; other intercultural qualifications might enhance
different perspectives. On the other hand, given this reservation, our
choice of perspectives links intercultural learning to specific theories
relevant for history education.
The answers that we suggest have been constructed in a hermeneutic
process where we have started from our knowledge of history as a school
subject and from previous research. We have also considered specific
theories, where the historical thinking concepts (Seixas, 2008; Seixas &
Morton, 2012) have been valuable, particularly for exploring the ability to
interpret. However, the answers are tentative and need to be further
developed and empirically validated.
To experience intercultural dimensions of history
To experience history is to perceive ‘traces’ of the past, a perception that
goes on even when we do not have a clear idea of their meaning. To
make sense of the past, we have to understand these traces as parts of a
coherent narrative. The presence of the past is a fundamental dimension
in life but nonetheless our ability to sense this presence can be advanced.
Therefore, the ability to experience is both a passive and an active act.
Just as an experienced botanist is able to observe more of the variety in a
summer meadow than a novice, so a learner of history can become more
sensitive to perceiving the experiences of the past.
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 9
Our concern here is what historical content is particularly relevant in
order to develop intercultural competence and how this content relates to
the learners’ experiences and preconceptions. What criteria should we
apply for selecting relevant content in order to become sensitive to a multicultural
society’s past? Regardless of a focus on local, national or global
historical themes, there are relevant multicultural perspectives to highlight.
The past speaks to us with countless voices, and any chosen selection
will mean that some of these voices sound stronger, while others are
silenced. However, we cannot avoid this. History teaching inevitably
excludes some narratives since it would be impossible to incorporate
‘everyone’s’ history. Furthermore, governments do not generally set out
to foster cosmopolitan identities but continue to strive to foster national
identities, even though these might be of a more up-to-date, multicultural
kind (Sleeter, 2010). In view of this, the critical issue is what metahistorical
perspectives could be used to guide the selection of content in an
intercultural direction.
For a metanarrative to be viewed as historically significant it must
present society with some degree of self-understanding. In a multicultural
society, in a globalized world, nations, collectives and individuals relate to
their own experiences. When discussing and deciding on historically significant
content, we have to take into account three perspectives. First,
the generalized global level; second, the national project; and third, the
myriad of diverse experiences; all must be present.
The ability to experience the past relates to the intercultural dimensions
in three cells. The first cell (1A) considers the selection of historical
content. We suggest that teachers might choose cultural encounters and
migration as suitable metahistorical perspectives. The second cell (1B)
considers how historical content can open for a variety of voices and perspectives
from different cultures. The third cell (1C) raises the issue of
discovering one’s own position within historical culture, a position from
which we are bound to make our experiences of the past.
1A. What historical content can contribute to knowledge about social and
cultural processes? The first intercultural dimension of the ability to experience
deals with selecting content that is appropriate for providing knowledge
about social and cultural processes. In today’s history education, the
plot that structures the historical narratives is still how (European)
nation-states formed and developed. However, the idea of one people,
with one common heritage, is no longer a viable basis on which to build
an imagined community. It might not be reasonable to expect that teachers
will formulate an alternative guiding perspective on their own. We
suggest that one way to teach intercultural competence is to study the historical
processes of cultural encounters and migrations. This would ensure
that knowledge about social and cultural processes be put into focus
(Byram, 1997) and could offer an alternative plot and alternative meanings
to the narratives that students encounter in class.
The exchange of knowledge, technology, beliefs, traditions, products
and diseases are often preconditions of development. This exchange is
10 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
usually an on-going activity, sometimes violent but often peaceful, in
which people act and live. Understanding the Neolithic, industrial or digital
revolutions through the lens of cultural encounters entails a shift away
from ethno-national models of explanation. Instead of depicting Sumerian
farmers, the British economic thinkers in the 18th century or today’s
IT-geeks as examples of specific geo-political cultures (Mesopotamia,
England, Silicon Valley), these actors could be understood differently if
placed in broader social and cultural contexts. Such narratives of, for
example, the vibrant meeting places along the river systems of communication,
the growing international economy or the global flow of information,
give possibilities to perceive the dynamics and complexity of cultural
encounters. They tell us about individuals and collectives creating and
transforming (their) history through cultural networks. Accordingly,
ethno-national actors could be seen as changing and flexible constructs,
not as given entities.
Bringing forward stories of migrations would result in a similar narrative
shift. Whereas the settled person has been the norm, the nomad and
the migrant have been construed as anomalies. The migrant only enters
history during specific periods characterized by conflicts and cultural
disasters. People’s spatial movements need to be included as an integral
part of economic, social and cultural history, and the constant movements
of people, over short or long distances, should be seen as active causes of
historical change. Focusing on migrations and their impacts on social collectives
and cultures would enable an enhanced understanding of the past
as well as the present (Sheidrake & Banham, 2007).
1B. What historical content can contribute to the ability to perceive
representations from different cultures? The second intercultural dimension
of the ability to experience concerns opening the content to diverse
voices. Adopting a plot of cultural encounters and migration does not by
itself guarantee that students have the opportunity to perceive diversity.
There is a risk, as in all pedagogical projects, that any overarching perspective
simplifies and silences (Johansson, 2012; Sharp, 2012). To counter
this, actively including different voices and perspectives could make
narratives more open. One strategy could be to allow students to meet
the historical testimonies of different cultures. For example, the Crusades
or the Second World War would possibly be more comprehensible with
knowledge of how people from different sides interpreted what happened
to them. In history textbooks, people outside of Europe are often mute.
Those who were colonized or enslaved are generally described as passive
victims. Responding to the voices of others does not only provide ways
and means of understanding other cultures. Meeting representations from
the periphery about encounters with the ‘centre’ may further generate
insights into the majority society. When historical narratives are opened to
a diversity of perspectives and voices from different cultures, the ‘others’
will enter as agents with voices of their own.
In school, students meet syntheses and adaptations of historians’
works, commonly in the form of textbooks. Textbooks often obscure (or
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 11
take for granted) their perspectives, use of concepts and criteria of
selection. To highlight such preconditions in class could be one way of
opening the narratives. Adding non-western geopolitical experiences could
possibly help to discover alternative ways of describing concepts such as
development, enlightenment, modernity and colonialism (Mignolo, 2005;
Okere, Njoku, & Devisch, 2011) For this to happen, students would also
have to meet the explanations of African, Arabic, Latin American or Inuit
scholars, to see what historical issues concern them.
1C. What historical content can contribute to the ability to decentre and
relativize one’s own culture? Finally, we want to discuss a third intercultural
dimension of the ability to experience, namely the ability to decentre
and to see the relativity of one’s own values (Deardorff, 2006a, 2006b,
2009). History provides rich possibilities to encounter different systems of
thought and cultural outlooks. However, history is also part of the value
system on which we base our view of the world. Public stories as well as
stories emanating from everyday life create cultural positions. To catch
sight of such positions may be one way of discovering one’s own historical
culture and gaining insights from which the ability to decentre could be
developed.
History teaching needs to be open to students’ preconceptions and
own stories, whether these are consistent with disciplinary history or if
they draw on popular culture and family history. Students would then get
the opportunity to study narratives that are not arranged beforehand. This
might be considered a difficult or sensitive task for history teachers, as the
purpose of such public or everyday stories is to create identities and
belongings rather than to rationally explain historical processes.
In some cases, the historical narratives usually told in schools conflict
with the self-understanding and narratives of minority groups, for
instance, when there are competing narratives about guilt and abuse in a
society (Epstein, 2000, 2007). To make students’ historical cultures the
objects of study is to make their collective memories significant.
We suggest that one way of developing an understanding for other
representations of the world is for students to learn to be more sensitive
to the historicity of shared values and contemporary identities.
To interpret intercultural dimensions of history
Above, we argue that teachers’ selection and outlining of historical content
knowledge are important for building an understanding of contemporary,
multicultural society. This understanding needs, however, a further
qualified ability to interpret different sources, cultures and values. To
interpret the past in the form of history is to connect different experiences
into a coherent narrative.
The ability to interpret embraces three dimensions: (a) to construct
meaningful historical explanations, (b) to investigate sources from the past
and (c) to deconstruct the value system behind different interpretations
12 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
and narratives. It can partly be conceptualized through the historical
thinking framework that has been elaborated in British and Northern
American educational research (Lee & Ashby, 2000). Historical thinking
skills often come in the form of lists (with some, albeit small and variations).
Peter Seixas’ six thinking concepts—historical significance, evidence,
continuity and change, cause and consequence, historical perspectives and the
ethical dimension—are particularly useful when discussing in what way historical
interpretations can contribute to intercultural historical learning
(Seixas, 2006, 2012; Seixas & Peck, 2004). We will use historical thinking
concepts (for the purpose of constructing and investigating) as well as
narrative concepts (for the purpose of deconstructing) together with the
theory of historical consciousness. In our view, these perspectives are possible
to combine, and each brings an important perspective to the other.
Historical thinking concepts provide structure and narrative logic to historical
accounts. However, they primarily handle procedural aspects of
historical knowledge (as shown in the article). They, therefore, have to be
supplemented with concepts from the historical consciousness tradition,
which puts historical accounts into a broader context, relating them to
different cultural master narratives and to the stories of everyday lives, in
other words all those things that influence our historical consciousness.
To summarize, even though the thinking concepts are formulated from a
more cognitive position that contrasts with the phenomenological, and
more philosophical, position of historical consciousness, we see these
traditions as compatible when discussing the advancement of historical
consciousness.
The ability to make historical interpretations relates to the intercultural
dimensions in three cells: The first cell (2A) focuses on interpreting
narratives about cultural and social processes, examining the structures of
concepts, how change and continuity are communicated as well as cause
and consequence. The second cell (2B) focuses on sourcing and perspective-taking
as tools to build adequate historical explanations. Such historical
methods are useful for avoiding (as much as possible) that we impose
our present assumptions and values on other historical cultures. The third
cell (2C) highlights historical significance as a tool to explore the construction
and legitimization of historical canons in different cultures.
2A. How can the selected content be interpreted as meaningful historical
narratives? The first intercultural dimension concerning the ability to
interpret involves historical narratives on a structural level. A narrative is
organized around a plot with its basic structure and its signifying concepts.
Here, we discuss how and why it is important that students be
given the opportunities to investigate how the logic and meaning of historical
content is organized. We raise three issues: concepts, explanations
and patterns of meaning.
When describing today’s multicultural societies from a historical perspective,
we use certain concepts (classificatory as well as analytical) and
certain types of explanations. Classificatory concepts express the differences
we (within a historical culture) have chosen to consider important.
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 13
To exemplify, an immigrant is someone who moves, migrates, from one
country to another. It is in contrast to the citizen (who is settled, not
moving) that the meaning of immigrant is signified. When the migration
started or ended is contextual and does not ascribe any importance to the
meaning of the concept. Choices about using or not using concepts, or
about stressing or not stressing differences are decisive for the meaning
conveyed. Ethnic or national epithets are often used routinely in historical
narratives. But who is labelled a Byzantine, a Swede or an Arab—
someone who has citizenship, lives within certain borders or is a native
speaker? Is the definition historical, for instance, in the way that it differs
before and after the early modern period? Teachers will have to actively
direct students’ attention towards such otherwise concealed questions in
order that they develop their ability to interpret.
Continuity and change (‘what has remained the same over time and
what has changed’) and cause and consequence (‘how and why certain
conditions and actions led to others’) are important concepts for promoting
historical thinking (Seixas, 2008). Whether we discern continuity or
change in a narrative depends on the historical question and the subsequent
framing of the narrative. Some narratives focus on continuity, others
on change. Naming Ancient Greece as the cradle of Western
civilization implies a story about continuity. Furthermore, describing
migrations as disasters that resulted in, for instance, the collapse of the
Roman Empire and the extermination of native populations, or in some
cases as upheavals leading to change (the Mongol invasions), is to stress
differences before and after a turning point. In this way, the narrative
structures link the past to the present by implying strands of similarities
and discontinuities between then and now, and them and us. One way to
historically explain contemporary multicultural society is to treat cultural
encounters and migrations as on-going processes, not as mere events.
Narratives of change tend to signal either progress or decline. Periodizations
of the past are clear examples of this. When we read history as
cultural encounters and open it to a diversity of voices, patterns of contradictions
will occur. Events and historical processes that have meant
progress for certain groups have meant injustice and oppression for other.
As Mignolo (2002) points out, period names such as ‘the Renaissance’
and ‘the Enlightenment’, in effect, tend to conceal the dark sides of
modernity. They are on the one hand integral elements in Western selfunderstanding
and thereby building blocks toward progress, and on the
other intertwined with the traumas of colonialism and racism. Mignolo
encourages us to treat the period names as pedagogical opportunities that
reveal something about the metanarratives: for example, how ‘the Antiquity’
westernizes ancient civilizations and how ‘the Middle Ages’ overshadows
dynamic developments in Asia (as well as the problems of ‘the
Renaissance’ or ‘the Enlightenment’).
2B. How can historical interpretations contribute to the understanding of
representations from different cultures? The second intercultural dimension
of the ability to interpret is about using historical disciplinary methods in
14 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
order to understand representations from different cultures. We have
emphasized the need to open historical narratives to many voices and
perspectives. It may, however, be difficult to explain, examine and relate
representations from different times and cultures.
Wineburg (2001) has shown that there are specific educational problems
in advancing students’ interpretative skills. In some respects, students
could benefit from learning to use some of the methods of
professional historians to become critical and independent historical
thinkers. Learning to think historically can be said to be an exercise in
putting a distant time and culture at the centre of one’s attention. A challenge
for students might be to avoid imposing presentistic and preconceived
notions on their interpretations of various sources. History
teaching needs to provide students with opportunities to critically and systematically
use primary source evidence (‘how to find, select, contextualize
and interpret sources for a historical argument’). Students also need to
get the chance to take historical perspectives (‘with its different, social, cultural,
and even emotional contexts that shaped people’s lives and actions’)
(Seixas, 2006, 2008, 2012). The skills to handle these methodological
procedures could be useful in interpreting other cultures on their own
terms.
Sourcing and other historical methods might lead us to believe that
we are in a safe and neutral place from where we can interpret the world.
This, however, might be false. Western science and historiography have,
in themselves, been complicit in creating colonial ideologies by categorizations
such as civilized/uncivilized, developed/undeveloped and human/
savage. Through ethnographic collections, museums have constructed
knowledge about ‘the others’ in a supposedly neutral way (Bancel, 2013;
Gonza´lez de Oleaga, 2012). Skills in interpreting and using primary
sources will therefore have to include skills in deconstructing earlier interpretations
and detecting remnants of colonial thought systems.
2C. How can historical interpretations contribute to the ability to decentre the
dominant culture? The third intercultural dimension of the ability to interpret
is about examining the dominant historical culture. This requires the
basic understanding that no unprejudiced historical interpretations exist.
In the heterogeneous historical culture that surrounds us, we can perceive
a dominant canon. History education conveys what contemporary society
regards as historically significant (‘why we care, today, about certain
events, trends and issues in history’ Seixas, 2008). A past event finds its
way into history education on the grounds that it says something about
this past, but also because it does so about the present (Reisman &
Wineburg, 2012). There is a mythical dimension in the meaning of
Plymouth Rock in 1620 for American historical culture, in the meaning of
1789 for French culture, in the meaning of the free peasant in Sweden as
well as the memory of the empire in Italy or Britain. Those stories are
charged with presumed ideas and notions of the souls of a nation. While
their explanatory functions today are reduced, they still survive as identity-building
narratives. In this way, as sources of identification they are
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 15
still significant within the historical cultures of modern societies. History
education could give students opportunities to interpret events, trends,
and issues and analyse by which criteria they have been included in
various historical cultures. The historical thinking tradition uses the concept
of establishing historical significance for this process (Counsell,
2005; Seixas, 1997).
An additional challenge is to discover the mechanisms of power
underlying the processes of ascribing significance. Science institutions,
schools and museums have all evolved inside a world with a colonial outlook,
a world that made Western culture the norm and placed it at the
centre of the world (Mignolo, 2009). Consisting of cultural rules and conditions,
a ‘discursive order’ determines whether or not certain events are
worth including in a historical canon. By these mechanisms, some voices
are amplified and others muted. To decentre our own historical culture
involves being able to recognize those power relations and to relate the
narratives to other possible narratives. Issues that could be raised to challenge
students to question such narratives are: What narratives create feelings
of belonging? What symbols and commemorations are important?
What narratives legitimize dominance and resistance? Who are the senders
of certain narratives and do we trust them?
To use intercultural dimensions of history for the purpose of
orientation
Orientation is one of the overarching aims of history education. To orient
is to use history to understand life, to build and reshape identities, and to
influence our situations. In that respect, history is a competence to act as
well as it is knowledge about the past (Ru¨sen, 1987, 2005). Without the
purpose of providing practical orientation in everyday life, history in
schools has no meaning. However, a scholarly debate about this aim is
conspicuously absent, unlike the extensive educational discussions about
content knowledge and interpretative skills (e.g. Counsell, 2000).
The concept of use-of-history enables us to discuss competing narratives
in a multicultural society. Peter Seixas (2012) relates how educational
ministries in Canada decided to incorporate an aboriginal
perspective into the curricula. For history studies, this meant a welcome
interest in the aboriginal colonial experience, but to Seixas a problem
appeared concerning different epistemologies, for example, when textbooks
presented aboriginal stories as historical myths or alternative ways
of knowing. If the textbook way of knowing incorporates an allegory like
‘Why the Salmon Came to Squamish Waters’ as an explanation (of the
origin of salmons), then, says Seixas, the field could as well be opened to
rendering creationist or fundamentalist explanations the same status as
natural science or history.
To us, however, this way of reasoning appears to be a dead end. A
possible way out, instead of handling stories such as the aboriginal myth
above as an alternative way of knowing, is to take a use-of-history
16 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
perspective. This directs attention to an understanding of how narratives,
symbols and other historical references are used to satisfy different needs.
Thus, the focus shifts from epistemological claims to acknowledging the
myth’s meaning-making capacity. Human actors use history in communication;
orally, in writing or physically by raising monuments and performing
ceremonies. Even remaining silent, avoiding sensitive history, is a
form of use-of-history (Karlsson, 2004). Consequently, use-of-history is
the performative side of historical culture, in order to describe, to build
identities and to change.
The ability to orient relates to the intercultural dimensions in three
cells: all cells consider how students understand the uses of history in life
and society. The first cell (3A) emphasizes that historical narratives
should include actual examples of how different social and cultural groups
use and have used history. The second cell (3B) demonstrates how a useof-history
perspective is a valuable tool to understand different cultures.
The third cell (3C), finally, discusses how students can utilize history in
order to understand their own multicultural present, and, not least, be
able to relate ethically to the present.
3A. How can a use-of-history perspective contribute to knowledge about
historical social and cultural processes? The first dimension of the ability to
orient is about engaging students in the study of how different cultures
now and in the past have used history for different purposes. We argue
that it is important, as well as productive, to have students not just learn
history in the sense of learning about the past but to actually learn how
history is used. One task for textbooks, or history teachers, is to present
different examples of uses, both in the past and in contemporary society
(Kitson, Husbands, & Steward, 2011; McAleavy, 1993). The idea is that
when the students meet Sumerians, Mongols, Incas or Americans they
also meet the self-images of those groups and the constructions of how
they wanted to be remembered through their uses of monuments, symbols
and tradition.
People use history to orient in time. One way to develop this ability is
through the examples of others. Narratives about conquerors or victims,
about victories, injustices or claims of reparations, are plentiful and frequently
evoked by different groups. Such uses of history take various
forms, from stories and myths to statues, memorial days and symbols.
The purpose, then, is not to give historical explanations about what actually
took place in the past. In these instances, people use history for guidance
in the present and for the future in order to understand the events
they were part of, to strengthen identification and to mobilize for change.
A use-of-history perspective as an integrated component in history education
could thus benefit the study of cultural and social processes.
3B. How can a use-of-history perspective contribute to the ability to explain
and relate to representations from different cultures? The second dimension
of the ability to orient moves from having students meet and see different
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 17
uses of history (3A) to engaging them in explaining and relating to these
uses in analytical ways. This section discusses three separate ‘uses’ that
could be examined in the history classroom, how history is used to
describe the world, how it is used to build identities and how it is used to
promote change. These uses are not to be seen as mutually exclusive;
instead they are each other’s preconditions.
People need history to make their lives, and the societies they live in,
comprehensible. Science is one kind of representation; myth is another.
However, both claim to describe the world. To understand how people
with different backgrounds and experiences use history in order to
describe and understand the world, and how these representations generate
different worldviews, is essential from an intercultural point of view.
(The same descriptive narratives can then be used for purposes of identification
and for purposes of change.)
People turn to history for purposes of identification and feelings of
security. Much has been said about the relationship of history and identity.
Nietzsche (2006) discusses how past events can be made into a heritage
of worship, thereby creating emotional ties to places and collectives.
Different groups use traditional narratives to create recognition or to
strengthen a threatened identity (as for a diaspora group). Narrating these
emotionally strong narratives demonstrate and build cohesion. At the
same time, cultural encounters lead to changing identities.
People make use-of-history when they want to influence the surrounding
society and change the world. History can be used for this purpose
in many ways: as an argument for support of, or challenge to, the
established order of life; as an expression of moral indignation, when
people feel that crimes in the past have not been dealt with or when people
feel that a valuable heritage is about to be destroyed. History can be
used as symbolic examples when political leaders try to evoke nationalism
before a conflict, when racist organizations try to exclude immigrants
from the national community or when revolutionaries rally against the
establishment.
Just as history didactics has developed concepts to analyse sources
and historical explanations, we need tools to understand and discern
aspects of how history is practically used. Such an understanding could
possibly be an important component in intercultural learning, since the
use-of-history is an essential dimension of any cultural practice.
3C. How can a use-of-history perspective contribute to the ability to orient in
life and the multicultural present? The third dimension of the ability to orient
is about students’ dispositions to relate, cognitively as well as ethically,
to their own multicultural present. It concerns the ways we comprehend
the past, define our understanding of the present and what actions we
consider possible or not (Ru¨sen, 1996). History is not a map, nor is it a
compass that leads our way, but a powerful foundation from where we
discuss and judge present life and future possibilities. This orienting
power ought to be fundamental to history education, and provide opportunities
to practically use historical knowledge and interpretations to relate
18 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
to the present as well as reflect on the possibilities and limits of using history
for the purpose of orientation (Nordgren, 2011). From an intercultural
point of view, we raise three perspectives: first, adding a historical
perspective in order to sort out contemporary issues in a deliberate and
cognitive way may help us when we try to make considered assumptions
about the future. Contemporary issues should be found at the heart of
history studies, both for asking questions about the historical background
and for students exploring their own present and considering possible
actions (Barton & McCully, 2010). A second way of using history for the
purpose of orientation is to explore the historical dimension of identifications.
School history does not, and is not meant to, provide students with
identities, but could contribute to an understanding of the processes of
identifications (Barton, 2012). Relating the present to the past, thereby
recognizing that all human beings have a history and are part of a historical
culture would be a relevant starting point for students that are in the
process of preparing to become participatory citizens in a multicultural
society. Thirdly, history education has an ethical dimension. When we
render meaning to the world around us, we assume ethical positions. The
historical perspective teaches us to understand how different interpretations
of the past reflect different moral stances and cautions us to judge
past actors from our position in the present (Lee, 2005; Wineburg,
2001). Nevertheless, to make the past a meaningful history we need to let
history studies affect our values; history is useless if it does not lead to
moral orientation (Ru¨sen, 1996; Seixas, 2005). Undertaking and having
the willingness to relativize one’s own culture and to take the perspectives
of other people is a fundamental element of intercultural historical learning.
It is to ask about the consequences of actions in the past, allowing
for differing worldviews and reflecting on the limits of cultural and moral
relativism.
Shifting viewpoints
History has not yet found its forms of adapting to the changes brought
about by the multicultural society, neither at the policy level nor at the
teaching level. The legitimacy of history as a subject in schools rests
firmly on the conviction that it offers us important perspectives on contemporary
life. Without this, history loses its relevance. This article
explores the meaning and the components of intercultural historical learning.
Initially, we raised two questions. Firstly, how history as a subject in
school can contribute to intercultural competence, and secondly, what the
consequences are for history education when it comes to subject matter
and methods?
When answering the first question, we have examined what fundamental
knowledge and discrete abilities that might capture both intercultural
and historical aspects. We have outlined a conceptual framework by
bringing together theories of narrative and intercultural competencies.
Whereas narrative competence is rooted in history education and points
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 19
to specific historical learning, intercultural competence is of a more
generic kind, with the purpose of promoting citizenship in a multicultural
society.
The article demonstrates that the theories of narrative and intercultural
competencies can be combined without compromising their core ideas.
We have taken care to keep an open and dynamic line of reasoning, being
careful not to produce exclusionary or definitive answers. The framework
does not take into account specific conditions such as students’ age, progression
of learning or different national curricula. Rather, it should be
understood as deductively generated and as a systematic way of identifying
some critical aspects of intercultural historical learning. The next step, on
the other hand, will have to be to test the framework empirically, considering
the restrictions and possibilities of practical teaching and learning.
We conclude that history in schools can contribute to intercultural
learning. It can do so by providing a relevant body of knowledge, skills of
interpretation and preparedness for action. Nevertheless, having said this,
we also want to stress that this will likely not happen by itself. On the
contrary, there is a narrative structure that dominates history in large
parts of the world and positions all societies in, more or less, the same
trajectory from homogeneous agricultural settlements to modern nationstates.
This can actually hamper and be an obstacle to the advancement
of intercultural learning. Within this narrative, societal diversity can only
be explained as a contemporary phenomenon with no connection to the
past. It simplifies (and hides complexity), gives prominence to certain
ideas (a natural path of development) and constructs an image of a homogeneity
that was never the case. Thus, it does not help us when we want
to explain and understand contemporary diversity and multiple identities.
As an alternative (to linking agricultural societies to modern nationstates),
we therefore suggest that history education might benefit from
another focus, such as cultural encounters and migrations, and the fundamental
and radical influences of such processes on the history of mankind,
thereby providing an understanding of the societal diversity of
today. We also suggest that history education, to be relevant to this diversity,
will have to include the histories of everyday life and the histories
that students bring into the classrooms.
The second question raised in the introduction considers the consequences
of intercultural learning for subject matter and methods. It points
to the need to reflect upon the epistemological grounds for history teaching
and learning: What should it be about, vis-a`-vis an intercultural goal?
To answer this, we seek a viewpoint from where we can perceive history
as a phenomenon that effects society and everyday life, a phenomenon
that includes academic historical knowledge without being restricted to it.
Of course, as a school subject, history is firmly rooted in the domain of
academic history. In short, this has meant that the overall aim for schools
has been to transfer a canon of historical knowledge, or, as an opposite
position, to teach students to think like historians in encountering historical
inquiries and primary sources. However, although relevant, both these
positions give a restricted field of vision. More often than not history in
schools omits the study of the historical culture of everyday life and
20 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
collective memory, a culture that ranges from statues and street names to
myths and traditions as well as including fragmented ideas about the
world. When students’ everyday ideas about the past are actually
included, they tend to be treated either as preconceptions that could be
used to develop advanced historical thinking (Bain, 2005; Barton &
Levstik, 2004), or as misconceptions that have to be overcome to give
place to such thinking (Lee, 2005). Consequently, contemporary uses of
history are not seen as topics of study in their own right. We believe it is
time to shift viewpoints.
The multicultural challenge, the need to make history studies relevant
to contemporary society, has highlighted, but not caused, the built-in tension
between political purposes and current disciplinary practices. History
as a school subject has been given its form through two opposed ideas: on
the one hand as a political project to create cohesion by providing society
with a narrative (whether clearly stated or just implicitly understood), on
the other hand as an epistemological project of interpreting history. To
put it bluntly, school history is somewhat of an unrecognized partnership
between a nietzschean use-of-history and a ‘Leopold von Ranke tradition’,
that is, between a political ‘history for life’, where the past is above all a
tool for contemporary usages—and a source-based history with a focus on
(inter)national affairs. For history studies to be relevant, we have to recognize
that such a tension exists, and construe the purpose of history in
school from there. We need to find a viewpoint, with a broader field of
vision, expanding the historian’s outlook on the past by adding to it an
anthropologist’s understanding of the meanings of historical cultures and
a historical sociologist’s appreciations of how people use history with an
impact on both life and society.
Disclosure statement
This article has been written with in the project Processes of history teaching
in the multicultural society. The project had been founded by the Swedish
Research Council. Karlstad University has been a co-founder. Stockholm
city, school and education division has co-founded Maria Johansson’s
doctoral studies.
We are not aware of any personal or institutional conflicts or potential
conflicts of interest in relation to the submitted manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish research Council (VR) [grant number
721-2009-6095].
Notes
1. Historical consciousness, in this meaning, gives an open reference to how human beings
make sense of their experiences of the past, and is not confined to Western modernity
(cf. Gadamer & Fantel, 1975; Koselleck, 2004). The educational goal to advance
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 21
historical consciousness (into a modern historical understanding) has been referred to
as a genetic historical consciousness (cf. Ru¨sen, 1987).
2. Ru¨sen gives examples of procedures of historical learning, sometimes five (1996),
sometimes three (2005) or four (2007). We perceive the three procedures: ‘experience’,
‘interpretation’ and ‘orientation’ as the key categories (2005); the others are not as
independent and not as frequent in Ru¨sen’s texts. The procedures to ‘ask’ and ‘produce’
are related to a discussion on narrative theory (1996) and ‘motivate’ (2007) is a
dependent aspect of orientation.
References
Aldred, G., Byram, M., & Fleming, M. (Eds.). (2006). Education for intercultural citizenship:
Concepts and comparisons. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship
education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 381–397.
Bain, R. B. (2005). ‘They thought the world was flat?’ Applying the principles of how people
learn in teaching high school history. In S. M. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.),
How students learn: History mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 179–214).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bancel, N. (2013). France, 2005: A postcolonial turning point. French Cultural Studies, 24,
208–218.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Barton, K. C. (2009). The denial of desire. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.), National history
standards: The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history (pp. 261–278).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Barton, K. C. (2012). School history as a resource for constructing identities: Implications
of research from the United States, Northern Ireland, and New Zealand. In M.
Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. R. Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction
of national identities (pp. 93–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ:
L. Erlbaum Associates.
Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. (2010). You can form your own point of view: Internally
persuasive discourse in northern ireland students’ encounters with history. Teachers
College Record, 112, 142–181.
Bracey, P., Gove-Humphries, A., & Jackson, D. (2010). Teaching diversity in the history
classroom. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 172–182). Routledge:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Burbules, N. C. (1997). A grammar of difference: Some ways of rethinking difference and
diversity as educational topics. The Australian Educational Researcher, 24, 97–116.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship:
Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Barrett, M., Ipgrave, J., Jackson, R., & Mendez Garcia, M. (2009). Autobiography
of intercultural encounters. Context, concepts and theories. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (2001). Introduction. In M. Byram, A. Nichols, &
D. Stevens (Eds.), Developing intercultural competence in practice (pp. 1–8). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Carretero, M., Asensio, M., & Moneo, M. R. (Eds.). (2012). History education and the construction
of national identities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Counsell, C. (2000). Historical knowledge and historical skills. A distracting dichotomy.
In A. James & R. S. Phillips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching (pp. 54–71). London:
Routledge.
Counsell, C. (2005). Looking through a Josephine-Butlershaped window: Focusing students’
thinking on historical significance. Teaching History, 114, 30–36.
22 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
Deakin, R. (2008). Key competencies for education in a European context: Narratives of
accountability or care. European Educational Research Journal, 7, 311–318.
Deardorff, D. K. (20006a). Assessing intercultural competence in study abroad students.
In M. Bryam & A. Feng (Eds.), Living and studying abroad: Research and practice
(pp. 232–256). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Deardorff, D. (2006b). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10,
241–266.
Deardorff, D. (2009). Synthesizing conceptualizations of intercultural competence: A
summary and emerging themes. The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence,
264–270.
Dunn, R. E. (2009). The two world histories. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.),
National history standards: The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history
(p. 55–69). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Eikeland, H. (2001). Utvikling av historiebevissthet og narrativ kompetanse gjennom historiefaget
i Aschehougs laereverk for ungdomstrinnet [Advancing historical consciousness
and narrative competence through history studies in Aschehoug’s
textbooks for secondary school]. In S. Selander & D. Skjelbred (Eds.), Fokus pa˚
pedagogiske tekster 3, fem artikler om vurdering av lærebøker. Tønsberg: Høgskolen i
Vestfold.
Eikeland, H. (2004). Historieundervisning og interkulturell læring : en analyse av norske og tyske
læreplaner, norske lærebøker og av erfaringer fra norsk skole [History education and
intercultural learning: An analysis of Norwegian and German curricula, Norwegian
textbooks and experiences from Norwegian schools]. Tønsberg: Høgskolen i
Vestfold.
Epstein, T. (2000). Adolescent perspectives on racial diversity in US history: Case studies
from urban classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 185–214.
Epstein, T. (2007). The effects of family/community and school discourses on children’s
and adolescents’ interpretations of United States history. International Journal of
Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 6, 1–9.
Faas, D. (2011). The nation, Europe, and migration: A comparison of geography, history,
and citizenship education curricula in Greece, Germany, and England. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 43, 471–492.
Faas, D., & Ross, W. (2012). Identity, diversity and citizenship: A critical analysis of textbooks
and curricula in Irish schools. International Sociology, 27, 574–591.
Gadamer, H. G., & Fantel, H. (1975). The problem of historical consciousness. Graduate
Faculty Philosophy Journal, 5, 8–52.
Gonza´lez de Oleaga, M. (2012). Historical narratives in the colonial, national and ethnic
museums of Argentina, Paraguay and Spain. In M. Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. R.
Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities (pp. 239–255).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Gundara, J., & Portera, A. (2008). Theoretical reflections on intercultural education.
Intercultural Education, 19, 463–468.
Harris, R., & Clarke, G. (2011). Embracing diversity in the history curriculum: A study of
the challenges facing trainee teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 159–175.
Jeismann, K. E. (1979). Geschichtsbewusstsein [Historical consciousness]. In K. Bergmann
(Ed.), Handbuch der Geschuchtsbewusstsein (pp. 42–45). Du¨sseldorf: Pa¨dagogischer
Verlag Schwann.
Jensen, B. E. (1997). Historiemedvetande—begreppsanalys, samha¨llsteori, didaktik [Historical
consciousness – social theory, conceptual analysis, didactics]. In C. Karlega¨rd
& K.-G. Karlsson (Eds.), Historiedidaktik (pp. 69–81). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Johansson, M. (2012). Historieundervisning och interkulturell kompetens [History teaching
and intercultural competence]. Karlstad: Karlstads Universitet.
Karlsson, K. G. (2004). Historiedidaktik: begrepp, teori och analys [History didactics:
Concepts, theories and analysis]. In K. G. Karlsson & U. Zander (Eds.), Historien
a¨r nu. En introduktion till historiedidaktiken (pp. 131–166). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Kitson, A., Husbands, C., & Steward, S. (2011). Teaching and learning history 11–18:
Understanding the past. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 23
Ko¨rber, A. (2011). German history didactics: From historical consciousness to historical
competencies—and beyond? In H. Bjerg, C. Lenz, & E. Thorstensen (Eds.), Historicizing
the uses of the past. Scandinavian perspectives on history culture, historical consciousness
and didactics of history related to world war II (pp. 145–164). Bielefeld:
Verlag.
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Lee, P. (2005). ‘Putting Principles into Practice: Understanding History’ i. In S. Donovan
& J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the
classroom (pp. 31–77). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in historical understanding among students ages
7–14. In P. N. Seixas, P. C. Seixas, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching,
and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 199–222). NYU
Press.
Luciak, M. (2006). Minority schooling and intercultural education: A comparison of recent
developments in the old and new EU member states. Intercultural. Bielefeld: Verlag.
McAleavy, T. (1993). Using the attainment targets in key stage 3: AT2, interpretations of
history. Teaching history, 72, 14–17.
Mignolo, W. D. (2002). The enduring enchantment (or The epistemic privilege of modernity
and where to go from here). South Atlantic Quarterly, 101, 927–954.
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). Prophets facing sidewise: The geopolitics of knowledge and the
colonial difference. Social Epistemology, 19, 111–127.
Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial
freedom. Theory, Culture and Society, 26, 159–181.
Nash, G. B., Crabtree, C. A., & Dunn, R. E. (2000). History on trial: Culture Wars and the
teaching of the past. New York, NY: Random House LLC.
Nietzsche, F. W. (2006). The use and abuse of history. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc.
Nordgren, K. (2006). Vems a¨r historien? Historia som medvetande, kultur och handling i det
ma˚ngkulturella Sverige [Who does history belong to? History as consciousness,
culture and action in multicultural Sweden]. Karlstad: Karlstads Universitet.
Nordgren, K. (2011). Historical consciousness and September 11 2001. In K. Nordgren,
P. Eliasson, & C. Ro¨nnqvist (Eds.), The processes of history teaching (pp. 165–191).
Karlstad: Karlstad University Press.
Nygren, T. T. (2011). International reformation of Swedish history education 1927–1961:
The complexity of implementing international understanding. Journal of World
History, 22, 329–354.
Okere, T., Njoku, C., & Devisch, R. (2011). All knowledge is first of all local knowledge.
In R. Devisch & F. Nyamnjoh (Eds.), The postcolonial turn: Re-imagining anthropology
and Africa (pp. 275–295). Bamenda: Langaa RPCIG.
Popham, J. (2009). Instruction that measures up: Successful teaching in the age of accountability.
Alexandria: ASCD.
Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural competence: The status and future of a controversial
concept. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7, 254–266.
Reisman, A., & Wineburg, S. (2012). Ways of knowing and the history classroom: Supporting
disciplinary discussion and reasoning about texts. In M. Carretero, M. Asensio, &
M. R. Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities (pp.
239–255). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Ru¨sen, J. (1987). Historical narration: Foundation, types, reason. History & Theory, 26,
87–97.
Ru¨sen, J. (1996). Historische Sinnbildung durch Erza¨hlen. Eine Argumentationsskizze
zum narrativistischen Paradigma der Geschichtswissenschaft und der Geschichtsdidaktik
im Blick auf nicht-narrative Faktoren [Historical meaning through narration.
An argument for a narrativistic paradigm for the science of history and history
didactics]. Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 18, 501–544.
Ru¨sen, J. (2004). Bera¨ttande och fo¨rnuft: historieteoretiska texter [Narration and reason:
Texts on history theory]. Go¨teborg: Daidalos.
Ru¨sen, J. (2005). History: Narration, interpretation, orientation. New York, NY: Berghahn
Books.
24 K. NORDGREN AND M. JOHANSSON
Ru¨sen, J. (2007). How to make sense of the past-salient issues of metahistory. TD: The
Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 3, 169–221.
Ru¨sen, J. (2012). Tradition: A principle of historical sense-generation and its logic and
effect in historical culture. History & Theory, 51, 45–59.
Seixas, P. (1997). Mapping the terrain of historical significance. Social Education, 61,
22–27.
Seixas, P. (2005). The progress of knowledge in a postprogressive age. In J. Straub (Ed.),
Narration, identity, and historical consciousness (pp. 141–159). New York, NY:
Berghahn Books.
Seixas, P. (2006). Benchmarks of historical thinking: A framework for assessment in Canada
[electronic resource]. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Seixas, P. (2008). ‘Scaling up’ the benchmarks of historical thinking. A report on the Vancouver
Meeting. Retrieved February 14–15, from historicalthinking.ca
Seixas, P. (2012). Indigenous historical consciousness: An oxymoron or a dialogue? In M.
Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. R. Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction
of national identities (pp. 125–138). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2012). The big six historical thinking concepts. Toronto: Nelson
Education.
Seixas, P., & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking. In A. Sears & I. Wright
(Eds.), Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies (pp. 109–117). Vancouver:
Pacific Educational Press.
Sewell Jr., W. H. (2005). The concept (s) of culture. In G. M. Spiegel (Ed.), Practicing
history: New directions in historical writing after the linguistic turn (pp. 76–95). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sharp, H. H. (2012). Australia’s 1988 Bicentennial: National history and multiculturalism
in the primary school curriculum. History of Education, 41, 405–421.
Sheidrake, R., & Banham, D. (2007). Seeing a different picture: Exploring migration
through the lens of history. Teaching History, 129, 39–47.
Shemilt, D. (1980). Schools council history 13–16 project. History 13–16 evaluation study.
Edinburgh: Holmes McDougall.
Sleeter, C. (2010). Probing beneath meanings of multicultural education. Multicultural
Education Review, 2(1), 1–24.
Stier, J. (2003). Internationalisation, ethnic diversity and the acquisition of intercultural
competencies. Intercultural Education, 14, 77–91.
Symcox, L., & Wilschut, A. (Eds.). (2009). National history standards: The problem of the
canon and the future of teaching history. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Tutiaux-Guillon, N. (2012). Traditional frame for global history: The narrative of modernity
in French secondary school. In M. Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. R. Moneo
(Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities (pp. 109–123).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
UNESCO. (2006). Guidelines on intercultural education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf
Vansledright, B. (2009). Thinking historically. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41, 433–438.
Wilschut, A. J. (2010). History at the mercy of politicians and ideologies: Germany, England,
and the Netherlands in the 19th and 20th centuries. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 42, 693–723.
Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of
teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Young, R. (2012). Postcolonial remains. New Literary History, 43, 19–42.
INTERCULTURAL HISTORICAL LEARNING 25
Copyright of Journal of Curriculum Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.