New Approaches to Teaching the History of the British Empire

大英帝国历史教学的新方法

• 批准号: ES/Y007948/1
• 负责人: Abigail Branford
• 金额: $ 15.4万
• 依托单位: University of Oxford
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Fellowship
• 财政年份: 2023
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2023 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FY007948%2F1
• 关键词: New; Approaches; Teaching; History; British

How colonial history should be taught in schools has been the subject of significant public debate in England, a debate which has intensified since the 2020 summer of Black Lives Matter. Traditionally this topic has been taught by listing the 'pros and cons' of the British Empire, a method called 'the balance sheet'. During a period of intense public discussion about the legacy of the British Empire and the polarised opinions this generated, continuing in this tradition was seen as a way of fairly reflecting divided public opinion on an emotive topic. My doctoral research investigated the consequences of this teaching method through surveys and focus groups with students and observing months of history lessons. Splitting colonialism into 'pros' and 'cons' encouraged students to see different aspects of a complex process as entirely separate from each other. For example, students described 'education' as a 'pro' and 'suppressing indigenous cultures' as a 'con'. However, beliefs about which cultures were superior and which cultures should be supressed drove the growth of Western education systems in the British Empire, justified the racial segregation of schools and shaped the content of what students learnt in these schools. A framing of 'pros and cons' prevents students from seeing these interconnections between 'pros' and 'cons'. The balance sheet approach also puts the question of what effects did the British have on other people at the centre of lessons. The only people with agency in that framework are British, while Africans, Asians, Irish and Indigenous peoples of Oceania and the Americas can only appear as victims or beneficiaries of British actions. Lastly, these activities of sorting events into 'pros' and 'cons' also - as one teacher expressing her discomfort put it - "do not compare like with like." For example, worksheets which put 'spread cricket and rugby' as a 'pro' alongside 'the transatlantic slave trade' as a 'con' trivialises a very painful history.I developed a set of recommendations for productive alternatives to balance sheet approaches, e.g. a stronger regional focus would enable greater detail of specific pre- and post-colonial histories, allowing for a wider range of groups to be recognised as shaping the history of these regions. I also describe ways in which using the stories of 'ordinary' individuals can show the interconnections made invisible in balance sheet approaches. An ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship would enable me to publish my research and recommendations in scholarly journals as well as to present my work to teachers (online and offline) with the aim of stimulating change in teaching practice.England has certainly not been alone in wrestling with questions about how to teach difficult histories of a complex colonial past. An ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship would enable me to submit well-developed applications to fund a multi-year project which investigates these themes in three further contexts. Different political pressures in Kenya, South Africa and the US have led to policymakers taking action to restructure history curricula and are set to implement these changes within the next two years. However, teachers' voices have not been prioritised in public discussions of these changes and many teachers fear speaking publicly about them, particularly in the US. These forthcoming applications would propose to investigate the origins of these policy changes and their effects as understood by (anonymised) history teachers. I will also draw out their relevance for debates in the English context. Policymakers in England have resisted calls for compulsory changes to history curricula and emphasised the importance of teachers having relative autonomy in how they interpret the national curriculum. A nuanced understanding of how policy interventions in this space have been received by teachers elsewhere can helpfully inform both the DfE and civil society organisations engaged in these debates.

如何在学校教授殖民地历史一直是英国重大公众辩论的主题，自2020年夏天黑人生活问题以来，这一辩论愈演愈烈。传统上，这个话题是通过列出大英帝国的“利弊”来教授的，这种方法被称为“资产负债表”。在公众对大英帝国的遗产和由此产生的两极分化的意见进行激烈讨论的时期，继续这一传统被视为公平反映公众对一个情绪化话题的分歧意见的一种方式。我的博士研究调查了这种教学方法的后果，通过调查和焦点小组与学生和观察几个月的历史课。将殖民主义分为“赞成”和“反对”鼓励学生将复杂过程的不同方面视为完全独立的。例如，学生们将“教育”描述为“赞成”，将“压制土著文化”描述为“反对”。然而，关于哪些文化是上级，哪些文化应该被压制的信念推动了西方教育体系在大英帝国的发展，证明了学校的种族隔离是合理的，并塑造了学生在这些学校学习的内容。“优点和缺点”的框架阻止学生看到“优点”和“缺点”之间的相互联系。资产负债表方法还将英国人对其他人产生了什么影响的问题置于课程的中心。在这一框架内，唯一有代理权的人是英国人，而非洲人、亚洲人、爱尔兰人以及大洋洲和美洲的土著人民只能作为英国行动的受害者或受益者出现。最后，这些将事件分类为“优点”和“缺点”的活动--正如一位教师表示她的不安所说--“不要用类似的东西来比较。“例如，将”传播板球和橄榄球“作为”赞成“，将”跨大西洋奴隶贸易“作为”反对“的做法，淡化了一段非常痛苦的历史。我提出了一套建议，提出了资产负债表方法的富有成效的替代办法，例如，更强有力的区域重点将能够更详细地了解具体的前殖民和后殖民历史，允许更广泛的群体被承认为塑造这些地区的历史。我还描述了如何使用“普通”个人的故事来展示资产负债表方法中不可见的相互联系。ESRC博士后奖学金将使我能够在学术期刊上发表我的研究和建议，并向教师（在线和离线）展示我的工作，以刺激教学实践的变化。英格兰肯定不是唯一一个在如何教授复杂的殖民历史的问题上挣扎的国家。ESRC博士后奖学金将使我能够提交完善的申请，以资助一个多年期项目，该项目在三个进一步的背景下调查这些主题。肯尼亚、南非和美国的不同政治压力促使政策制定者采取行动，重组历史课程，并将在未来两年内实施这些改革。然而，教师的声音在关于这些变化的公开讨论中没有得到优先考虑，许多教师害怕公开谈论这些变化，特别是在美国。这些即将到来的应用程序将建议调查这些政策变化的起源及其影响（匿名）历史教师的理解。我还将指出它们与英语背景下的辩论的相关性。英格兰的政策制定者抵制了对历史课程进行强制性改革的呼吁，并强调了教师在如何解释国家课程方面拥有相对自主权的重要性。对其他地方的教师如何接受这一领域的政策干预措施的细致入微的理解，可以为教育部和参与这些辩论的民间社会组织提供有益的信息。