This study focuses on the comparison of the English and the Dutch primary history curriculum regarding the understanding of historical time. We compare different aspects of both curricula that can apply to other subjects as well, for example the question ‘what age would be appropriate to start a subject in primary school?’ Here, we emphasize that exposure to different learning processes is more important than pupils’ age and maturity. Drawing on analyses of curriculum documents, surveys (n = 128) and interviews (n = 25), we explored how the understanding of historical time is addressed in the intended and the implemented primary curricula for history. The analysis of the data indicates that teachers in both countries do not teach all objectives of the understanding of historical time. Although in England the history curriculum starts earlier, the episodic structure of the curriculum is not very helpful to support pupils’ understanding of historical time. In the Netherlands the framework of 10 eras is mostly taught chronologically; however, neither the sequence nor the dates of historical periods are explicitly taught. Apparently, the teaching and learning of historical time in both countries needs improvement and we conclude with some suggestions to accomplish this.
LINK
Teaching history usually focuses on understanding the past as an aim in itself. Research shows that many students have difficulty in seeing the point of this and often perceive history as useless, or, even if they think history is useful, do not know very well how to make use of it. Yet history plays a major role in the orientation on present and future. If students fail to see this or do not know how to make use of historical knowledge and skills, the question may arise whether this is due to a lack of explicit attention in history classes on how knowledge about the past can be applied to the present and the future. This article explores two questions: 1) If history is to be more relevant to students, what kind of objectives should play a central role in history teaching? 2) If we want to achieve such goals, what kind of teaching methods or strategies could be feasible? The first question is answered by means of historical and educational theory and philosophy. The second is answered by exploring a number of teaching strategies that have been described in the literature, as well as a small scale experiment conducted by the authors. This article aims at providing a basis for developing meaningful history curricula as well as for research into educational strategies which can be deployed to teach students how to make connections between past, present and future.
Hoofdstuk in The history of youth work in Europe and its relevance for youth policy today. Youth work in the Netherlands goes back a long way and since the 1970s has taken on a rather strong professional image. During the last decades, it went through some hard times, but recently it has undergone a revival and revaluation. (Griensven & Smeets, 2003). The first section of this paper is about how the characteristics of the Dutch affect social work and youth work concepts. The second part discusses the Dutch framework for youth work: definition, fields of activities, core tasks and the ambiguous relationship between youth work and social work. The third section deals with the history of youth work. The paper concludes with a reflection on the future directions that youth work could take. The article is based on Dutch historical research, some by the author, and the author’s involvement in youth work, both as a youth worker and editor- in- chief of the semi-scientific journal Jeugd en samenleving.
