Fostering historical consciousness and empathy in lower secondary students: A comparative study of history curricula in Australia and Singapore

Abstract

Over the last three decades, research in history education has led to the development of more relevant, student-centred approaches to history curricula. Some researchers have argued that the mastery of historical literacy fosters individual students' personal attitudes or dispositions toward history, ranging from historical understanding to historical consciousness and empathy. This paper sets out to compare, to what extent and how, history curricula developed in Australia and Singapore have helped to encourage historical consciousness, and empathy in lower secondary school students and strengthen students' sense of relationality with those individuals and groups in society who are different from themselves. The comparative education approach adopted in this paper begins by briefly describing the social, political, and cultural context of each country before presenting a comparative analysis of the history curriculum documents of both countries. This analysis is discussed alongside personal responses from history academics, lower secondary classroom teachers, and senior teachers in charge of history. The findings indicate the two countries’ curriculum documents do seek to foster historical consciousness, while the comments of teacher participants demonstrated how their understanding of the curriculum documents had led to examples of empathy and relationality in their classroom teaching.

1. Introduction

Over the last three decades, research in history education has led to the development of more relevant, student-centred history curricula. Academics in the discipline of history and history education have argued strongly for historical inquiry, historical literacy, and historical thinking as the essential elements of their discipline which lower secondary students need to learn [[1], [2], [3]]. Some have argued that the mastery of historical literacy can foster individual students' personal attitudes or dispositions toward history, ranging from historical understanding to historical consciousness and empathy [[4], [5], [6]]. Although each country's approach differs, these are qualities which many multicultural or multi-ethnic societies wish to foster in their students. This paper sets out to compare, to what extent and how, history curricula developed in Australia and Singapore have fostered historical consciousness, and particularly empathy, in lower secondary school students. It also seeks to investigate how far the curriculum statements have incorporated recent suggestions to extend empathy to specifically include a greater awareness in students of individuals and groups in society who are different from themselves. Both Australia and Singapore have used the development of history curricula to reinforce social and cultural purposes such as national unity and recognition of cultural diversity [[7], [8], [9], [10], [11]].

A comparative education approach, however, demands a consideration of the particular historical and societal context of each country and the political, economic and cultural factors at work within it. In regard to cultural diversity, the 2021 Australian Census highlighted that only 67 % of the Australian population were born in Australia [12]. The Census also showed that 48.2 % of Australians had a parent born overseas [13], and just under a third of the resident population were born overseas (27.6 %), with the United Kingdom continuing to provide the largest group of overseas-born residents (927,490 people) [12]. In contrast, according to the Singapore Department of Statistics [14], three quarters of Singapore's resident population was Chinese (74.2 %), with Malays and Indians comprising 13.7 % and 8.9 % of the population respectively, whilst the category of Others constituted the remaining 3.2 %. This ethnic composition has changed very little since Singapore obtained independence in 1965. Whilst both Australia and Singapore are multicultural, these countries have grappled with how to best incorporate this dimension alongside the fostering of national unity.

Although Singapore has had a history syllabus for lower secondary students since self-government in 1959, the specific teaching of Singapore's own history started only in 1984 [15,16]. The 2014 Lower Secondary History Teaching Syllabuses gave increased attention to historical inquiry and related processes [10], which continue to play a pivotal role in the subsequent reiteration – the 2021 Lower Secondary History Syllabuses [11]. This course centres on Singapore's national history, prescribing four units, which commence with a focus on Singapore's maritime origins in the late thirteenth century and extend to the late 1970s, approximately a decade after Singapore's independence from Malaysia [11]. Whilst there are some differences noticeable between the two versions of the syllabus document, for instance, the 2021 version is noticeably smaller than its predecessor, both emphasise giving students an understanding of their national history and cover the same events and historical developments.

In contrast, the Australian Curriculum: History (AC: H) for Years 7–10 uses world history as a lens to examine and introduce Australian history. It is globally orientated in its approach to teaching history but promotes “a disciplined process of inquiry into the past” [[7], [8], [9]]. There are times when this approach places some of Australia's key developments and historical events in a wider context, allowing world themes to flow implicitly through the historical content. However, centring the content around global themes and events can also result in the exclusion of key events in Australia's past, because they do not correlate with world occurrences outlined in a given period. In the lower secondary years, Australian students undertake studies regarding ancient civilisations, the Preclassical Era and the Early Modern Period. By the end of Year 8, students are prepared to continue studying world history chronologically for another two years, with the focus in Year 9 placed on the modern period from 1750 until 1918, when written sources for Australian history first became readily available.

Whilst the AC: H has undergone changes since its initial release in 2010, the curriculum is still only accessible online and the historical periods mentioned above are still covered in the same year levels. In an attempt to reduce the amount of content taught, the most recent release (version 9) asks teachers to implement only two depth studies, now referred to as ‘sub-strands’, for each year level [9]. Previously, three depth studies were required along with an overview section, which constituted approximately 10 % of teaching time [7,8]. This has meant that a lot of content has been merged.

Notwithstanding issues that could arise from making more content elective, version 9 has extended the inclusion of Indigenous Australian culture and history in Year 7, which now forms the basis of a separate study entitled: Deep time history of Australia. This also draws attention to human migration theories, which can be considered a sensitive issue for some ethnic minorities. However, this is the only inclusion of the histories of First Nations Peoples of Australia in Years 7 and 8. The content pertaining to ancient societies in Year 7 importantly promotes an understanding of the discipline of history and archaeology, as well as encouraging students to study ancient sources, and recognize the “importance of conserving the remains, material culture and heritage of the ancient past” [9]. In terms of developing empathy with those who are different, the AC: H in Year 7 and 8 provides only limited opportunities.

In regard to current comparative education research, there are very few studies concerning lower secondary history curriculum which juxtaposes a national history with a world history approach and investigates how each approach affects students’ development of historical consciousness, and feelings of empathy.

2. Literature review

Researchers have advocated a number of key concepts and stages related to fostering historical consciousness in history education. These range from the classroom teaching approach of developing historical literacy to empathy as a state of personal awareness and understanding of others. The concept of historical literacy can be seen as the personal individual student complement to historical inquiry as a teaching approach. Even though it has received widespread attention in recent years, there has been no consensus among scholars in explaining what historical literacy involves [5]. At the most basic level, it would seem to refer to the personal mastery of historical concepts and skills that students need to gain in order to participate in the discipline of history. As Downey and Long [5] have pointed out, the term ‘literacy’ has an explicit association with every child's mastery of the basic skills of reading and writing, without which they cannot participate in a world that relies on the written word. At this level, historical literacy can be related to the goal of enabling “students to read history texts, critically, to write thoughtfully, and to engage in meaningful discussions about the past” [5].

Others have defined the concept variously “as a set of practices that can be brought into classroom teaching and learning practice” [17]; as incorporating “the historical process (the disciplinary skills and procedures that historians use to study the past) and the historical categories of inquiry (the conceptual patterns that historians use to make sense of the past)” [18]. Taylor and Young [6] went further in seeing it not just as “a systematic process with a particular set of skills”, but as including “attitudes and conceptual understandings that mediate and develop historical consciousness.”

To explain and justify their emphasis on historical consciousness, Taylor and Young [6] drew up an index of 11 key elements involved in historical literacy, all of them oriented towards participating in history as a discipline. They included a set of dispositions, as well as the acquisition of skills and an understanding of concepts. The ultimate purpose of historical literacy, according to Taylor and Young [6], is its influence on the personal lives of individual students. “Historical literacy is about personal, social and political empowerment. Understanding the past is an important part of life as a whole, not just school life, and all school students are entitled [sic] to study history” [6].

Historical literacy can also be seen to foster a second possible set of outcomes: the emergence of a personal orientation and positive feelings toward history reflected in words such as historical understanding, empathy and at perhaps the deepest level, historical consciousness. Rüsen [19] outlined what he called a “widespread definition” of historical consciousness as a “mental activity of interpreting the past for the sake of understanding the present and expecting the future.” For Seixas [20] historical consciousness involved “individual and collective understanding of the past, the cognitive and cultural factors that shape those understandings, as well as the relations of historical understandings to those of the present and future.” In contrast, Lee [21] sought to relate historical consciousness more specifically to history education.

In schools, students learn history. That is, they learn ways of thinking about the past that (it might be hoped) will help them to orientate themselves in time, bringing past, present and future into a relation that enables them to cope with living their lives as temporal beings. In short, school history should develop historical consciousness [21].

This focus on individuals' personal relationship with time and positioning themselves in time is also evident in Ahonen's [22] discussion of historical consciousness. Human beings, he argued, have a capacity “to think back and forth in time.” Time becomes not just something to be measured but a reality “loaded with human given meanings and moral issues” [22].

These “human given meanings” point to a second influence on the emergence of historical consciousness in individuals [22], the reality of collective memory in students' understanding of the past [20]. This can be apparent outside history education through “the writing of history and other modes of shaping images of the past in the public mind” [20]. In Ahonen's [22] view, there are societal benefits, in that “a recognition of historical consciousness as an idiosyncratic mental construction of a person or a group helps the acceptance of multi-perspectival orientations in a society.” This is because collective memory is often related to specific minority or subgroups, such as religious, ethnic, rural, urban, gender and even special interest groups, such as sport and music, which exist within a society. In the past, in Australia, these minority and subgroups have been given recognition as important strands to be included in the school curriculum [23].

In addition to this, national and political leaders have often seen history education in terms of developing a shared collective memory among children and young people over the course of their schooling. The intention has been to use the teaching of history in schools as a means of encouraging unity among different groups in a culturally and racially diverse society by fostering the emergence of a sense of national identity which includes citizens of all backgrounds. History curricula or syllabuses developed for the purpose of nation building have tended to provide one overarching narrative of the nation, from the perspective of the dominant group, in a way that often ignores the stories of other groups in the nation and limits different ways of interpreting the nation's past. Roberts [24] has argued that “the main political imperative for history education is the transmission of historical content, fundamental beliefs and understandings about the past, and considerations of how we understand the past in relation to national development and identity.” In recent times, the concentration on historical themes related to nation and local identity within a country's curriculum or syllabus has become counter-balanced by efforts to incorporate globalising influences into the teaching of history in schools.

History curricula or syllabuses based on national and political purposes have often been criticised by history academics concerned to introduce these themes into the discipline of history. As Afandi and Baildon [1] explained, in contexts where nation-building has been accepted as the purpose of the history curriculum or syllabus, “alternate accounts and perspectives, interest in historical inquiry and historiography, and more discipline-based or critical approaches to history education are limited or discouraged.” Sears [25] identified “a persistent focus on nation building” as one of the factors that could limit what he regarded as a more effective approach to history education, based on “developing critical skills.” In Australia, these competing approaches to history education have resulted in history, and the teaching of history, becoming “a source of high-profile political and public debate” [26] and a matter of considerable professional concern among teachers [3]. In contrast, the Singapore history syllabus has introduced an emphasis on the different experiences of groups in society in various shared events, like the Japanese occupation or the independence of Singapore. Lee [16] explained this as follows “[t]he government aims to sort out viable means of making people, regardless of race, language or religion, becoming Singaporeans who are inculcated with a sense of national belonging and national identity towards Singapore as a new nation.” According to Sears [25],

History – if funded and taught well – can teach a tolerance for ambiguity. It can provide people with strategies to help them think through complex issues.

War, and war memorials in particular, are central to collective memory. Taught well, war offer [sic] windows into the construction of personal and national identity.

Fostering in students a personal connection to history is most apparent in relation to the concept of empathy. Chopik et al. [27] draw upon Decety and Lamm, to define empathy as “the tendency to be psychologically in tune with others' feelings and perspectives.” For Chopik et al. [27] this highlights the way that “empathic sensitivities are … comprised of distinct emotional (tendencies to feel concern and compassion for others) and cognitive components (tendencies to imagine different viewpoints beyond one's own).” Retz [28] has shown that empathy often refers to “an emotional capacity to engage directly with another person's experience while suspending our own thoughts and feelings momentarily.” Within history education, this has often resulted in students' putting themselves in other individuals' shoes [28,29], which ideally helps them understand that people's beliefs and actions are “grounded in the specific context of their time and place” [28].

Empathy in history education, however, continues to remain debatable and contentious, with no one definition accepted [28,[30], [31], [32], [33]]. Endacott and Brooks [34] suggest historical empathy as “the process of students' cognitive and affective engagement with historical figures to better understand and contextualize their lived experiences, decisions, or actions.” Similarly for Yilmaz [35], empathy is seen as “the skill to re-enact the thought of a historical agent in one's mind or the ability to view the world as it was seen by the people in the past without imposing today's values on the past.” Furthermore, Yilmaz [35] saw that in the process of developing historical empathy students must “engage in sustained effort and thoughtful strategy to suspend their present world views when examining the past in order to avoid a presentist understanding of the past.” For Lévesque [33], historical empathy relates to historical imagination, historical contextualisation and moral judgement.

Yilmaz [35], Ashby and Lee [36], and Harris and Foreman-Peck [37] all consider that empathy in history rests on the evidential reconstruction of other people's beliefs and actions, as well as their consequences. This “intellectual achievement” [30] places emphasis on the “critical examination of historical evidence” [28]. Endacott and Brooks [34] also emphasised that historical empathy “relies upon the tried and true methods of historical investigation that include source analysis and reasoned judgment.” However, Sharp [38] stressed that whilst empathy should be nurtured in students, “students need to be scaffolded with a variety of sources of information, so that they can engage with empathy in a historically accurate manner.” Historical empathy can, thus, be considered an important part of developing students' historical thinking [32,39]. However, it has also been seen as an outcome of both historical thinking and historical consciousness, or as “an end in itself” [30]. Yeager and Foster [40] have argued that historical empathy is both a “process and an outcome.”

Contributing to this is the use of alternative terms such as perspective recognition, perspective taking and rational understanding [30,32,34,35]. Barton and Levstik [30] consider that historical empathy can be defined in two distinct ways. The first relates to caring and “invites us to care with and about people in the past, to be concerned with what happened to them and how they experienced their lives.” The second way of this “perspective recognition”, involves an “intellectual exercise” that transpires in history education when students recognize other individuals' perspectives [30]. However, it “requires more than seeing others as they saw themselves. It requires that we see ourselves as others see us” [30]. Both types of empathy play important roles in history education, developing separate, but interrelated skills. However, perspective recognition is not dependent upon students’ feelings, “except to the extent that we rationally consider the emotions of people in the past when trying to explain their actions” [30].

Lee and Ashby [32] show that the term empathy encourages a range of interpretations, impacting upon teachers' conceptual understanding, as well as the term's use and function in history classrooms. Endacott and Brooks [34] also demonstrate that “[s]cholars have employed different, and in some cases competing, theoretical and practical approaches to utilizing historical empathy with students, leading to persistent confusion about the form and fostering of historical empathy.” Lévesque [33], for instance, has asserted that teachers “[t]ypically misunderstand empathy as sympathy.” In seeking to define historical empathy, Barton and Levstik [30] explained the difference in the following way: “empathy involves imagining the thoughts and feelings of other people from their own perspectives, whereas sympathy involves imagining them as if those thoughts and feelings were our own.” Considering empathy in this way not only requires students to evaluate their own perspectives [34], but also stresses the importance of acknowledging that “[t]ime, culture, and individual preferences and experiences produce fundamentally different worldviews” [30]. In Barton and Levstik's [30] opinion “[f]ailure to take this basic fact of human experience into account renders the past incomprehensible, largely because it severs the connection between action and purpose.”

Perspective recognition not only assists a “meaningful engagement with the past,” but develops skills related to citizenship “because recognizing [sic] our own and others’ perspectives is indispensable for public deliberation in a pluralist democracy” [30]. Where the empathy experienced is toward the understanding of individuals and groups who are noticeably different in one way or another, the term relationality is now being used [41]. Relationality as Chang [41] explains it, rests on the assumption of the essential interdependence of people and the many benefits of learning that come through “relating to others.” Through historical studies of how and why various groups became part of their society, students can develop greater empathy and understanding toward them. In this way, positive relationality within society can be enhanced. This possibility of relationality can be further extended by empathetic understanding of the history of the peoples of neighbouring countries and trading partners.

The discussion above highlights some of the purposes of history education, which represent alternatives from which a choice can be made in developing a history curriculum. This is often the case with purposes related to teaching approaches in history; a curriculum is usually developed either on the facts and rote learning approach, or on the historical inquiry method, although it is possible to envisage some compromise of the two in certain circumstances. Other purposes, particularly those related to the personal development of students, are quite compatible. The main issue of concern is whether the curriculum provides for the full range of purposes in this area, or emphasises some purposes, at the cost of overlooking others. However, how far political and national purposes in history education are compatible with students’ personal development in, say, historical thinking and consciousness, is a debatable issue. Or, to put it in other terms, to what extent does a curriculum aimed at national development and unity, shape the sorts of personal attitudes to history that the curriculum writers concerned were deliberately seeking to inculcate?

3. Method

The focus of this paper is a comparative analysis of Singapore's Lower Secondary History Syllabuses for Normal (Academic) and Express Course with the AC: H. These two curriculum documents were chosen to facilitate greater comparability, as the year levels in both cases comprise the first two years of high school for most education jurisdictions incorporated into this analysis. The comparison of these two documents concentrates on statements of purpose, content, and pedagogy, as they relate to fostering historical consciousness and empathy. Both sets of documents were introduced at similar times in response to the same international influences in reconfiguring history education as a way of enhancing students' interest and developing historical consciousness, as outlined in the published literature reviewed in the previous section. This paper draws from findings emerging from the researcher's PhD [4], approved in 2020. At the time, the documents compared were version 8.1 of the AC: H [7] and the 2014 Lower Secondary History Syllabuses [10].

To ensure that the findings remain current, the present discussion includes comments on the most recent versions of the curriculum documents: version 9 of the AC: H, published in 2022; and for Singapore, the 2021 Lower Secondary History Syllabuses. Whilst the historical knowledge outlined in Singapore's syllabus document remains very similar to the previous version, it has been extended to include content pertaining to the late thirteenth century and the late 1970s. As mentioned previously, whilst the structure of the AC: H for Years 7 and 8 has changed, similar content is outlined. In addition, the focus on historical inquiry as the recommended pedagogical approach to teaching history in both curriculum documents remains. Hence responses from the PhD study's participants regarding the implementation of historical concepts and empathy remain relevant and meaningful.

The focus in this study was the middle years of schooling, in particular Years 7 and 8, for two reasons. Firstly, a concentrated study on these year levels allows for a comparative study of Australia with Singapore since both countries have compulsory history education in these year levels. Secondly, as mentioned above, for many education jurisdictions, Year 7 is the first year of secondary schooling. Accordingly, the curriculum layout begins to incorporate components designed to develop students’ historical literacy skills, mainly through Depth Studies [7,8] and Historical Investigations in Singapore [10,11].

The comparative analysis of the curricula is extended through a small collection of personal responses from history academics, curriculum experts, classroom teachers and those in charge of history in the lower secondary levels. Their responses were in the form of written comments to guideline questions where they could provide illustrative examples of curriculum implementation as they had seen or experienced it in classrooms. The guideline questions were derived from a preliminary analysis of the curriculum documents and issues raised in the literature review. Evidence from both these sources has been incorporated into the paper's discussion to support the curriculum documents, especially in relation to the viability of their implementation. The written responses from school stakeholders, especially teachers, evoked their school classroom experiences and their assessment of the strengths and limitations of the curriculum documents as they stood in 2015–2016.1 However, as mentioned above, the features of the curriculum documents studied have undergone little change regarding content. Thematic analysis, of the two sources, was based on the purposes of history education, the structure of each curriculum document and historical inquiry methods.

Before the study proceeded, approval was gained from the University of Adelaide's Human Research Ethics Committee (Low Risk) (H-2014-231), and Singapore's Ministry of Education (MOE) (RQ128-15 (11)). In relation to specific Australian education jurisdictions, ethics approvals were sought successfully from the relevant departments. In the case of the independent school sector, the Association of Independent schools in each of the three states concerned indicated permission was only needed from school principals.

Responses from teachers, academics and curriculum experts were gathered from nineteen people contacted in Singapore and Australia. A range of schools in Singapore and three Australian states (New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania) were approached to contact teachers, heads of history, and specialist/senior staff members. This resulted in a total of five participants from Singapore from four different schools. Two participants, from this group, were teachers, two other participants were in charge of history, whilst another identified as a senior specialist. In regard to Australia, the study involved nine participants from eight Australian schools. This participant group comprised four teachers and five teachers in charge of history. The participating schools in both countries were of different types situated in various socio-economic areas.

In the following sections, the results of the thematic analyses concentrate on evidence, from the two sources of data. This enables the findings from the curriculum documents to be supported with evidence of empathy and historical consciousness in the participant responses. Three different themes emerged from the comparative investigation, which have been presented as sub-headings.

4. Results

4.1. Evidence on collective historical consciousness in the data

Collective consciousness refers to experiences, memories and meanings that are shared by members of a group or nation and underpin their sense of identity with the group concerned. A sense of national identity for nation building purposes has been emphasised in education in Singapore [16], with the lower secondary emphasis on the history of its national development and its current interaction in regional and global settings. This is encapsulated in the section, Design of the Lower Secondary History Syllabuses in both versions, which outlines the building up of collective consciousness in students about the stages of Singapore's past, the global forces shaping it and the responses of the Singapore people to these outside influences [10,11]. All participants from Singapore noted the development of a greater understanding of the nation's history as an aim of history at the secondary school level [4]. Their use of concepts related to national identity, such as nation building and national culture, reflected their formulation in Singapore's syllabus document.

One teacher (Participant 11) noted that [u]sually, these concepts are briefly touched upon in class, [and] where the content covered presents an opportunity for the teacher to do so [4]. They are not discussed in great detail. Others like, Participant 14 emphasised:

[T]hese concepts are easily linked with the current syllabus. However, most of these concepts lend themselves well with Sec2syllabus. These can be linked to the topics beginning from Singapore in WWII, Japanese Occupation, constitutional developments to independence of Singapore in 1965 [4].

Similarly, Participant 6 remarked that [g]iven that the Lower Secondary History syllabus is on the History of Singapore, it has been easy to incorporate these concepts especially when teaching the Secondary 2 syllabus which focuses mainly on Singapore's nation building experience [4]. Participant 5 observed that [t]hese concepts are very natural given that the lower secondary history deals with the history of Singapore. When teachers and students discuss Singapore history, these concepts can easily be reinforced [4]. This is consolidated by a learning outcome presented in the 2021 syllabus document when studying Singapore's first decade of independence, which asks students to “[e]mbrace the continued importance of creating a sense of belonging and national identity among the people in nationhood” [11]. Thus, even though, according to a word count, there is no specific mention, in the document or teacher comments, of the term ‘collective historical consciousness’, the content presented, and the specific content concepts used for analysis in the syllabus document legitimize and drive its implementation in the classroom.

In regard to Australia, the portrayal of Australia's past is a highly contentious issue, particularly in relation to school history and there is no consensus on which knowledge, or which interpretation, needs to be imparted to students as young citizens of the nation [42]. In contrast to Singapore, the curriculum in Years 7 and 8, as mentioned above, is not focused on Australian history, but rather on the history of the ancient and early modern world [[7], [8], [9]]. Only in Years 9 and 10 is Australian history included in the AC: H through the likes of the world wars. Given the contentious nature of what constitutes collective memory and national culture in Australia, the chronological world history approach would seem to have advantages. The comments of a number of Australian participants showed their appreciation of the world history approach [4] and their awareness of the complexities of including national identity as a topic in the lower secondary years. There were three main issues identified, the first being the politicization that has been evident in the Australian Curriculum. Participant 2 acknowledged this by stating I am opposed to teaching nationalistic approaches to history that fulfil a political agenda [4]. On a related note, one teacher in charge of history (Participant 13) noted [t]he subject of History is a perfect vehicle for informing students about their national identity. However … we need to be mindful that various forces don't [sic] exert an undue pressure upon the final curriculum content [4]. Secondly, the amount of content for Years 7 and 8 was a concern. Participant 7 from New South Wales recognized cultural identity as a valid issue but considered that for students in years 7-8 this is not as relevant for their depth studies [4]. The third point raised related to doubts about the capacity of the students to comprehend the meaning of national identity at that point in their lives. For instance, Participant 1, a teacher from Tasmania, considered that [n]ational identity is an important concept but hard for students in Yr 7 [and] … 8 to understand as they are only 12 or 13 [4].

Other participants took a similar stance to this last response commenting that whilst important, it was difficult to deal with these concepts in the lower secondary years [4], when the content is focused on world history, and were addressed better in later years. Participant 10 highlighted the importance of concepts, like national identity, collective memory, national culture and cultural identity, being included within Australia's particular historical context [4]. Although this participant acknowledged that they did not necessarily need to be an integral part of every year level, their inclusion was very important, especially in a country such as Australia that has such a racist past and, in many ways, doesn't acknowledge and celebrate that we have the oldest living culture in the world! [4].

A word count revealed that the phrase ‘historical consciousness’ occurs only in one of the Australian teacher comments and not in the Australian Curriculum at all. This does not mean that there is no mention of ‘collective’ in the AC: H. In providing a rationale for the study of history over Years 7–10, the curriculum document, even version 9, states “this knowledge and understanding is essential for informed and active participation in Australia's diverse society and in creating rewarding personal and collective futures” [[7], [8], [9]]. In contrast, the Singapore syllabus has introduced an emphasis on the different experiences of groups in society in various shared events, like the Japanese occupation or the independence of Singapore. These can be seen as the more negative face of relationality that needs to be considered in the teaching of history.

4.2. Evidence of personal historical consciousness in the data

In both countries, the curriculum documents provide evidence that the personal dimension of historical consciousness is recognized and encouraged, although a word count shows that the term ‘historical consciousness’ is not actually used in either set of curriculum documents. The AC: H mentions the ‘personal’ occasionally throughout the document, for instance in reference to personal and family history. However, the connection to establishing a personal interest in history is limited to the statement of one aim, which states the intention of developing students' “interest in, and enjoyment of, historical study for lifelong learning and work, including their capacity and willingness to be informed and active citizens” [[7], [8], [9]]. Despite this acknowledgement of the personal worth of knowing and appreciating history, the details of content and the historical inquiry pedagogy outlined provide few mentions or examples of how this personal level of historical consciousness is to be fostered in classroom learning. In much the same way, the Australian teacher comments in discussing the purposes of history education, reveals some quite strong statements from several participants about teaching the love of history to students [4], but this has not been expressed in terms of personal historical consciousness.

A counterpart to the AC: H statement is found in Singapore's syllabuses as an aim in the introductory section of both versions of the document [10,11]. In addition, a section focused on the value or philosophy of history education precedes the setting out of the syllabus and includes the encouragement of a personal involvement in history. It notes that:

History … plays a critical role in developing students' own identities through an understanding of history at the personal, national and international levels. The learning of history should spark their curiosity and inspire them with the beliefs, decisions and dilemmas of people in the past [10,11].

The importance of students' personal interest in history is acknowledged also in the document's aims and learning outcomes where one aim involves encouraging students among other things, to continue with “further study and pursue their personal interest in the past” [10]. Interestingly, this aim has not only been kept in the most recent version of the lower secondary syllabus document but has been elevated from being the sixth aim to the first. One of the Singapore participants (Participant 11) specifically referred to the personal connection to history, where he spoke of helping students to pursue their personal interest in the past [4]. However, as in the AC: H and teacher comments, there is no specific mention of personal historical consciousness.

In these ways, history learning in Singapore can include an understanding of classmates and Singaporeans who are different. Given the cultural diversity of Australia, this sort of learning encouraged through the cross-disciplinary strand of intercultural understanding, a concept labelled as one of seven general capabilities to be encouraged through all subjects in the Australian Curriculum. To this extent, a personal level of understanding of history can be seen to be part of the curriculum.

4.3. Evidence of empathy in the curriculum documents

In the case of both Australia and Singapore, the fostering of students' personal connection to history is most evident in relation to the concept of ‘empathy’. Although this is not discussed in either set of curriculum documents, some teachers in both countries have commented on how they incorporate it into their teaching.

In previous versions, the AC: H's glossary, explained the term as “engagement with past thought and feelings through historical inquiry” [7,8]. A more detailed explanation was also provided in the introductory material, where empathy was described as a concept used to develop historical understanding. According to the AC: H statement, what was required was:

an understanding of the past from the point of view of a particular individual or group, including an appreciation of the circumstances they faced and the motivations, values and attitudes behind their actions. Empathy encourages students to overcome the common tendency to see people of the past as strange and incomprehensible [7,8].

In addition, an example was provided to show how teachers could support this type of engagement through classroom practice. Importantly, these versions of the AC: H warned against using it in a simplistic and ahistorical way. Thus “empathy is not authentically achieved if later standards, customs, values and truths are used to judge other times, potentially creating wild and unhistorical imaginings. Empathy promotes deeper understanding of ‘difference’ in the past and – where appropriate –tolerance and acceptance in the present” [7,8]. This statement, which has been removed from version 9 of the Australian Curriculum [9], reflected ideas expressed in the work of Ahonen [22] and Sears [25], pertaining to the development of historical consciousness.

Empathy is thus seen to go beyond recognizing multiple perspectives and studying different opinions and viewpoints to make positive personal and interpersonal connections with particular people and events in history [27]. The significance of this is seen in two Australian teacher responses. Participant 4 from Tasmania stated that fostering empathy assists students to have a much better understanding of events as they are encouraged to think emotionally and logically about how and why people acted as they did. [4]. She considered it was necessary to find a point of personal connection or a present context to relate to, as the most effective way for students to respond to a topic with empathy. For instance, when historical landmarks at Palmyra were destroyed around the same time as her class was studying The Silk Road, this participant noticed that her students related to these events and their empathy for what had been lost to humanity was much greater [4]. Participant 10 from South Australia considered that history teaching involved getting students to think about the past and reflect on how it helped shape the world they live in today [4]. From this they learn to become global citizens who have empathy and acceptance of different cultures and the way people live [4]. This was supported by another participant who highlighted the use of what he described as empathy essays [4].

Despite this, the curriculum document provides little support for the concept of empathy. There is no specific mention of the concept of empathy in the historical knowledge and historical skills strands of the AC: H for Years 7 and 8. In versions 8.1 and 8.4 of the AC: H, it was mentioned in a list of the seven historical concepts regarded as key factors in developing students’ historical understanding. Both versions stated that:

The content provides opportunities to develop historical understanding through key concepts, including evidence, continuity and change, cause and effect, perspectives, empathy, significance and contestability. These concepts may be investigated within a particular historical context to facilitate an understanding of the past and to provide a focus for historical inquiries [7,8].

The use of the phrase ‘may be investigated’ in this context covers the possibility that not all concepts will or can be incorporated into students learning for all topics covered, although the overall statement carries the implication that all of the concepts should be included, or form part of a historical inquiry.

In the new AC: H (version 9), however, empathy has been omitted as a historical concept. Out of the seven concepts listed above, empathy is the only concept that has been removed, whilst ‘contestability’ is now referred to as ‘interpretations and contestability’ [9]. Instead, reliance is placed on the inclusion of empathy within the general capabilities – intercultural understanding and personal and social capability [9]. It is not surprising that empathy would be included as a competency that all students should develop throughout their learning. However, empathy has not been placed as a standalone element under either of these general capabilities; instead, it has been placed under ‘engaging with cultural and linguistic diversity’ for intercultural understanding, and ‘social awareness’ for personal and social capability [9]. The Australian Curriculum articulates that, in order to develop empathy as part of these general capabilities, students at the Year 7–8 level are expected to “use perspective-taking, mutual understanding and respect to sustain interactions in diverse intercultural experiences” [9]. At the same time, they need to “acknowledge the emotions, needs, cultures and backgrounds of different groups and compare with their own” [9]. These definitions broadly correspond with Chopik et al. [27] and Retz [28]. However, empathy within history education requires the consideration of a different set of skills and mindsets.

To make matters worse, an association between the outline of historical content for Years 7–8 and empathy as part of intercultural understanding is only seen twice – as a content descriptor for each year level.

• •Year 7 (AC9HH7K12): causes and effects of contacts and conflicts within ancient societies and/or with other societies, resulting in developments such as the conquest of other lands, the expansion of trade and peace treaties;
• •Year 8 (AC9HH8K16): interpretations about the Asian Pacific society and events, and/or individuals and/or groups connected to the society [9].

The inclusion for Year 7 aligns with the example provided earlier regarding the Silk Road. However, given this is the only inclusion for this year level it overlooks a connection with other content. It is also unclear why a connection has been made only to the ancient world and Asia in Years 7–8, and the possible link to indigenous communities, empires and the medieval society ignored. As the content descriptions do not prescribe assessment tasks, the AC: H's content elaborations assist in briefly describing possible approaches to use in developing students' understanding of the historical topic. However, empathy is not mentioned in any of the elaborations provided for the two content descriptions referred to above. When empathy is referred to in the content elaborations for selected historical skills, albeit only three times in total for intercultural understanding and personal and social capability, it is entirely optional, and no examples or additional explanations have been provided to show how empathy can be encouraged. While it appears that empathy has been promoted as a competency that should be infused into the teaching of all subjects, removing it as a historical concept has reduced its importance within history education and an opportunity to create a personal connection to history missed. It can be considered that the AC: H is more concerned with presenting and evaluating the concepts, content and skills related to the discipline of history, than with identifying and mapping out the personal educational development of individual students [[7], [8], [9]].

Singapore, in comparison to Australia, has strengthened its inclusion of empathy in the lower secondary years. Both the 2014 and 2021 Lower Secondary History Syllabuses include a definition of empathy, but place this in the Qualities of a History Learner diagram under the quality of ‘empathetic’ [10,11]. Through developing this quality students are expected to understand “the reasons behind past developments without imposing judgement using present-day norms” [10,11]. This diagram demonstrates how responsibility lies with each individual student to develop these qualities pertaining to history by the end of their secondary studies. In reality, however, this diagram is directed to teachers of history, whose task it is to ensure that their students are imbued with such qualities as empathy. Whilst the 2014 lower secondary syllabus made references to empathy, it was explicitly identified as a historical concept only in the 2021 version. This recognition was accompanied by an in-depth definition and an explanation of the ways in which empathy benefits students' learning of history. It stated that:

Developing historical empathy enables students to understand the actions of people who lived in another time and place, and the way they viewed the world. Students can then appreciate how different contexts, constraints, values, ideas, attitudes and beliefs may have affected how those who lived in the past thought, felt and behaved [11].

It also explains how historians apply ‘empathetic understanding’ to their work “by investigating and familiarising themselves with the contexts, constraints, values, ideas, attitudes and beliefs of people on the past” [11].

This approach is consolidated through references made to historical concepts in the document's discussion of 21st Century Competencies [10,11]. In the 2014 syllabus document, for the competency Civic Literacy, Global Awareness and Cross Cultural Skills, MOE [10] identified that a student “actively contributes to the community and nation, possesses an awareness of and the ability to analyse global issues and trends, and displays socio-cultural skills and sensitivity.” One benchmark categorised underneath this learning outcome related to students' demonstrating empathy toward other social and cultural groups, in terms of “goodwill and sensitivity” [10]. Whilst this sort of detail is not seen in the 2021 reiteration, there are other learning outcomes and examples that encourage similar dispositions [11]. For instance, students need to “[d]emonstrate an understanding of the importance of being sensitive to and respectful of the diversity of cultures, races and religions” [11]. This is further strengthened through an aim in the introductory section of the syllabus document, which expects students to “empathize with people from different social, cultural, economic and political background” [11]. This outcome has remained unchanged since its inclusion in the 2014 syllabus, and has been enhanced by a further two aims which ask students to.

• •“identify and embrace connections between themselves and the larger community (past and present)”; and
• •“realise that their actions impact others thus promoting commitment to act for the betterment of the community and country.” [11].

These ideas are subsequently picked up in additional learning outcomes pertaining to historical knowledge. One in particular, categorised under the heading of values and attitudes, stipulates that students need to “[e]mpathise with the people who lived through the Japanese Occupation” [11]. In their responses, several Singapore participants showed the importance of understanding dispositions and skills of different individuals, as well as an appreciation of cultural and religious roots. One teacher (Participant 9) stated that [s]tudents are able to empathize well, especially when topics such as Japanese Occupation are taught and the wrongful killing of the Chinese are mentioned [4]. This was the only Singapore participant who actually used the word empathy. However, the experiences of empathy described in the teachers’ statements show how the cognitive and cultural awareness developed through the study of history can enhance empathetic understanding of individuals and groups which are different, enhancing relationality. This also demonstrates how the study of history can encourage a personal interest in history.

5. Discussion

The findings from this study indicated how each country's conceptualisation of history education played a role in the extent to which historical consciousness emerged in the two different sources of data collected from the country concerned. Historical consciousness relates not to facts or interpretation of concepts but rather to personal dispositions and attitudes [21,22], which are not easily included in school learning contexts. For this reason, they are often overlooked in curriculum statements.

This investigation of the AC: H and Singapore's Lower Secondary History Syllabuses focused on the attitudinal dimension from a comparative perspective. In their responses, Singapore participants showed the importance of developing students' dispositions and skills, as well as an appreciation of cultural and religious roots [4]. In contrast, any consideration of the students and their individual attitudinal development remains largely absent from the AC: H [[7], [8], [9]]. For example, whilst the content in the curriculum details the actions that should be achieved as a result of that year level's learning, these are not associated with educational values or the personal effects of learning history. As a consequence, the perception is that the AC: H is more concerned with presenting concepts, content and skills related to the discipline of history, rather than identifying and mapping out the personal educational development of the individual student [9]. Although the AC: H, as a curriculum document, lacks this dimension, the teacher participants' responses highlighted direct links to historical literacy, empathy and consciousness, which they brought to their classroom practice. In some cases, teacher participants even mentioned developing a love of history [4], to describe what they were doing in the classroom.

Fostering in students a personal connection to history was most apparent in relation to the concept of empathy, which was discussed in both sets of documents. A closer look at the definition of empathy in the AC: H and Singapore's curriculum statements in relation to the learning outcomes and qualities that students of history should learn reveals that both countries describe empathy in terms of the sympathetic understanding of other people and their historic situation. However, while Singapore has increased the emphasis on empathy in its most recent history curriculum, Australia has reduced comments in the latest document to the extent that content pertaining to empathy can be easily overlooked. Whilst the inclusions in version 9 of the AC: H [9] relate to definitions provided by Chopik et al. [27] and Retz [28], as mentioned previously, empathy within history education requires the consideration of a different set of skills and mindsets. These include historical contextualisation [33], the evidential reconstruction of other people's beliefs and actions [[35], [36], [37]], and unique strategies “to avoid a presentist understanding of the past” [35]. These additional factors correspond well with the definitions provided in the previous versions of the AC: H, but absent in version 9, that were there to assist students to “think historically” [9].

Generally speaking, where the curriculum sets out to foster a deeper understanding of other individuals and groups in society, it can enhance students’ sense of empathy with those who are different from themselves [30,34]. For empathy and relationality to exist, there needs to be a recognition of the things that groups share, as well as the things that make groups different. This duality is dependent upon a level of acceptance that groups are different — that their responses, for instance to historical events or societal issues, do differ. However, through interaction, commonalities also emerge as important and can become overarching ideas that unite communities. As shown previously, Singapore has introduced an emphasis on the different experiences of groups in society in various shared historical events, like the Japanese occupation [10,11,16].

Given the cultural diversity of Australia, this recognition is now being applied to the Australian context through the general capabilities, intercultural understanding and personal and social capability, which are intended to be encouraged through all subjects in the Australia Curriculum [[7], [8], [9]]. Nevertheless, in comparison to Singapore, Australian states and territories each possesses its own history. Therefore, whilst there have been key events in the nation's past that have affected the country as a whole, each state and territory, and its people, have often responsed to the respective events in varying ways. The historical understanding and appreciation of the particular experiences of different groups needs to be balanced by the recognition of other historical experiences that all groups have shared. Whilst, Singapore has embedded national history in its approach to the teaching of history for the lower secondary years, consideration is given to the different cultural roots of its people. For Australia, greater emphasis is placed on teacher interpretation of the curriculum document, which means the encouragement of empathy is more dependent upon classroom experiences and expected to be integrated into all subjects.

6. Conclusion

Where history learning promotes empathy in the form of a deeper understanding of other individuals and groups in society, it strengthens students’ sense of relationality with those who are different from themselves. A distinctive quality of learning history is to help students develop empathy for people in past times and understand decision making, as well as learn about the consequences of their actions [29,33]. The responses from Singaporean and Australian teachers point to the fact that students learning of empathy from their studies of history rely very much on the knowledge, enthusiasm and commitment of teachers to bring this dimension (empathy) into their students learning.

It is important to consider that there was never any intention in this study to select participants as a representative sample that could be used to generalise the teacher population in either country. This was a small-scale qualitative study; however, it was in-depth, substantial and revealing in terms of the written responses gained from teachers and academics, who, on average provided 500–1000 words each. In this way, the limitation of the research scope has proved to have benefits of in-depth understanding for the aims of the study. Their opinions, in turn, highlighted students’ feelings toward and engagement with history education. However, students were not directly included as a participant group.

Students remain absent from the curriculum documents in the lower secondary years of the AC: H, particularly when placed alongside the Singapore counterpart. This would make students an important participant group in future research endeavours. Their opinions on studying history and the ways in which their learning is affected by individual teacher's understanding of the curriculum documents would be invaluable.

Both the Australian and Singapore curriculum documents can be seen to demonstrate a notable change in the country's approach to history education, particularly in regard to the emphasis on the importance of historical inquiry and critical thinking, designed to assist in the development of active and global citizens. These sorts of ideas stem from the writings of historians and history educators in the United States of America, Canada and Great Britain, which means that this study could be applicable to other regions. When taught using inquiry methods to achieve historical literacy, the subject can also promote historical consciousness that can be transformative to students' learning. The findings above could thus be relevant to the likes of Oceania, where the diversity of groups, each with their collective memories of pre-colonial, colonial and independent times, need to be included in history curricula. The study also suggests approaches to history curriculum that can be seen to support the development of such diverse strands of historical consciousness in secondary students in the countries of Oceania. Lastly, it shows that a thoughtful history curriculum can extend that sense of relationship in time beyond the immediate practical realities of students' contemporary lives.

Ethics statement

This study received ethics approvals from the University of Adelaide's Human Research Ethics Committee (Low Risk) (H-2014-231) and Singapore's Ministry of Education (RQ128-15 (11)). In relation to specific Australian education jurisdictions, approvals were sought successfully from the relevant jurisdictions and school principals. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.

Data availability statement

The data that has been used is confidential and has not been deposited into a publicly available repository. For a more in-depth discussion of the data, please see: https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/126972.

Funding

I received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. I wish to acknowledge the support I received for my PhD Candidature through the provision of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rachel Bleeze: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:I wish to disclose that I am on the Advisory Board for Heliyon Education. RB (Corresponding Author).

Biography

Rachel Bleeze, PhD, is a Lecturer at the University of Adelaide (Australia) in the School of Education. Dr Bleeze is also a qualified teacher and has held various academic and research positions at three different higher education institutions.