History of Education
Introduction
History of education as a field of study - What is the history of education?
No understanding without history
The development of education as a system did not happen within a vacüum. How education looks
like, what we do in education, how we think about education, ... is shaped by the cultural, historical
context in which it developed.
We take a lot of thing for granted. → Has not always been this way!
vb. Teacher in front of class
Education is culturally and historically situated
How we organize, expectations… = result of historical process
→ Understanding where we come from
Imaging something new, based on the past
Conceptualize the present, reflect on the past
History… say what?
Historia: knowledge obtained via investigation (Greek)
→ Knowledge about past via historical investigation
So history is the study of the past
→ History of education: information about education in the past
But how do you do history?
Getting it right matters
3 important concepts that interrelate but should not be used as synonyms
o The past
= facts, events, thing that happened
vb. 1914 Law to learn
o History
= interpretation of the past, analysis of the past
o Historiography
= methods and body of historic works
= collection
Doing history is subject to change
Writing history: historical evolution and change
→ Answering different questions, different ways of thinking about things
→ Influence on relationship between past and history
→ Paradigm shifts during the past
,How we do History - Paradigmatic shifts in historiography and their consequences for
understanding the past
What is a paradigm?
“In the theory of knowledge (or epistemology), a paradigm refers to a distinct set of concepts or
thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what
constitutes a legitimate contribution to the field.”
You need a method to write history: certain rules…
How does this apply to the History of Education?
Historism
o 19th century: History as an academic study / scientific discipline
o Leopold von Ranke
o Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist
= Historian could reconstruct the past (copie)
“How it really was”
Believed that ‘past’ = ‘history’ (one to one relationship)
→ able to reconstruct, exact reconstruction of facts through sources
Sources: objects produced in the past
→ Tells something about past reality
→ Various forms: visual, written, formal, informal…
→ Letting the sources speak for themselves
What are the consequences of such an approach?
o Sources were mostly from rich and famous, they were the ones who left sources
o Paintings were never used as sources, mostly only written sources were used
A history of ideas
o 1th half of the 20th century
o What did pedagues of the past say?
Education/pedagogy was developing as a science
Process of professionalization of teachers = teacher training colleges
History of Education: was a very important part of the curriculum (not anymore)
It provided a guideline for the future
Knowing their history, would help them in their practice
→ What have they (previous pedagues) told us, what can we learn
Consequences of such an approach?
=Instrumentalizing approach, instrumentalize the past
→ Study the past for the sake of the future/present
→ Identify good/bad practices : learn from past mistakes and success
→ History becomes a story of continuous process, moving toward a better place.
New cultural history of education
o 1990s onwards
Influence of post-modernism: challenged assumptions of modernism
Like the idea of progress, the idea of moving towards a better place
, Questions idea of grant narrative (past=history)
→ This indicates only one truth
→ Can we really learn something from the past? Is there really one story, one truth?
o Connectedness of educational and cultural, social, political and economic spheres
→ We are situated in a context, never disconnected from society
→ You need to take the context with it, we need to include multitude of sources
Compilate different kind of sources, different perspectives on the story!
o As a result: a multitude of sources
• Read history of education from within
→ Historical context: don’t use/apply contemporary concepts to the past
→ Make use of the original context!
• Inclusion of a perspective from below
Real people were forgotten, inclusion of the perspective of people!
→ write from below : inclusion of the ordinary people, not only the rich (sources)
• ‘Triangulation’ of sources
o Also: sensitivity toward ‘language’: ~ linguistic turn
• History writing as a narrative endeavor
Story about the past ≠ exact representation
= based on sources that we selected, we gather info
→ We construct a historical narrative
• Language determines us, as much as it does our research
→ Is used to express ourselves, is not a mirror of reality
→ Words not only represent, they also construct a specific truth
Implications - Some thoughts on the difference between historism and historiczing
What’s what?
Historism Historiczing
o (objective) Reconstruction o Construction
o Human agency: what have historical → We construct a narrative about past
actors done? o Agency of the subject: what external
→ Focus: humans who lived in the past forces are at play here?
o Let the sources speak for themselves → Focus: ability to act, to do things
→ mediator o The source is not neutral!
o The archive as romantic space → particular purpose, produced with
→ sources sit and wait to be discovered particular intention, by someone…
and analyzed → Context!
o The archive as construction site
Archive = result of human intervention
→ Selection: sources have gone lost…
→ Only a fragment of the past
, Human agency vs. agency of the subject
Assumption that we are subject to something
→ Forces that potentially influence the agency of the subject
→ External forces: We don’t live in a void, without any meaning
We are children of our time: particular society, culture…
Influences our thinking, actions… !!!
→ WHY do we do these things, rather than focusing on what we do
Example:
How would you interpret this poster?
How would you, in other words, historicize it?
Source: Civilization 1934, published in La Ligue des Femmes, the journal of the Francophone Catholic
Women’s worker movement in January 1935.
The historian of education’s métier - What and how do we ‘do history’?
The subject of our historical narrative
o Change and continuity as a leitmotiv (terugkerende patronen)
o Potential sites of change (“evolution”): from education per capita to frontal instruction
→ Change in the ways we reflect/think does not mean the practices change
vb. Frontal instruction = teacher in front, children listen. Did not exist before 19th century
The idea of children listening was way older, things can occur later dan the idea!
o Critical investigation:
• Focus not only on how, but also on why, things gave evolved or changed
• The complexity of change: does change equal progress?
→ Improvement? Not really the case
• Aim is critical understanding of the present, or problematization of contemporary
ideas and practices
What does the historian of education do?
o There is an important difference between the past, history and historiography (cf. earlier)
Past ≠ history ≠ historiography
o Consequence: construction or reconstruction?
• Is a reconstruction possible?
▪ Issue of selection and choice
▪ Perspectivism (≠ Presentism1) (term by Nietszche)
= there is no single view point from which you can see the world
→ Different perspectives! No single, absolute Truth
• So what is the construction then?
▪ Anything goes?
Is every story of the past equal?
1
Presentism = understanding of the past with contemporary conceptions.
vb. Medieval political system was undemocratic. Democracy is a recent development, was not a thing during
medieval times.
