Abstract
Decolonisation has been on the agenda of educational reform for many years, but there is still much to do for schools to decolonise their curriculum and pedagogy. With a multicultural student population, there is urgent need that teachers invest in engaging with the cultural background of students and challenge the euro-centric history curriculum. How can we problematise the deep-rooted, structural colonial mindset in the history curriculum? How can we utilise culturally responsive pedagogy to inform our teaching that challenges colonial history, and the teaching of challenging history? Drawing from the author's personal experience of decolonisation and classroom teaching experience in history, this chapter looks at how the teaching of history could be transformed using culturally responsive pedagogy. Through the case of history lesson on commonwealth participation in the First World War, the author reflects on how a hitherto euro-centric curriculum could be broadened and decolonised.
INTRODUCTION
“Sir, why is there no black people in the poster (Fig. 1)? Did they fight in the World War at all?” I was posed this question when teaching a year 8 (key stage three) history class in a diverse, comprehensive school in Southeast London. While it is a seemingly straight-forward question, it exposes the deep-rooted eurocentrism in our history curriculum that we ought to problematise and decolonise in our multicultural and diverse society. As Guyver (2021: 166) pointed out, a national history curriculum is not about national history, it is about finding a suitable curriculum for the whole nation. Published in 2013, the Department of Education national history curriculum certainly needs further decolonised. While it is true that ‘decolonising the curriculum’ has been part of a much popular catchphrase in the ongoing educational reform, I argue that there is urgent need that teachers engage with the cultural background of students and challenge the euro-centric history curriculum. Currently, the curriculum merely acknowledges that the purpose of studying history is to help pupils understand the “complexity of people’s lives, … the diversity of societies and relationships between different groups, as well as their own identity”. Neither the stated aims or the subject content explicitly require schools to teach pupils the perspectives of the colonised and minority. In this article, I will explore the usefulness of culturally responsive pedagogy in decolonising the history curriculum.
LITERATURE
Prior research has pointed out the usefulness of culturally responsive pedagogy in teaching more inclusive historical narratives to challenge biases, as well as improving student engagement and relevance. Through analysing high school students’ written responses and interviews in the United States, Epstein et al (2011) found that teacher's inclusion of diverse racial groups, portrayal of people of colour as historical agents, and presentation of racism as a complex system positively impacted pupils in their study of the civil rights movement. On the other hand, through a case study in New Zealand, Harcourt (2015) proposed that teachers also need to take into account the ‘place-consciousness’, that is the cultural, historical and ecological embeddedness of the communities, when teaching history. The crux of the idea is on the collaborative nature of curriculum development and lesson planning. Furthermore, Harmon (2012) argued from experience that teachers’ own critical reflection and preparation are also critical in culturally responsive pedagogy, as it would lead to social and cultural empowerment of pupils. Taking this into account, I have been reflexive as a teacher about my own heritage as a former ‘colonial subject’ and used it in my lessons. In other words, the culturally responsive pedagogy does not only empower my pupils, but also myself to speak against the fundamentally Eurocentric history curriculum that needs to be decolonised.
OBJECTIVE, AIMS, QUESTIONS
Through this research, I ask, how can we problematise the deep-rooted, structurally-colonial mindset in the history curriculum? How can we utilise culturally responsive pedagogy to inform our teaching that challenges colonial history, and the teaching of challenging history? Drawing from my classroom teaching experience in history, this chapter looks at how the teaching of history could be transformed using culturally responsive pedagogy. It also aims to elucidate on how the history curriculum needs to be decolonised; in my case, through testimonies, historical photographs and videos of both colonial combatants and non-combatants.
METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
To find out its effectiveness in history, I used culturally responsive pedagogy to improve a year 8 lesson on commonwealth participation in the First World War. Students have already studied the causes of the war, recruitment, and trench warfare. In the lesson prior, pupils were asked to complete a short ‘exit-ticket’ that asked about countries they feel affiliated to through their own heritage. This allows me to understand their cultural background. The learning objective of the case study lesson was for pupils to understand how the ‘world’ war was a global conflict. Pupils first investigated the reasons colonial soldiers joined the war through historical testimonies. Then, they analysed, compared and contrasted different experience of colonial and European combatants and non-combatants through photos and historical testimonies. Lastly, they conducted a mini case study on one of the ‘forgotten battles’ of the African campaign, the Battle of Tanga.
To answer my research questions, I used three qualitative methods, including observation during lesson, the analysis of students' written responses collected in a whole-class reflection activity, and semi-structured interviews after the lesson. All students in the lesson are active agents in the social processes of meaning creation and perception, which are influenced by their own cultural and historical experience and affiliation. So it is necessary to observe their reception, participation and behaviour during the lesson to understand the effectiveness of culturally responsive pedagogy. Follow up semi-structured interviews were then arranged based on the reflection activity to explore and gather in-depth experiential narrative data.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Through my case study lesson, I have discovered four main advantages of culturally responsive pedagogy. Firstly, I was able to include diverse perspectives and experiences, thus acknowledging the contributions and agencies of these hitherto peripheral historical actors. Indeed, bringing marginalised histories to the forefront and using culturally responsive pedagogy is an effective way to decolonise the curriculum by (Moncrieffe, 2020). Following Harcourt’s (2015) suggestion of analysing texts from marginal actors such as the colonised for historical agency, when devising an inclusive curriculum, I incorporated testimonies of soldiers and non-combatants such as labourers. These individuals who were involved in the War were from different countries and cultures, chosen based on pupils’ cultural background. For example, pupils had to discuss perspectives offered by Khudadad Khan, the first Sikh Indian to ever receive the honour of the Victoria Cross. To contrast this, pupils also learnt about how George Blackman from the Caribbean was rallied by Lord Kitchener’s appeal and joined the British West Indies Regiment. Pupils were shocked to find out his subsequent negative, racist experience in the trenches, as black soldiers were assigned the dirty, dangerous jobs of loading ammunition, laying telephone wires and digging trenches. Most pupils found it “unfair” and admitted that they had not heard of these non-combatant roles and unequal treatments before. This exercise encouraged pupils to analyse the First World War from completely different ‘cultural’ lenses, thus promoting critical thinking and a deeper understanding of different cultural viewpoints.
In addition, through culturally responsive teaching, pupils were more able to appreciate the diversity of voices and actors in history. For example, pupils learnt about the non-combatant roles in the First World War, which were not usually taught in the national curriculum. Pupils studied testimonies and excerpts from the biography of Zhu Guisheng from Shandong, China, who was recruited by the British into the Chinese Labour Corps during the War. His arduous journey showed pupils how British recruiters treated Chinese labourers unfairly by paying them less than Europeans and often had them working in dangerous trenches. When explaining this case study, I was being reflexive and supplemented my own experience as a former ‘colonial subject’, and my journey to the UK. Pupils who had an immigrant background and ‘double consciousness’ (c.f. Guyver, 2021) found it particularly difficult to accept how the British forcefully repatriated all Chinese labourers by at the end of war from Europe, quoting European labour unions opposed their staying. Indeed, incorporating multiple cultural perspectives while maintaining a coherent and comprehensive historical narrative can be challenging. As a teacher and historian, I considered this point carefully to avoid oversimplifying or fragmenting history. These multifaceted testimonies and wartime experiences were designed to supplement pupil understanding on the diverse experience of the Word War.
Moreover, culturally responsive pedagogy allows educators to address biases, stereotypes, and colonial perspectives present in historical narratives, promoting a more balanced and nuanced understanding of history. Pupils were intrigued by, and in some instances questioned their supposed loyalty to what they perceived as the “colonial oppressor”. Through responding to these thought-provoking questions, I instilled historical consciousness among pupils by urging them to consider these historical actors’ own upbringing, experience, and aspirations. When learning about the ‘forgotten’ African campaign and the Battle of Tanga, another pupil challenged “Did you people forgot about us ‘cause we’re unimportant? That’s racist”. I was able to use the opportunity to explain historiography in simple terms to pupils, emphasising that the understanding of history is everchanging. From this lesson, pupils also understood how the selective remembering of certain histories could be a form of oppression and discrimination, thus improving cultural sensitivity. More importantly, cculturally responsive pedagogy supports the development of cultural competency among students, enabling them to navigate and understand diverse historical contexts within the UK and globally.
From my experience, feelings of irrelevance and the perception that history as a subject is unimportant often led to behavioural challenges among pupils, such as lack of concentration or disruptions. As suggested by Moncrieffe (2020), a Eurocentric history curriculum dominated by White-British perspectives can cause non-White students to feel disconnected from the curriculum. By connecting historical events to pupils’ cultural backgrounds and identities, minority students were less alienated. I found this useful in enhancing pupil engagement, interest, and relevance of historical study, making it more relatable and meaningful. Incorporating diverse historical perspectives promotes a more inclusive classroom environment, where students from various cultural backgrounds feel represented and valued. From reflection notes and follow-up interviews, pupils also mentioned how they found the lesson content “more relevant than studying Queen Elizabeth and white (European) history”, thus more motivated to learn. Of all the lessons. they were able to retain most information about colonial participation in the First World War in their unit test. More specifically, pupils really appreciated the constructive lesson planning process, which helps them build up their responsibility and ownership for learning.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
My case study demonstrates that it is possible to decolonise the existing Eurocentric national historical curriculum as a front-line educator, through the use of culturally responsive pedagogy. While this may increase the planning workload, by teaching ‘like our pupils’ lives matter’, the effect on pupil engagement and progress is significant. The resulting difference in pupil behaviour and attitude to learning far outweigh the extra preparation. Since the lesson planned was constructivist in nature, as pupils actively participate and informs the planning. Whilst my case study is based on one particular history lesson in the First World War, it is important to note that teachers should not use culturally inclusive teaching in standalone lessons, but rather integrate it into curriculum planning and delivery. As the overarching aim is to decolonise the curriculum and teaching by paying closer attention to students’ cultural background.
Nevertheless, although my research was useful in showing the potential of culturally responsive pedagogy in history lessons, it does not show its usefulness in incorporating pupils’ interpretive frameworks (see e.g. Harcourt 2015). For example, while the British history curriculum is mainly text-based, some cultures prefers passing down history through the oral tradition, through memory aid, and through performance. So, in the future, teachers may consider including these elements through oral history, museum visits or artefact handling sessions. Furthermore, to cement agency and empower the minority, teachers could consider involving contributions from the ‘source community’. For example, in studying the First World war, teachers can also supplement their lessons with inclusive historical resources developed by indigenous museums and other organisations such as the “British Army Supporting Education” Sikh Defence Network.
IMPACT AND NEXT STEPS
To conclude, this article shows demonstrated the various advantages of using culturally responsive pedagogy to decolonise the history curriculum in England. It does not only affirms the agency and experiences of the minority, but also helps to challenge pre-existing stereotypes and bias. Unfortunately, whilst there has been many positive changes since the last revision in 2013, Eurocentric history still at the core and multicultural elements is still at the periphery. I argue that there is still much to do for the government and schools to decolonise. It is indeed all educators’ innate responsibility to rediscover what has been hidden and forgotten, as they are vital for creating an inclusive history curriculum that empowers all students with diverse identities and heritages.
Key words: colonial history, decolonisation, history of the First World War, culturally responsive pedagogy, post-colonialism
Biography: Joseph Yu is currently a secondary history and politics teacher in London. He completed his doctorate in Anthropology at Oxford University researching the development of museum in postcolonial Hong Kong. Trained in anthropology, history, international relations and education, Joseph's research interest lies in the development of colonial social institutions.
REFERENCES
Department of Education. (2013). National Curriculum in England - History programmes of study (key stage 3).
Epstein, T., Mayorga, E., & Nelson, J. (2011). Teaching about race in an urban history class: The effects of culturally responsive teaching. Journal of social studies research, 35(1), 2-21.
Guyver, R. (2021). Doing justice to their history: London’s BAME students and their teachers reflecting on decolonising the history curriculum. Historical Encounters, 8(2), 156-174.
Harcourt, M. (2015). Towards a culturally responsive and place-conscious theory of history teaching. Set: Research information for teachers, 2, 36-44.
Harmon, D. A. (2012). Culturally Responsive Teaching though a Historical Lens: Will History Repeat Itself?. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 12-22.
Moncrieffe. (2020). Decolonising the history curriculum : Euro-centrism and primary schooling. Abingdon: Palgrave Pivot.
Comments