Tsafrir Goldberg

“Could They Do It Differently?”: Narrative and Argumentative Changes in Students’ Writing Following Discussion of “Hot” Historical Issues

A group of 64 Israeli twelfth-grade students of two different ethnic backgrounds participated in an experiment exploring the effects of argumentative design and social identity on the learning of a charged, ethnicity-related historical controversy. Students were divided into two learning conditions: an argumentative-disciplinary condition and a conventional textbook-based control condition. Students wrote short essays about Israels “Melting Pot” policy of immigration absorption, prior to and after evaluation of historical sources and discussion. In the argumentative-disciplinary condition the final argumentative level of writing and the frequencies of stand and plot change were higher than in the control essays. As for confirmation bias, primary plot, stand, and argumentative level of pre-essays predicted final outcomes in the conventional textbook-based learning condition; no such relation existed in the argumentative-disciplinary condition. Narratives from the different ethnic groups differed in the frequency, direction, and degree of change, all toward improved in-group image. The design decisions toward the facilitation of argumentative activity seemed to facilitate narrative change, while social identity needs seemed to motivate it.

‘Look, Each Side Says Something Different’: the impact of competing history teaching approaches on Jewish and Arab adolescents’ discussions of the Jewish–Arab conflict

There is growing interest in the impact of Jewish and Arab historical narratives on intergroup relations and conflict. A randomized placement comparative study set out to examine it empirically. Conventional-Authoritative official narrative, Empathetic Dual narrative, and Critical-Disciplinary multiple-source teaching interventions were designed around the topic of the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. Seventy-five Jewish and 85 Arab Israeli adolescents were placed in each of the three different approaches to teaching history and in a control group. Following the learning intervention, participants from both communities were paired by condition, and discussed the causes and possible solution of the refugee problem. Dominance and agreement in discussion were analyzed, revealing a significant effect of teaching approach. Findings show discussions in Empathetic Dual narrative, and Critical-Disciplinary feature a lower degree of dominating discourse by the dominant group. Conventional-Authoritative approach featured lower frequency of agreement on solution for the problems caused by the conflict, compared to control and multiple perspective teaching approaches.

Looking at their side of the conflict? Effects of single versus multiple perspective history teaching on Jewish and Arab adolescents’ attitude to out-group narratives and in-group responsibility

In the last decade, the issue of teaching the Palestinian perspective on the Jewish–Arab conflict in Israeli schools gave rise to considerable debate and competing curricula. A quasi-experimental study compared the effects of these competing approaches on learners’ attitudes to out-group narratives and perceived in-group responsibility (IR). A total of 176 Israeli Jewish and Arab participants were randomly allocated into teaching approaches differing in method of engagement with historical narratives (single authoritative narrative, empathetic dual narrative, and critical analysis of conflicting sources). Results revealed effects for teaching approach and majority–minority status. Engagement with a single authoritative narrative decreased interest in out-group perspectives while empathetic engagement with out-group and in-group perspectives increased it, though the effect was more pronounced for members of the Arab minority than for those of the Jewish majority. Among Jewish participants, an empathetic teaching approach led to a decrease in perceived IR while the critical approach led to the opposite outcome. The trends were inverted for Arab participants. Engagement with historical perspectives also moderated the impact of interest in out-group perspectives on acceptance of IR. Educational implications point to the harmful effects of enforcing a single narrative in conflicted societies and to the beneficial outcomes of multiple perspective teaching.

Between Trauma and Perpetration: Psychoanalytical and Social Psychological Perspectives on Difficult Histories in the Israeli Context

Abstract This study explores the applicability of psychoanalytic trauma-centered perspectives and social psychological intergroup comparison perspectives to difficult histories of the Israeli context. The study describes 2 test cases of difficult histories in the Jewish-Israeli context at the levels of curriculum policy, teachers, and learners. The first is the Holocaust, a history of victimhood, and the second is the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, a history of perpetrating harm onto others. Findings show engagement with Holocaust history is officially encouraged through an ever-expanding curriculum and arouses almost universal enthusiasm and pride. By contrast, engagement with Palestinian plight was hampered by erratic curricular policy. It has led to teachers hovering between evasion and risk-taking, incurring hostile student reactions as well as facilitating student openness to the other’s voice. These phenomena seemingly contradict the psychoanalytically inspired view of trauma as difficult history and may be better interpreted from a social psychological perspective. The implications of this study stress the potential of the psychoanalytically inspired “pedagogy of remembrance” in structuring engagement with trauma and point to the utility of social psychological theory in predicting and overcoming learner resistance. This study also illustrates the risks and promises difficult histories of perpetration may hold for educators.

Teaching Traumatic History to Young Children: The Case of Holocaust Studies in Israeli Kindergartens

Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Education initiated a mandatory nationwide curriculum for Jewish kindergarten children focusing on the study of the Holocaust. This initiative raises general questions regarding the inclusion of sensitive historical issues in curricula for young children. In this article, we use the new Holocaust curriculum as an instructive case through which to address the broader questions about what might constitute an appropriate and acceptable curriculum in early childhood. We discuss the initiative from three disciplinary perspectives: a developmental sciences perspective, an anthropological/cultural perspective, and a learning sciences perspective. As we demonstrate, these three perspectives not only represent different disciplines but also highlight different aspects of this issue, thus exposing the complexities of this discussion. We show that understanding these perspectives separately and then trying to combine them may enable a richer and more complex look on the broader questions that this specific curriculum raises. We conclude with an endeavor to integrate the three perspectives, all of which should be taken into account when constructing a curriculum for young children.

The official, the empathetic and the critical: Three approaches to history teaching and reconciliation in Israel

Studies of social representations and intergroup conflict often stress the role of collective narratives and historical accounts in prolonging and legitimizing conflict.