Making narrative connections? Exploring how late teens relate their own lives to the historically significant past London Review of Education� DOI:�https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.2.04� Volume�15,�Number�2,�July�2017 Making narrative connections? Exploring how late teens relate their own lives to the historically significant past Elizabeth�Dawes�Duraisingh* Harvard Graduate School of Education Abstract This�paper�reports�on�a�study�that�invited�187�16–18-year-old�students�in�the�United�States� to�draw�diagrams�showing�connections�between�their�own�lives�and�the�past.�Interviews�were� subsequently�held�with�26�study�participants.�The�degree�to�which�students�made�connections� between�their�own�lives�and�the�past,�and�the�various�ways�in�which�they�integrated�personal� and�historical�narratives,�are�discussed,�with�three�examples�explored�in�detail.�The�ways�in� which�interviewed�students�talked�about�their�diagrams�point�to�the�significance�of�individuals’� understandings�of�the�nature�of�historical�knowledge�for�how�they�use�the�past�to�orient�their� own�lives.� Keywords:�historical�consciousness;�historical�understanding;�history�education;�identity History�educators�are�increasingly�interested�in�what�young�people�know�or�think�about�the� past�–�rather�than�what�they�don’t�–�with�the�assumption�that�taking�students’�existing�thinking� into�account�could�enhance�history�education�practices.�Similarly�motivated,�this�research�took� an�open-ended�approach�towards�exploring�young�people’s�historical�consciousness�or�how� they�use�the�past�to�help�orient�their�lives.�Other�papers�in�this�issue�examine�the�ways�in�which� young�people�understand�or�construct�narratives�about�a�collective�or�historically�significant� past.�This�paper�takes�a�somewhat�different�tack:�given�that�individuals�in�their�late�teens�are� developmentally�primed�to�consider�issues�of�identity,�what�kinds�of�strategies�do�they�use�to� connect�their�own�life�stories�or�personal�narratives�to�the�historically�significant�past,�including� but�not�limited�to�national�narratives?�Further,�how�do�they�talk�about�these�narrative�strategies� and�how�might�the�ways�in�which�they�talk�about�them�relate�to�their�understandings�of�the� nature�of�historical�knowledge? This� exploratory� study� involved� 187� 16–18-year-olds� in� four� different� state� schools� in� the�Greater�Boston�area�in�the�United�States;�further�contextual�details�are�provided�below.� Students�drew�diagrams�to�explain�how�the�past�‘helps�explain�who�you�are�and�the�life�you� are� living�or�hope�to�live’,�and�provided�accompanying�written�explanations�(in�an�exercise� adapted�from�Seixas,�1997).�Interviews�were�conducted�with�26�students�about�their�responses.� The�187�diagrams�varied�greatly�in�terms�of�both�form�and�content,�with�approximately�one- fifth�of�diagrams�reflecting�only�students’�personal�experiences.�However,�most�students�did� make�connections�between�their�own�lives�and�the�historically�significant�past,�nearly�always�in� highly�personalized�ways�that�bore�little�resemblance�to�‘official’�history�textbook�narratives.� *� Email:�elizabeth_duraisingh@gse.harvard.edu � ©Copyright�2017�Duraisingh.�This�is�an�Open�Access�article�distributed�under�the�terms�of�the�Creative� Commons�Attribution�Licence,�which�permits�unrestricted�use,�distribution,�and�reproduction�in�any� medium,�provided�the�original�author�and�source�are�credited. London Review of Education� � 175 They�used�various�narrative�strategies:�situating�their�own�life�story�within�a�broader�historical� context;�exploring�the�relationship�between�individuals�and�bigger�historical�processes;�tethering� their�own�life�story�to�the�story�of�a�group�or�community�to�whom�they�felt�they�belonged�(e.g.� a�nation,�a�racial/ethnic�group,�a�religion,�humankind�writ�large);�presenting�their�own�life�as� being�at�the�confluence�of�various�unfolding�historical�narratives;�and/or�exploring�how�the�past� is�helping�to�shape�the�ongoing�story�of�their�own�personal�development. Mapping�out�some�of�the�ways�in�which�individuals�narratively�connect�their�own�stories� to� a� broader� human� past� contributes� to� existing� theory� about� historical� consciousness.� Moreover,�differences�in�the�ways�in�which�young�people�spoke�about�their�diagrams�suggest� that�their�assumptions�about�the�nature�of�historical�knowledge�–�that�is,�their�epistemological� understandings�of�history�–�relate�to� important�differences� in�terms�of�how�they�conceive� of�their�identities�and�lives,�hinting�at�the�potentially�profound�impact�of�the�kind�of�history� education�that�promotes�rigorous�historical�thinking. Below,� relevant� literatures� on� historical� consciousness,� narratives,� identity� and� history� education�are�discussed.�The�study�methods�are�then�outlined.�An�overview�of�the�study�findings� is�provided�before�more�in-depth�discussion�of�three�student�diagrams�and�how�those�students� talked�about�their�diagrams�is�presented.�The�paper�concludes�by�reflecting�on�the�implications� of�the�study’s�findings�and�possible�avenues�for�future�research. Conceptual framework Individual historical consciousness Historical�consciousness is�a�concept�of�growing�interest�to�experts�who�have�pioneered�and� pressed�for�disciplinary�approaches�to�teaching�history�(Ahonen,�2005;�Lee,�2004a;�Seixas,�2004).� Applicable�to�both�individuals�and�communities,�historical�consciousness�is�fundamentally�about� how�as�humans�we�orient�ourselves�in�time�and�relate�our�own�lives�to�the�past�and�future:� what�theorist�Jörn�Rüsen�calls�‘historical�identity’�(1993).�Importantly,�orientation�involves�both� situating�oneself�(where�am�I/we�now?)�and�directing oneself�(where�am�I/we�going?)�within�a� historical�continuum�that�expands�beyond�one’s�personal� life�experience.�For�communities,� historical�consciousness�is�intimately�bound�up�with�collective�memory,�including�the�selection�of� which�public�events�get�commemorated�or�even�remembered,�and�how�the�community’s�origins� are�explained�(Lowenthal,�1996;�Nora,�1996;�Rüsen,�1993).�While�recognizing�that�individuals� are�inseparable�from�the�larger�enterprise�of�collective�memory,�this�study�relates�to�aspects�of� individual�historical�consciousness�–�that�is,�how�young�people�orient�or�make�sense�of�their�own� lives�within�a�historical�continuum.�Rüsen�emphasizes�that�historical�consciousness�is�not�limited� to�‘how�much’�history�individuals�know,�even�though�a�certain�level�of�knowledge�or�‘experience’� is�a�prerequisite:�‘what�is�important�to�discover�in�regard�to�historical�consciousness�is�not�the� extent�of�knowledge�involved,�but�rather�the�framework�and�effective�principles�operative�in� making�sense�of�the�past’�(Rüsen,�1993:�80).�This�study�helps�address�the�need�for�initial,�small- scale,�qualitative�investigations�into�individual�historical�consciousness�(Billman-Machecha�and� Hausen,�2005;�Lee,�2004b;�Seixas,�2005). The role of narratives This� study� assumes� that� we� construct� and� enact� meaning� and� identity� through� discourse,� particularly� through� narratives,� which� lie� at� the� heart� of� how� we� make� sense� of� who� we� are�and�our�relationship�to�the�world�(Bruner,�1990;�Hammack�and�Pilecki,�2012).�Bruner� 176� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh defines�narratives�as�‘acts�of�meaning’�or�cultural�products�through�which�we�construct�our� understanding�of�the�world�–�constructions�that,�according�to�Danto�(1965),�are�necessarily� infused�with�references�to�the�past.�Bruner�contrasts�narratives�with�‘paradigmatic’�or�‘logico- scientific’�thinking,�which�involves�trying�to�identify�events�as�instances�of�an�established�law� (Polkinghorne,�1988).�Bruner�believes�that�there�are�universals�to�be�found�across�narratives,� such�as�a�‘structure�of�committed�time’�with�a�beginning,�middle�and�end�organized�according�to� their�human�relevance�(Bruner,�2005:�26).�Though�bounded�by�human�actions,�stories�typically� generate�‘gists�or�morals’�that�transcend�the�particularities�of�the�narrative�told�and�invite�the� audience�to�judge�the�reasons�behind�individual�actions.�Narratives�can�be�represented�through� a�variety�of�forms,�including�the�diagrams�that�are�analysed�in�this�paper.�Importantly,�Bruner� finds�it�impossible�to�separate�the�thought�that�gave�rise�to�a�narrative�and�the�narrative�itself:� such�a�distinction�is�not�made�in�this�paper. Research�shows�that�narratives�play�a�key�role�in�the�formation�of�national�identity�(Billig,� 1995;� Reicher� and� Hopkins,� 2001)� and� theories� about� political� processes� and� one’s� role� and�agency�within�them�(Andrews,�2007).�Similarly,�theoreticians,�including�Rüsen,�consider� narratives�integral�to�historical�consciousness�(Polkinghorne,�2005;�Rüsen,�1993;�Wertsch,� 2004).�Referring�to�‘the�narrative�competence�of�historical�consciousness’,�Rüsen�posits�that� telling�stories�is�how�individuals�synthesize�different�dimensions�of�time�and�impose�moral� meaning�on�the�past. In�everyday�discourse,�we�rarely�tell�complete�and�coherent�narratives.�Rather,�it�is�through� ‘small�stories’�or�‘narrative�fragments’�that�we�shift�in�and�out�of�different�ways�of�narrative� telling�(Baynham,�2010),�as�reflected�in�the�data�collected�for�this�study.�Hammack�and�Pilecki� (2012)�suggest�that�the�ways�in�which�we�select�or�construct�narratives�are�often�‘saturated�with� emotion’�and�not�always�rational�or�consistent.�As�individuals,�we�necessarily�create�narratives� according�to�the�‘cultural�tools’�available�to�us�(Wertsch,�2002),�including�national�narratives.� The�prevailing�Québécois�narrative,�for�instance,�is�that�of�melancholic�tragedy�(Létourneau� and� Moisan,� 2004),� while� a� progressive� ‘narrative� template’� of� American� exceptionalism� predominates�in�the�United�States�(VanSledright,�2008;�Wertsch,�2004).�Schools�traditionally� play�an�important�role�in�propagating�official�history�narratives;�however,�young�people�also� interact� with� many� other� kinds� of� sources� that� relay� information� about� the� past,� including� popular�films,�news�media,�national�ceremonies�and�rituals,�books,�television�documentaries,� families,� religious� communities,� museums� and� historic� sites� (Barton,� 2001;� Rosenzweig� and� Thelen,�1998;�Wineburg�et al.,�2007).�In�this�study,�the�students�interviewed�referred�to�movies,� historic�sites�and�family�history,�for�instance,�as�well�as�what�they�had�learned�in�school�or�read� about�elsewhere.�That�is,�they�engaged�with�narratives�that�were�culturally�available�to�them,� albeit�in�unique�and�personally�meaningful�ways. Identity For�the�purposes�of�this�study,�‘identity’�is�defined�as�‘the�attempt�to�differentiate�and�integrate�a� sense�of�self�along�different�social�and�personal�dimensions’�(Bamberg,�2011:�6).�A�complex�and� multidimensional�endeavour,�it�invokes�overlapping�sociocultural�categories�including�gender,� race,�ethnicity,�occupation,�class,�nation�state,�religion�and�sexual�orientation.�The�current�study� assumed�that�identity�is�actively�constructed by�the�individual�rather�than�passively�‘owned’�or� ‘received’;� situational� insofar�as� it�develops� in�context�and� is�subject�to�change;�and� shaped by narratives,�as�indicated�above.�Importantly,�the�students’�perception�of�the�researcher�–�an� English-accented,�white�female�of�approximately�forty�years�old,�affiliated�with�a�university�–�as� London Review of Education� � 177 well�as�the�particular�school�contexts�in�which�they�interacted�with�her,�would�have�influenced� the�narratives�they�chose�to�tell,�particularly�during�the�interviews. Developmental�psychologists,�meanwhile,�view�late�adolescence�as�the�pre-eminent�time� in�the�life�cycle�for�explicitly�addressing�issues�of�identity�(Erikson,�1968;�Nakkula�and�Toshalis,� 2006),�as�it�is�a�period�when�young�people�typically�develop�an�integrated�sense�of�self�and�the� capacity�or�cognitive�tools�to�consider�their�lives�in�an�abstract�sense�or�as�an�overall�‘story’� (Damon�and�Hart,�1988;�Harter,�1999;�McAdams,�1993).�Indeed,�emerging�research�suggests� that�developing�the�ability�to�create�autobiographical�and�intergenerational�narratives�is�crucial� for�the�emotional�and�psychological�stability�of�young�people�(Fivush�et al.,�2011;�McLean�et al.,�2010).�Moreover,�at�least�in�contemporary�western�contexts,�questions�concerning�one’s� identity�and�life�purpose�understandably�come�to�the�fore�as�young�people�prepare�to�leave�their� families�and�attain�increased�autonomy.�This�study�chose�to�focus�on�16-�to�18-year-olds�on� the�grounds�that�they�would�be�likely�to�be�both�willing�and�able�to�reflect�on�the�relationship� between�themselves�and�history. Historical knowledge and understanding A� few� quantitative� studies� have� tried� to� measure� young� people’s� attitudes� towards� the� past,�most�notably�that�of�Angvik�and�Von�Borries�(1997).�Meanwhile,�studies�incorporating� qualitative�approaches�have�shown�how�young�people’s�family�or�national�affiliations�affect� the�kinds�of�narratives�they�tell�about�the�past�(Welzer,�2008)�or�their�historical�reasoning� (Goldberg� et al.,� 2008).� Other� studies� have� shown� that� students’� social� and� cultural� environments�impact�how�they�make�meaning�of�their�history�education,�and�that�they�are� far�from�passive�recipients�of�textbook�narratives�(Barton�and�Levstik,�2004;�Goldberg� et al.,�2006;�Rantala,�2011).�Still�others�have�shown�how�students’�interpretations�of�national� history�differ�according�to�their�racial/ethnic�identity�(Almarza,�2001;�Epstein,�1998;�Hawkey� and�Prior,�2011;�Peck,�2010;�Traille,�2007)�and�immigration�status�and�experience�(An,�2009;� Grever et al.,�2008).�While�this�body�of�research�is�informative,�the�focus�in�this�study�was� on�the�ways� in�which�young�people�explicitly�make�connections�between�themselves�and� history.�Other�studies�have�explored�how�young�people�think�about�themselves�as�members� of�a�specific�generation�(Lenz,�2011),�personally�relate�to�school�history�topics�(Barton�and� McCully,�2005),�or�feel�a�sense�of�connectedness�to�the�overall�study�of�history�(Audigier� and�Fink,�2010;�Haeberli,�2005).�However,�these�studies�have�not�focused�on�the�narrative� processes�by�which�individuals�relate�their�own�lives�to�the�past.� Finally,� this� study� draws� on� literature� concerning� young� people’s� historical� thinking,� particularly�with�regard�to�their�thinking�about�the�nature�of�historical�knowledge.�For�example,� a�common�misconception�among�children�is�that�historical�knowledge�is�just�‘there’�and�does� not�need�to�be�constructed�from�historical�sources�(Ashby,�2005;�Lee,�2005;�Wineburg,�2001),� although�they�may�eventually�develop�the�insight�that�historical�accounts�are�contingent�and�must� answer�questions�and�fit�criteria�(Lee�and�Shemilt,�2004).�Borrowing�from�that�work,�this�study� broadly�considered�whether�young�people�talked�about�their�diagrams�(and�other�historical� accounts,�including�narrative�accounts)�as�tentative�interpretations�of�their�relationship�to�the� past�or�as�straightforward,�unambiguous�accounts.�It�is�worth�nothing�that�to�date�there�has�been� a�lack�of�clarity�regarding�the�theoretical�relationship�between�epistemological�understandings�of� history�and�historical�consciousness�(Lee,�2004b),�although�a�recent�paper�points�to�an�integral� relationship�between�the�two,�with�a�sophisticated�(or�‘genetic’)�level�of�historical�consciousness� necessitating�the�development�of�a�‘historiographical�gaze’�(Thorp,�2014). 178� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh This� study� drew,� then,� from� diverse� bodies� of� literature,� some� theoretical� and� some� empirically�grounded.�The�overarching�impetus�was�to�understand�ways�in�which�young�people� relate�their�own�lives�to�the�historically�significant�past.�While�this�study�emphasizes�the�highly� individual�and�context-specific�ways�in�which�young�people�create�or�weave�together�narratives� about�themselves�and�the�past,�it�also�integrates�insights�from�cognitive�research�that�point�to� the�predictable�development�of�more�enduring�epistemological�or�disciplinary�understandings� among�young�people.�These�two�approaches,�while�potentially�incompatible,�can�be�reconciled�if� students�are�seen�as�developing�capacities�for�meaning-making�rather�than�holding�particular�ideas� (Hofer�and�Pintrich,�2002;�Kegan,�1982).�How�students�deploy�their�fundamental�epistemological� understandings�may�vary�from�one�discursive�context�to�another,�but�students�who�have�not� grasped�the�constructed�and�contingent�nature�of�historical�interpretations,�for�instance,�are� never�going�to�construct�narratives�in�ways�that�reflect�that�understanding.� Methods Sample Of�the�four�research�sites,�two�schools�were�situated�in�affluent�suburban�communities,�one�was� in�a�mixed-income�semi-urban�community,�and�one�was�in�a�mixed-income�urban�community.� Table�1�presents�demographic�features�of�the�overall�sample,�as�self-reported�by�students.�The� sample�was�balanced�by�gender�and�was�somewhat�racially/ethnically�diverse;�however,�the� study�was�not�intended�to�be�generalizable�to�some�broader�population,�especially�as�potentially� important� information� was� not� collected� regarding� students’� social/economic� or� religious� backgrounds.�Moreover,�the�study�was�focused�on�the�general�processes�by�which�students�used� the�past�to�make�sense�of�their�lives,�identities�and�values�rather�than�on�the�actual�substantive� connections�that�they�made.�Understandable�differences� in� what�students�talked�about�(e.g.� slavery�and�the�civil�rights�movement�vs�the�Islamic�Revolution�in�Iran)�were�less�important�for� this�study�than�how�they�talked�about�the�past,�or�what�kind�of�epistemological stance they�took� towards�it�(which�were�not�expected�to�be�influenced�by�gender�or�racial/ethnic�background).� By�dint�of�being�enrolled�in�college�preparation�classes�(Honors�or�AP),�these�students� were�relatively�successful�academically�and�likely�to�be�able�to�articulate�their�relationship� to�the�past,�although�information�about�their�grades�or�history�education�was�not�available.� Students�participated�during�class�time�towards�the�end�of�the�school�year�in�a�variety�of� subject�area�contexts�(accounting,�English�literature,�government,�history�and�psychology).� The�subsample�of�the�26�interviewed�students�was�intentionally�diverse,� in�terms�both�of� demographic�characteristics�and�of�their�diagrams�and�written�responses.�With�respect�to� student�work,�variation�was�sought�regarding�(1)�the�number�of�connections�students�made� between�themselves�and�the�past,�(2)�the�relative�sophistication�of�their�reasoning�about�the� nature�of�historical�knowledge�as�indicated�by�a�follow-up�activity�(see�below)�and�(3)�the� uniqueness�or�typicality�of�their�diagrams�relative�to�the�rest�of�the�sample.�However,�it�is� important�to�note�that�for�reasons�of�timing,�the�interview�sample�was�selected�based�on�an� initial�reading�of�the�diagrams�and�other�written�responses�rather�than�on�the�more�thorough� analysis�described�below.�All�interviews�were�fully�transcribed. London Review of Education� � 179 Table 1:�Breakdown�of�sample�(n=187) Number of students in overall sample % of overall sample Number of students interviewed % of students interviewed Gender (n=187) Male 105 56% 14 50% Female 82 44% 14 50% Race/ ethnicity (n=175)* African-American 9 5% 4 14% Asian 24 14% 2 7% Hispanic 3 2% 0 0% Native�American 0 0% 0 0% White� 124 67% 18 64% Mixed/other 14 8% 4 14% Family mobility and language (n=175) At�least�one�foreign�born� parent 74 39% 11 40% Student�has�always�lived� in�current�neighbourhood 111 59% 15 54% Student�has�lived�outside� New�England� 50 27% 5 29% Language�other�than� English�spoken�at�home 56 30% 9 32% *�Demographic�details�were�missing�for�some�of�the�sample. Data collection As�mentioned,�students�were�asked�to�draw�a�diagram�on�a�blank�piece�of�paper�to�show�how� the�past�‘helps�explain�who�you�are�and�the�life�you�are�living�or�hope�to�live’�and�to�then�explain� the�form�and�content�of�their�diagram.�The�idea�was�that�a�concise�diagram�format�would�allow� students�to�construct�an�overview�of�the�ways�in�which�they�thought�about�themselves�in�relation� to�the�past,�although�it�was�usually�unclear�if�this�relationship�was�something�they�had�reflected� on�previously.�The�open-ended�nature�of�the�task�allowed�students�to�approach�it�in�ways�that� were�personally�meaningful�to�them.�Students�typically�spent�approximately�45�minutes�on�the� task.�While�this�paper�focuses�on�the�diagrams,�students�went�on�to�complete�other�activities,� including�one�designed�to�surface�their�epistemological�reasoning�about�the�nature�of�historical� accounts�(adapted�from�Boix�Mansilla,�2001),�which�they�also�discussed�in�their�interviews. Initial coding rounds Students’�diagrams�proved�highly�varied,�posing�a�challenge�for�analysis.�Initial�coding�focused�on� the�content�of�students’�diagrams.�Across�all�the�diagrams,�almost�half�of�the�items�(46�per�cent)� related�to�students’�direct�personal�experiences,�such�as�starting�a�new�school�or�moving�house,� or�features�of�their�everyday�lives,�including�personality�traits,�hobbies�or�tastes.�Only�a�quarter�of� the�items�referred�to�what�might�be�called�the�historical�past:�events�likely�to�feature�in�students’� history�textbooks�and�which�preceded�their�births.�A�further�9�per�cent�of�items�referred�to� ‘historical’�events�occurring�within�the�students’�own�lifetimes�or�contemporaneously,�such�as� the�election�of�Bush�or�Obama�and�the�War�on�Terror;�20�per�cent�of�items�comprised�themes� or�topics�not�tied�to�a�particular�time�or�period,�such�as�immigration,�racism�or�literature. 180� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh The�vague�wording�of�the�task�instructions�–�‘show�how�the�past�helps�explain�who�you�are� and�the�life�you�are�living’�–�meant�that�many�students�legitimately�chose�to�focus�on�their�own� past�as�well�as�or�instead�of�the�historically�significant�past.�Close�to�a�fifth�of�students�(17�per� cent)�included�only events�that�either�they�or�immediate�members�of�their�family�had�personally� experienced,�and/or�aspects�of�their�present-day�lives.�Over�a�third�of�students�(34�per�cent)� included�mostly�or�only�such�items�(‘mostly’�was�defined�as�two-thirds�or�more�of�items).�Over� a�tenth�of�students�(13�per�cent)�included�mostly�or�only�historically�significant�items�in�their� diagrams,�while�close�to�half�(47�per�cent)�combined�different�types�of�items�so�that�no�one�type� dominated.�While�such�statistics�arguably�hint�at�the�relative�sensitivity�of�individual�students�to� the�past,�the�sheer�amount�of�history�that�individuals�chose�to�include�in�their�diagrams�was�not� useful�for�indicating�the�degree�to�which�or�process�by�which�they�were�making�connections� between�their�own�lives�and�the�past.� The�next�round�of�analysis�attempted�to�differentiate�between�students�who�told�stories� to� explain� their� personal� connection� to� the� past� and� those� who� approached� the� question� more� ‘analytically’,� as�per�Bruner’s�distinction�between�narrative�and�paradigmatic� thinking.� However,�given�the�centrality�of�narratives�to�how�we�make�meaning�of�our�lives,�it�proved� more�productive�to�focus�on�the�ways�in�which�students�integrated�personal�and�historical� narratives�in�their�diagrams.�Bruner,�commenting�on�written�texts,�has�stated�that�‘it�is�not�that� narrative�and�paradigmatic�modes�of�discourse�fuse,�for�they�do�not.�It�is,�rather,�that�the�logical� or�paradigmatic�mode�is�brought�to�bear�on�the�task�of�explicating�the�breach�in�the�narrative’� (Bruner,�2005:�94).�This�distinction�played�out�in�this�study�as�follows:�students�typically�drew�a� diagram�containing�narrative�threads�(or�a�single�coherent�narrative)�and�then�wrote�explanatory� or�logical�comments�either�within�or�alongside�the�diagram.�Interviewed�students�retold�or� elaborated�on�these�narratives,�while�also�breaking�out�into�analytic�commentary�on�them. Findings overview: Students’ incorporation of personal and historical narratives into their diagrams Table�2�summarizes�the�ways�in�which�students�combined�personal�and�historically�significant� items�in�their�diagrams,�if�they�did�at�all,�and�the�overall�narrative�effect,�if�any.�The�labels�in� bold�indicate�the�presence�of�what�appeared�to�be�coherent�overarching�narratives�within�the� diagrams�–�be�that�personal�narratives,�historical�narratives,�or�ones�that�brought�these�two� kinds�of�narrative�together.�Personal�narratives�refer�to�stories�about�students’�own�lives�or� those�of�their�immediate�family.�Historical�narratives�involve�the�historically�significant�past,�as� recognized�by�a�relatively�large�group�of�people,�including�historians.�They�could�be�narratives� about�particular�events�or�historical�developments,�such�as�the�struggle�for�women’s�rights�or� the�United�States�gaining�independence�from�Britain,�more�interpretative�sweeps�of�periods�of� history�such�as�the�twentieth�century,�or�even�address�how�history�itself�unfolds. It�is�important�to�note�that�students�were�not�asked�to�produce�coherent�narratives�of�their� relationship�to�the�past�in�their�diagrams:�an�absence�of�a�coherent�narrative�does�not�mean�that� individual�students�were�incapable�of�and/or�resistant�to�producing�them,�just�that�they�did�not� do�so�in�this�context.�Moreover,�since�students�were�given�the�challenging�task�of�simultaneously� thinking�of� items�to�include� and�arranging�those�items�diagrammatically,�some�diagrams�can� be�interpreted�as�an�initial�jotting�down�of�ideas�–�although,�as�Table�2�indicates,�some�of�the� diagrams�that�appeared�to�be�lists�or�brainstorms�effectively�operated�as�narratives�if�there� were�sufficient�thematic�coherence�and�adequate�context�for�the�choice�of�items.�However,� in�the�case�of�students�who�were�not�interviewed,�it�is�impossible�to�know�if�they�intentionally� selected�or�developed�particular�narrative�strategies.�The�most�compelling�diagrams�(a)�included� London Review of Education� � 181 less�than�two-thirds�of�items�related�to�personal�or�family�experiences,�tastes,�interests,�etc.�and� at�least�some�historically�significant�items�and�(b)�integrated�personal�and�historical�narratives.� However,�Table�2�should�be�read�as�a�summary�of�findings�rather�than�as�an�evaluative�schema. Table 2:�A�summary�of�content�type�and�narrative�strategy�in�the�overall�sample�of�diagrams�(n=�168) A.� Diagrams only�include�personal�or�family�experiences,�tastes,�interests,�etc.�(n=31) LIST/BRAINSTORM:�Current�interests,�friends,�family,�values,�influences 20* CHRONOLOGICAL�APPROACH:�Tells�story�of�own�life�and/or�immediate�family Personal narrative 11 B.� Two-thirds�or�more�of�included�items�are�personal�or�family�experiences,�tastes,�interests,�etc.� but�other�kinds�of�items�are�included�(n=29) LIST/BRAINSTORM:�Current�interests,�friends,�family,�etc.�with�history�cited�as�an�interest�or events�or�influences,�including�items�of�broad�historic�or�contemporary�significance 17 CHRONOLOGICAL�APPROACH:�Tells�story�of�own�life:�some�preceding�history�is�included� as�background�and/or broader�contextual�detail�is�included�–�e.g.�contemporary�events�or� developments� Personal narrative with links to the historically significant past 12 C.� Two-thirds�or�more�of�included�items�are�historically�significant�events�(n=24) LIST/BRAINSTORM:�Seemingly�random�connections�or�very�general�rationale�for�including� items;�e.g.�things�that�have�affected�me;�things�I�believe�are�important 13 LIST/BRAINSTORM:�Coherent�theme:�items�collectively�serve�to�link�own�life�story�to�bigger� historical�narrative(s) Personal narrative linked to historical narrative 7 CHRONOLOGICAL�APPROACH:�Chronological�overview�of�history�with�self�at�end�or�as�a� point�on�a�timeline Historical narrative with self inserted 4 D.� Integrated�diagram:�Mixture�of�different�kinds�of�items�(n�=�84) LIST/BRAINSTORM:�Seemingly�random�connections�or�very�general�rationale�for�including� items;�e.g.�things�that�have�affected�me;�things�I�believe�are�important�or�have�learned�from 23 LIST/BRAINSTORM:�Coherent�theme:�items�collectively�serve�to�link�own�life�story�to�bigger� historical�narrative(s)� Personal narrative linked to historical narrative 13 VARIED�FORMS:�Subsumes�personal�narrative�within�that�of�a�group�to�which�he�or�she� belongs�(e.g.�Algerian�Muslims,�Ashkenazi�Jews,�Americans,�human�race) Personal and historical narrative tethered (STUART) 9 BROAD�CHRONOLOGICAL�APPROACH:�Contextualizes�own�or�family�story�within� broader�historical�context;�shows�how�own�story�or�family’s�story�has�been�intertwined�with� historical�events�or�trends Personal narrative contextualized within broader historical narrative (MELVIN) 23 VARIED�FORMS:�Presents�self�as�a�product�and/or�part�of�a�confluence�of�narratives;�may� involve�complex�causal�connections Personal narrative seen as product of historical narrative(s) and/or at confluence of different narratives (JESS) 16 *�Number�of�diagrams�in�sample�fitting�this�category.�Diagrams�that�only�included�general�themes�were� excluded�from�this�analysis. 182� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh Students’ narrative strategies: Melvin, Stuart and Jess While�giving�a�sense�of�the�distribution�of�approaches�within�the�overall�sample,�Table�2�is� necessarily�reductionist�and�fails�to�capture�what�it�looked�like�in�practice�for�particular�students� to�make�narrative�connections�between�their�own�lives�and�the�past.�This�paper�turns�now�to� three�specific�cases�to�provide�more�nuanced�discussion�and�to�show�that�students�connected� themselves�to�the�past�in�highly�individualized�ways.�Melvin,�Stuart�and�Jess�(all�pseudonyms)� were�selected�because�they�created�diagrams�with�mixed�content�but�used�different�narrative� strategies�to�bring�personal�and�historical�narratives�together,�as� indicated� in�Section�D�of� Table�2.�Furthermore,�there�were�interesting�differences�in�the�ways�in�which�they�talked�about� their�diagrams.� In�what�follows,�a�few�impressionistic�details�are�given�about�each�student�to�emphasize�their� individuality�as�well�as�to�convey�the�researcher’s�perspective:�the�details�are�not�necessarily� significant.�Then,�evidence�from�the�students’�diagrams,�their�written�explanations�and�interviews� are�woven�together. Melvin: Historically contextualizing his own life story; exploring the relationship between individuals and bigger historical processes Melvin�was�a�soft-spoken,�affable�student�who�wore�a�baseball�cap�during�his�interview.�He� referred�to�his�Caribbean�heritage�and�large�family�(he�is�the�youngest�of�eight�children),�as�well� as�his�religious�faith.�He�has�travelled�extensively�to�visit�family�in�the�Caribbean�and�Europe�and� has�lived�in�various�Greater�Boston�neighbourhoods.� Melvin’s�diagram,�at�first�glance,�is�structured�in�the�form�of�a�swirling�timeline.�He�starts� with�the�Emancipation�Proclamation�–�the�abolition�of�slavery�at� the�end�of� the�American� Civil�War�–�which�is�presented�as�a�necessary�condition�or�background�enabling�his�personal� story:�‘my�education�level,�my�quality�of�life,�probably�where�I�live,�would�have�been�completely� different’.�However,�his�diagram�does�not�follow�a�strict�chronology�despite�the�arrows�that� connect�the�different�items.�The�end�of�the�timeline�is�only�loosely�structured,�featuring�aspects� of�Melvin’s�life�circumstances,�such�as�where�he�lives,�the�education�he�has�received,�the�travel� he�has�completed,�and�how�these�life�circumstances�have�had�an�impact�on�who�he�is�today.� While�Melvin�incorporates�the�historically�significant�past�into�his�diagram,�his�focus�is�somewhat� tilted�towards�his�personal�life�story. Nonetheless,�Melvin�does�more�than�merely�describe�his�own�life:�he�situates�it�within�a� broader�historical�context.�His�explanatory�notes�centre�on�how�he�came�to�have�excellent�life� prospects�despite�the�challenges�he�perceives�of�being�a�young�black�man�living�in�the�United� States.�Beginning�his�personal�timeline�with�the�Emancipation�Proclamation�and�the�ending�of� the�Jim�Crow�laws�serves�to�acknowledge�his�relative�good�fortune�compared�with�previous� generations;�he�also�connects�his�own�story�to�a�wider�collective�narrative�of�social�progress�and� technological�change,�which�affect�‘pretty�much�everyone�in�my�generation’.�By�only�selecting� ‘things�beyond�his�control’�for�his�diagram,�Melvin�uses�the�diagram�narrative�to�explore�the� relationship�between�individual�lives�or�free�will�and�larger�societal�or�historical�forces.�In�his� interview,�he�also�referred�to�his�siblings,�his�parents’�political�and�religious�views,�and�the� liberal�context�of�Massachusetts�as�influences�beyond�his�control�that�have�helped�to�shape�him,� blurring�the�distinction�between�past�and�present�in�his�bid�to�explore�the�degree�to�which�we� shape�our�own�destinies. London Review of Education� � 183 F ig u re 1 :� M el vi n’ s� di ag ra m 184� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh F ig u re 2 :� St ua rt ’s �d ia gr am London Review of Education� � 185 Stuart: Situating his own life at the confluence of various historical narratives; tethering his own story to the history of humanity Stuart�was�a�boy�of�Italian�American�extraction,�with�spiked�hair,�whose�family�has�lived�in�the� same�semi-urban�neighbourhood�of�Greater�Boston�for�several�generations.�He�joked�around� with�his�peers�in�class�but�became�strikingly�serious�in�the�context�of�the�interview,�speaking�in� a�heartfelt�way�about�his�family�and�his�pride�in�being�American.�He�also�stated�that�history�was� his�favourite�subject. Stuart’s�diagram�was�wide-ranging�in�terms�of�both�theme�and�time�span.�He�picked�the� following�themes:�‘wars�and�battles’,�which�led�up�to�or�at�least�preceded�‘modern�terrorism’;� ‘famous�people’,�with�Jesus�Christ�the�only�named�person;�‘construction�and�factorization’�[sic],� which�traces�broad�technological�developments�in�human�history;�and�‘land�and�the�founders’,� which�broadly�relates�to�the�discovery�and/or�establishment�of�different�empires�or�nation� states.�The�general�chronological�element�to�the�threads�suggests�narratives�unfolding�over� time,�an�impression�reinforced�by�a�comment�made�by�Stuart�in�his�interview: Interviewer:�Obviously�I’ve�asked�you�to�do�this,�but�have�you�thought�about�this�big�picture� before?�Or�was�it�just— Stuart:�I�actually�have.�I�was�just�like�sitting�at�home�and�just�like�thinking�like�why�did�everything� start�and�like�how�it�actually�pushed�itself�into�each�other�and�it�developed�into�everything�and� then�I�came�along�and�I�felt�like�I�was�a�part�of�it,�even�though�I�wasn’t�like�physically�a�part�of�it.� Like�I�thought�I�was�involved�because�of�all�this�happening.� His�metaphoric�language,�which�conveys�a�sense�of�historical�events�sliding�or�piling�into�one� another,�draws�attention�to�his�being�immersed�in�some�bigger�story�concerning�the�whole�of� human�history.� In�his�diagram�Stuart�situates�his�life�at�the�confluence�of�different�narrative�strands�unfolding� in�history;�he�also�tethers�his�personal�story�to�that�of�humankind�writ�large.�That�is,�in�being� asked�to�show�how�his�own�life�connects�to�the�past,�he�elects�to�tell�a�broader�story�of� humanity.�If�we�compare�Stuart’s�diagram�to�that�of�Melvin,�it�is�less�of�an�exploration�of�his� individual�story�and�more�an�expression�about�belonging�to�a�collective�story. Jess: Exploring how the past is helping shape the ongoing story of her own personal development; situating her own life at the confluence of various historical narratives Jess�was�a�girl�with�long�brown�hair,�an�accomplished�gymnast�and�dancer.�She�spoke�of�her� Jewish�ancestry�and�her� family’s� involvement� in�the�LGBT�movement,�as�well�as�her�close� attachment�to�her�local�urban�community,�where�she�has�lived�her�whole�life.�She�articulated� her�words�carefully,�often�pausing�as�if�to�reflect�before�responding�to�questions.� At�first�glance,�Jess’s�diagram�does�not�exhibit�the�kind�of�flow�visible�in�the�previous�two� diagrams.�However,�there�is�a�swirling�dynamic�at�play,�made�evident�by�her�verbal�explanation� of�her�diagram:� So,�at�the�very�centre�of�my�diagram�I�have�just�a�little�kind�of�bubble�that�says�‘me’.�And�I�made�it� a�bubble�because�I�think�I’m�not�all�that�sort�of�well�defined�but�it’s�all�sort�of�just�mush�and�things� just�kind�of�flow�in�and�influence�me.�So�I�have�sort�of�a�circle�around�myself�and�I�have�a�bunch�of� different�sorts�of�movements�and�events�in�history�that�I�think�have�most�influenced�me�such�as� the�environmental�movements�and�environmental�degradation.�The�civil�rights�movements,�the� GLBT�movements,�women’s�rights�movements,�Jewish�history,�Jewish�movements�and�wars�are� sort�of�the�main�events�that�influenced�me�and�then�in�more�of�an�inner�circle�I�have�more�broad� 186� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh topics�such�as�education,�technology,�dancing�and�music�that�have�–�they�all�have�their�own�sort� of�history�and�they�all�have�a�past�that�I�don’t�necessarily�know�as�much�about�in�a�concrete�way� but�um�–�all�of�those�things�influence�me�so�they’re�all�flowing�into�the�centre.�That’s�where�I�am. Figure 3:�Jess’s�diagram In�this�case�her�ongoing�personal�development�arguably�provides�the�narrative�centrepiece�or� unifying�factor.�The�diagram�also�serves�as�an�assertion�of�her�emerging�identity�–�in�terms�of� events�that�have�influenced�her�values�and�sense�of�who�she�is,�as�well�as�her�personal�talents� and�interests.�As�became�evident�in�her�interview,�however,�she�also�situates�herself�as�being�at� the�confluence�of�different�historical�narratives.�For�example,�she�talks�about�being�at�a�certain� moment�in�the�history�of�the�environment,�which�has�been�shaped�by�previous�generations’� actions:�‘my�generation,�we’re�going�to�be�really,�really�dealing�with�that’.�She�talks�about�being� shaped�by�and�inheriting�the�legacy�of�the�women’s�rights�movement,�civil�rights�movement�and� Jewish�history.�With�regard�to�the�gay�rights�movement,�in�which�her�family�has�been�immersed,� she�has�a�sense�of�being�part�of�history�in�the�making:�‘the�movement�is�now. You�know�there’s� been�movements�in�the�past�certainly�but�it’s�like�a�huge�thing�now.’ How students talked about their diagrams: The importance of epistemology The�ways�in�which�students�in�the�study�talked�about�their�diagrams�were�revealing�of�the� potential�relationship�between�their�understanding�of�the�nature�of�historical�knowledge�and� their�individual�historical�consciousness.�In�particular,�there�was�a�contrast�between�students� London Review of Education� � 187 who� presented� their� diagrams� as� contingent,� subjective� interpretations� of� the� relationship� between�their�own�lives�and�the�past,�and�those�who�appeared�to�present�their�diagrams�as� self-evident,�straightforward�representations.� Jess,�for�instance,�talked�from�the�start�about�not�being�‘all�that�well�defined’�as�reflected� by�the�blob�at�the�centre�of�her�diagram.�There�is�a�sense�of�fluidity�or�movement� in�her� diagram�–�as�much�in�terms�of�her�own�interpretation�of�her�own�place�in�history�as�in�events� or�developments�themselves.�Showing�an�awareness�of�the�limitations�of�her�own�knowledge,� she�states�that�she�did�not�want�to�exclude�items�from�her�diagram�simply�because�of�her�own� ignorance. Moreover,�in�talking�about�the�different�elements�of�her�diagram�she�spoke�in�metacognitive� terms�about�the�differences�between�learning�about�Jewish�history�at�the�temple,�where�it�was� framed�as�‘our�history’,�and�at�school,�where�it�was�treated�as�someone�else’s�history.�With� regard�to�the�women’s�rights�movement�she�said: So�women’s�rights’�movements�–�umm�–�my�mom�was�a�pretty�hardcore� feminist�and�I’ve� definitely�inherited�some�of�that�and�I’ve�really�enjoyed,�mostly�this�year�actually�–�I�learned�about� women’s�rights�in�US�History�and�that’s�been�really�interesting,�sort�of�how�that’s�played�out.� And�probably�because�of�my�mother�and�other�adults�and�other�women�that�I’ve�grown�up�with� I’m�like�–�very�conscious�of�that,�that�I�am�a�woman�and�that�other�women�have�done�a�lot�to� get�to�where�I�am�today.�And�there’s�definitely�a�sense�of�pride�for�me.�I�have�always�been�very� sort�of�conscious�of�that�heritage.� Here,�Jess�presents�the�impact�of�the�movement�as�somewhat�inevitable�given�her�mother’s� values.�However,�she�also�refers�explicitly�to�her�enjoyment�and�interest�in�learning�about�this� topic�at�school.�She�expresses�her�sense�of�connection�to�women’s�history�and�her�active�pride� in�it�while�also�providing�an�explanation�for�why�she�feels�connected�to�it,�showing�a�capacity�for� self-reflection�or�metacognition.�It�is�worth�noting,�however,�that�she�did�not�comment�on�the� progressive�template�that�seemed�to�undergird�her�narrative. Stuart,�in�contrast,�presented�his�diagram�in�more�fixed�terms.�When�invited�to�talk�about� it,�he�proceeded�to�list�everything�contained�within�it:� Well,�first�of�all�I�put�the�land�and�the�founders�because�these�are�the�basic�groups�and�people� that�started�everything.�The�people�who�started�Mesopotamia,�Ancient�Thebes,�you�know�like� that.�People�who�were�in�the�Roman�Empire,�all�those�Vikings,�the�famous�explorers,�Christopher� Columbus,�Magellan,�et�cetera�…� In�this�extract�he�is�citing�undisputed�‘facts’:�he�does�not�use�modifying�language�but�instead� states�straightforwardly�what�happened.�When�asked�how�he�knew�about�these�aspects�of� the�past,�he�responded,�‘Most�of�the�stuff�came�from�school.�I�was�just�trying�to�think�what� happened.’�Stuart�expressed�a�great�deal�of�connection�to�the�past,�including,�as�mentioned� earlier,�that�he�felt�part�of�an�ongoing�historical�process.�While�Jess�spoke�with�pride�yet�analytic� detachment�of�her�connection�to�the�women’s�movement,�Stuart�did�not�exhibit�the�capacity�to� talk�in�a�metacognitive�way�about�the�content�or�form�of�his�diagram�–�although�this�does�not� mean�that�he�was�incapable�of�doing�so. In�his�interview,�Stuart�also�talked�about�learning�from�his�grandmother�about�the�past,� including�life�lessons�she�gleaned�from�weathering�the�Great�Depression.�He�referred�to�her� corroborating�what�he�learned�at�school:� And�it’s�cool�because�[my�teacher]�can�teach�me�about�it�at�the�same�time�and�then�she�can� just�tell�me�about�the�stuff.�It’s�really�cool�…�I�like�ask�her�‘Do�you�remember�this?’�…�‘Do�you� remember�bootlegging,�and�stuff�like�that?’�And�she�was�like�‘yea,�I�remember�that’�which�is�cool� because�you�actually�know�what�happened.�You�can�just�talk�to�her�about�it.� 188� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh It� is�notable�that�he�does�not�talk�about�hearing�his�grandmother’s� perspective�about�what� happened;�rather,�he�views�her�as�an�authority�on�history,�presumably�because�he�thinks�she� directly�experienced�what�is�in�his�textbook.� Melvin’s�stance�toward�his�diagram�was�more�tentative,�in�no�small�part�because�he�actually� produced�two�diagrams:�the�first�version�was�a�brainstorm�of�influences�on�his�life,�which�he� thought�conveyed�an�even�spread�of� influences�on�his� life.�However,� in�the�second�version� (featured�in�this�paper)�‘I�tried�to�make�it�in�chronological�order�so�to�speak.�Like,�what�was� inherited,�then�things�that�affected�me�later�on.’�Further,�he�spoke�repeatedly�about�his�particular� life�experiences�affecting�his�perspective�on�the�world�and�on�the�past: You�know�I�wasn’t�brought�up�in�the�same�type�of�environment�that�[my�parents]�were.�I�was� brought�up�in�America,�in�Massachusetts�at�that.�And�I�thought�that�was�something�that�really� affects�you�and�it�affects�how�you�look�at�like�the�international�political�system�and�whatnot�…�I� think�because�my�parents�are�from�overseas�it�definitely�helps�me�look�at�things�on�a�larger�scale.� But,�I�do�definitely�think�in�comparison�to�them�I�look�at�things�from�an�American�perspective.� At�the�same�time,�he�assumes�some�commonality�with�other�people,�such�as�people� from� his�generation�who�are�growing�up�in�a�digital�environment.�In�Melvin’s�case�his�overarching� narrative�is�about the�way�in�which�his�outlook�and�life�prospects�have�been�affected�by�the�past� and�external�forces;�however,�he�is�also�able�to�‘step�outside’�that�narrative�to�reflect�on�the� ways�in�which�his�approach�to�the�task�has�been�influenced�by�those�very�life�experiences�and� family�influences.�Like�Stuart,�he�is�close�to�his�grandmother.�However,�when�he�refers�to�talking� with�her�about�the�past�and�her�life�in�Trinidad,�his�comment�is�about�her�perspective:�‘the� obstacles�of�your�past�definitely�affect�your�point�of�view’.�In�turn,�he�talks�about�her�influence� on�him:�‘I�think�the�stories�that�you’re�told�definitely�affect�the�way�you�think.’ Other�students�made�comments�that�indicated�a�relationship�between�their�awareness�of� the�constructed�nature�of�historical�knowledge�and�the�ways�in�which�they�viewed�their�own� relationship�to�the�past.�They�(1)�acknowledged�their�own�subjectivity�and/or�the�limitations�of� their�perspective�on�their�relationship�to�the�past,�(2)�presented�their�diagrams�and�explanations� as� tentative� and�subject� to�alteration,� and/or� (3)� stepped�outside� themselves� to�reflect� on� their�reactions�to�learning�about�history.�In�fact,�while�Jess�was�the�only�student�who�made� comments�that�covered�all�three�of�these�categories,�few�students�appeared�to�take�the�more� straightforward�view�of�historical�knowledge�apparently�evinced�by�Stuart.�The�fact�that�students� in�the�sample�were�academically�successful,�aged�16–18�and�living�in�a�city�with�a�highly�educated� workforce�and�major�academic�institutions�probably�needs�to�be�taken�into�account�with�regard� to�this�finding. It�is�also�worth�reiterating�that�the�researcher�was�not�a�proverbial�fly�on�the�wall�while� collecting�this�data.�For�example,�Stuart�presented�himself�as�a�good�student�who�liked�history� and�respected�his�elders;�just�prior�to�the�interview�there�was�a�drugs�bust�at�the�school�by� police�and�it�is�possible�he�wanted�to�convey�that�he�was�a�‘decent�kid’.�Melvin�discussed�his� relative�good�fortune�compared�with�other�young�black�men�(including,�implicitly,�others�at� his�school);�in�so�doing�he�was�able�to�communicate�that�he�was�from�a�highly�educated�family� living�in�a�desirable�part�of�town.�Jess,�meanwhile,�positioned�herself�as�a�thoughtful,�politically� informed�student.�While�these�impressions�are�purely�speculative,�they�suggest�that�the�school� context�and�the�perceived�identity�of�the�researcher�–�as�well�as�the�framing�of�the�activity�–� helped�to�shape�what�students�chose�to�share.�However,�recognizing�that�there�is�likely�to�be� some�fluidity�in�terms�of�how�individuals�relate�their�own�lives�to�the�past�does�not�diminish� the�finding�that�the�young�people�in�this�study�used�a�variety�of�narrative�strategies�to�do�so�or� that�the�ways�in�which�they�talked�about�those�strategies�appeared�to�differ�according�to�their� epistemological�understandings. London Review of Education� � 189 Implications In�conjunction�with�the�overall�summary�shown�in�Table�2,�these�three�cases�provide�snapshots� of�different�ways�in�which�young�people�used�narrative�strategies�to�connect�their�own�lives� to�the�past,�as�well�as�differences� in�the�ways� in�which�they�talked�about�those�strategies.� While�this�study�is�highly�exploratory,�these�cases�point�to�the�apparent�diversity�of�ways�in� which�young�people�think�about�themselves�in�relation�to�the�past,�as�well�as�the�significance� of� epistemological� understanding� in� the� construction� of� individual� historical� consciousness.� Of�course,�many�questions�remain.�For�example,�was�the�ability�of� Jess�and�Melvin�to�talk� reflectively�about�their�diagrams�and�their�relationship�to�the�past�an�indication�of�rigorous� historical�understanding�in�a�disciplinary�sense,�or�of�more�generic�critical�or�abstract�thinking� skills?�Further,�how�do�teens’�broad�developmental�trajectories�–�such�as�those�outlined�by� Erikson�(1968)�–�intersect�with�their�historical�understanding?�It�would�be�interesting�to�ask� children�of�different�ages�to�complete�the�diagram�task.�Younger�students�would�presumably� find�it�challenging�to�create�a�narrative�about�their�own�lives� in toto,�as�indeed�some�of�the� students�in�this�study�may�have�done.�Examining�the�potential�links�between�the�development� of�autobiographical�story-telling�skills�and�how�young�people�relate�their�own�lives�to�the�past� could�be�another�productive�line�of�research. Methodologically,�the�study�opens�up�some�interesting�possibilities,�especially�as�the�diagram� activity� invited� students� to� synthesize� their� thinking� about� their� personal� connections� to� the� past�in�a�relatively�open-ended�manner.�The�task�instructions�and/or�analysis�could�be�altered�to� investigate�related�phenomena.�For�example,�how,�if�at�all,�do�students�deal�with�the�idea�that�as� people�they�are�evolving�and�may�have�a�shifting�relationship�to�or�perspective�on�the�past?�To� what�extent�do�they�portray�themselves�as�active�agents�in�their�own�right�rather�than�individuals� subject�to�forces�beyond�their�control?�How�do�differences�among�their�various�‘meta-historical’� understandings,�such�as�their�working�ideas�about�historical�causality,�relate�to�how�they�talk�about� themselves�in�relation�to�the�past?�How�would�they�position�themselves�relative�to�perceived� national�narratives?�While�it�is�impossible�to�prove�a�direct�relationship�from�this�single�study� –�or�the�reasons�behind�such�a�relationship�–�students�who�displayed�an�understanding�of�the� constructed�nature�of�historical�knowledge�also�gave�the�impression�of�being�more�empowered�in� terms�of�talking�about�their�future�and�navigating�their�own�emerging�identities. With�regard�to�practice,�the�range�of�personal�diagrams�produced�by�students�confirms� that�if�teachers�are�looking�to�build�on�their�students’�existing�ideas�and�understandings,�a�‘one� size�fits�all’�approach�is�likely�to�be�misguided�and�non-inclusive,�and�that�national�narratives� are�only�one�kind�of�narrative�to�which�young�people�feel�connected.�This�paper�does�not� advocate�that�young�people�be�invited�to�relate�everything�they�learn�in�history�to�themselves.� However,�offering�open-ended�and�potentially�creative�opportunities�for�them�to�reflect�on�the� connections�they�perceive�between�themselves�and�the�past�is�likely�to�be�engaging,�particularly� for�older�teens�given�their�broader�developmental�need�to�establish�independent�identities.� Furthermore,�such�opportunities�can�actively�build�historical�understanding.�Given�the�sheer� variety�of�diagrams�that�will�almost�certainly�be�produced�within�a�single�classroom,�students� can�learn�a�great�deal�by�looking�at�and�discussing�the�diagrams�of�their�peers�in�ways�that� develop�their�understanding�that�people�have�different�perspectives�on�the�past,�and�that�these� perspectives�are�shaped�at�least�in�part�by�biographical�or�other�contextual�factors.�Looking� at�others’�diagrams�can�open�up�different�possibilities�for�young�people�in�terms�of�how�they� think�about�their�own�relationship�to�the�past�and�give�them�a�new�perspective�on�their�own� identity�and�outlook.�Indeed,�the�power�of�this�approach�can�be�further�enhanced�if�classrooms� are�digitally�connected�to�classrooms�in�other�countries�engaging�in�the�same�activity,�in�part� because�it�allows�prevailing�and�assumed�national�narratives�to�become�visible.� 190� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh While�some�people�would�certainly�resist�the�notion�of�letting�young�people�use�school� history�as�a�venue�for�exploring�or�interpreting�their�own�lives,�identities�and�values,�this�research� sheds�light�on�some�of�the�varied�ways�in�which�young�people�relate�their�own�lives�to�the�past� or�use�it�for�orienting�purposes.�As�Jess�in�particular�demonstrated,�a�sophisticated�understanding� of�the�nature�of�historical�knowledge�can�go�hand�in�hand�with�a�self-awareness�and�even�pride� in�one’s�relationship�to�the�past.�We�arguably�owe�it�to�our�students�to�help�them�think�about� who�they�are�and�the�lives�they�are�living�or�want�to�live�in�our�rapidly�changing�and�ever�more� complex�world.�We�need�to�support�them�to�interpret�the�past�and�to�develop�robust�historical� understandings;�we�also�need�to�support�them�to�interpret�their�own�narratives. Acknowledgements The�author�wishes�to�thank�the�Germanacos�Foundation�for�supporting�the�research�discussed� in�this�paper,�as�well�as�Howard�Gardner,�Helen�Haste,�and�Meira�Levinson�for�providing�guidance� with�the�research.�My�colleagues�Edward�Clapp�and�Shari�Tishman�gave�helpful�feedback�on�early� drafts. Notes on the contributor Elizabeth�Dawes�Duraisingh�is�a�research�associate�and�principal�investigator�at�Project�Zero,� a�research�centre�at�the�Harvard�Graduate�School�of�Education,�where�she�also�serves�as�a� lecturer�on�education.�She�was�previously�a�high�school�history�teacher�for�eight�years,�working� in�both�England�and�Australia. References Ahonen,�S.�(2005)�‘Historical�consciousness:�A�viable�paradigm�for�history�education?’. Journal of Curriculum Studies,�37�(6),�697–707. Almarza,� D.J.� (2001)� ‘Contexts� shaping� minority� language� students’� perceptions� of� American� history’. Journal of Social Studies Research,�25�(2),�4–22. An,�S.�(2009)�‘Learning�US�history�in�an�age�of�globalization�and�transnational�migration’. Journal of Curriculum Studies,�41�(6),�763–87. Andrews,�M.�(2007)�Shaping History: Narratives of political change.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press. Angvik,�M.�and�Von�Borries,�B.�(eds)�(1997)�Youth and History: A comparative European survey on historical consciousness and political attitudes among adolescents.�Hamburg:�Körber-Stiftung. Ashby,�R.�(2005)�‘Students’�approaches�to�validating�historical�claims’.�In�Ashby,�R.,�Gordon,�P.�and�Lee,�P.� (eds)�Understanding History: Recent research in history education.�London:�Routledge,�21–36. Audigier,�F.�and�Fink,�N.�(2010)�‘Pupils�and�school�history�in�France�and�Switzerland’. Education 3–13,�38� (3),�329–39. Bamberg,�M.�(2011)�‘Who�am�I?�Narration�and�its�contribution�to�self�and�identity’. Theory and Psychology,� 21�(1),�3–24. Barton,�K.C.�(2001)�‘‘‘You’d�be�wanting�to�know�about�the�past”:�Social�contexts�of�children’s�historical� understanding�in�Northern�Ireland�and�the�USA’. Comparative Education,�37�(1),�89–106. Barton,�K.C.�and�Levstik,�L.S.�(2004)�Teaching History for the Common Good.�Mahwah,�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum� Associates. Barton,�K.C.�and�McCully,�A.W.�(2005)�‘History,�identity,�and�the�school�curriculum�in�Northern�Ireland:� An�empirical�study�of�secondary�students’�ideas�and�perspectives’. Journal of Curriculum Studies,�37�(1),� 85–116. London Review of Education� � 191 Baynham,� M.� (2010)� ‘Alexandra� Georgakopoulou:� Small� stories,� interaction� and� identities’. Applied Linguistics,�31�(3),�471–3. Billig,�M.�(1995)�Banal Nationalism.�London:�SAGE�Publications. Billmann-Mahecha,� E.� and� Hausen,� M.� (2005)� ‘Empirical� psychological� approaches� to� the� historical� consciousness�of�children’.�In�Straub,�J.�(ed.)�Narration, Identity, and Historical Consciousness.�New�York:� Berghahn�Books,�163–86. Boix�Mansilla,�V.�(2001)�The Pursuit of Understanding: A study of exemplary high school students’ conceptions of knowledge validation in science and history. EdD�thesis,�Harvard�Graduate�School�of�Education. Bruner,�J.S.�(1990)�Acts of Meaning.�Cambridge,�MA:�Harvard�University�Press. Bruner,�J.S.�(2005)�‘Past�and�present�as�narrative�constructions’.�In�Straub,�J.�(ed.)�Narration, Identity, and Historical Consciousness.�New�York:�Berghahn�Books,�23–43. Damon,�W.�and�Hart,�D.�(1988)�Self-Understanding in Childhood and Adolescence.�New�York:�Cambridge� University�Press. Danto,�A.C.�(1965)�Analytical Philosophy of History.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press. Epstein,�T.�(1998)�‘Deconstructing�differences�in�African-American�and�European-American�adolescents’� perspectives�on�U.S.�history’. Curriculum Inquiry,�28�(4),�397–423. Erikson,�E.H.�(1968)�Identity, Youth, and Crisis.�New�York:�W.W.�Norton. Fivush,�R.,�Bohanek,� J.G.�and�Zaman,�W.�(2011)� ‘Personal�and� intergenerational�narratives� in�relation� to�adolescents’�well-being’.� In�Habermas,�T.�(ed.)� The Development of Autobiographical Reasoning in Adolescence and Beyond (New�Directions�for�Child�and�Adolescent�Development�131),�45–57. Goldberg,�T.,�Porat,�D.�and�Schwarz,�B.B.�(2006)�‘‘Here�started�the�rift�we�see�today’:�Student�and�textbook� narratives�between�official�and�counter�memory’. Narrative Inquiry,�16�(2),�319–47. Goldberg,�T.,�Schwarz,�B.B.�and�Porat,�D.�(2008)�‘Living�and�dormant�collective�memories�as�contexts�of� history�learning’. Learning and Instruction,�18�(3),�223–37. Grever,�M.,�Haydn,�T.�and�Ribbens,�K.�(2008)�‘Identity�and�school�history:�The�perspective�of�young�people� from�the�Netherlands�and�England’. British Journal of Educational Studies,�56�(1),�76–94. Haeberli,�P.�(2005)�‘Relating�to�history:�An�empirical�typology’. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research,�5�(1),�1–10. Hammack,�P.L.�and�Pilecki,�A.� (2012)� ‘Narrative�as�a�root�metaphor� for�political�psychology’. Political Psychology,�33�(1),�75–103. Harter,�S.�(1999)�The Construction of the Self: A developmental perspective.�New�York:�Guilford�Press. Hawkey,�K.�and�Prior,� J.� (2011)� ‘History,�memory�cultures�and�meaning� in� the�classroom’. Journal of Curriculum Studies,�43�(2),�231–47. Hofer,�B.K.�and�Pintrich,�P.R.�(eds)�(2002)�Personal Epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah,�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum�Associates. Kegan,�R.�(1982)�The Evolving Self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,�MA:�Harvard� University�Press. Lee,�P.� (2004a)� ‘Understanding�history’.� In�Seixas,�P.� (ed.)� Theorizing Historical Consciousness.�Toronto:� University�of�Toronto�Press,�129–64. Lee,�P.�(2004b)�‘“Walking�backwards�into�tomorrow”:�Historical�consciousness�and�understanding�history’. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research,�4�(1),�1–46. Lee,�P.J.�(2005)�‘Putting�principles�into�practice:�Understanding�history’.�In�Donovan,�M.S.�and�Bransford,� J.D.�(eds)� How Students Learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom.�Washington,�DC:� National�Academies�Press,�31–77. Lee,�P.�and�Shemilt,�D.�(2004)�‘‘‘I�just�wish�we�could�go�back�in�the�past�and�find�out�what�really�happened”:� Progression�in�understanding�about�historical�accounts’. Teaching History, 117,�25–31. Lenz,�C.�(2011)�‘Genealogy�and�archaeology:�Analyzing�generational�positioning�in�historical�narratives’. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,�42�(3),�319–27. Létourneau,�J.�and�Moisan,�S.�(2004)�‘Young�people’s�assimilation�of�a�collective�historical�memory:�A�case� study�of�Quebeckers�of�French-Canadian�heritage’.�In�Seixas,�P.�(ed.)�Theorizing Historical Consciousness.� Toronto:�University�of�Toronto�Press,�109–28. 192� � Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh Lowenthal,�D.�(1996)�Possessed by the Past: The heritage crusade and the spoils of history.�New�York:�Free� Press. McAdams,�D.P.�(1993)�The Stories We Live By: Personal myths and the making of the self.�New�York:�Guilford� Press. McLean,�K.C.,�Breen,�A.V.�and�Fournier,�M.A.�(2010)� ‘Constructing�the�self� in�early,�middle,�and� late� adolescent�boys:�Narrative�identity,�individuation,�and�well-being’. Journal of Research on Adolescence,� 20�(1),�166–87. Nakkula,�M.J.�and�Toshalis,�E.�(2006)�Understanding Youth: Adolescent development for educators.�Cambridge,� MA:�Harvard�Education�Press. Nora,�P.�(1996)�Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French past.�Trans.�Goldhammer,�A.�New�York:�Columbia� University�Press. Peck,�C.L.�(2010)�‘‘‘It’s�not�like�[I’m]�Chinese�and�Canadian.�I�am�in�between”:�Ethnicity�and�students’� conceptions�of�historical�significance’. Theory and Research in Social Education,�38�(4),�574–617. Polkinghorne,�D.E.�(1988)�Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences.�Albany:�State�University�of�New�York� Press. Polkinghorne,� D.E.� (2005)� ‘Narrative� psychology� and� historical� consciousness:� Relationships� and� perspectives’.�In�Straub,�J.�(ed.)�Narration, Identity, and Historical Consciousness.�New�York:�Berghahn� Books,�3–22. Rantala,�J.�(2011)�‘Children�as�consumers�of�historical�culture�in�Finland’. Journal of Curriculum Studies,�43� (4),�493–506. Reicher,�S.�and�Hopkins,�N.�(2001)�Self and Nation: Categorization, contestation, and mobilization.�London:� SAGE�Publications. Rosenzweig,�R.�and�Thelen,�D.P.�(1998)�The Presence of the Past: Popular uses of history in American life.�New� York:�Columbia�University�Press. Rüsen,�J.�(1993)�Studies in Metahistory.�Pretoria:�Human�Sciences�Research�Council. Seixas,�P.�(1997)�‘Mapping�the�terrain�of�historical�significance’. Social Education,�61�(1),�22–7. Seixas,�P.�(2004)�‘Introduction’.�In�Seixas,�P.�(ed.)�Theorizing Historical Consciousness.�Toronto:�University�of� Toronto�Press,�3–20. Seixas,�P.�(2005)�‘Historical�consciousness:�The�progress�of�knowledge�in�a�postprogressive�age’.�In�Straub,� J.�(ed.)�Narration, Identity, and Historical Consciousness.�New�York:�Berghahn�Books,�141–62. Seixas,�P.�(2009)�‘National�history�and�beyond’. Journal of Curriculum Studies,�41�(6),�719–22.� Thorp,�R.�(2014)�‘Towards�an�epistemological�theory�of�historical�consciousness’.�Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness, Historical Cultures, and History Education,�1�(1),�20–31. Traille,�K.�(2007)�‘‘‘You�should�be�proud�about�your�history:�They�made�me�feel�ashamed”:�Teaching� history�hurts’. Teaching History, 127,�31–7. VanSledright,�B.�(2008)�‘Narratives�of�nation-state,�historical�knowledge,�and�school�history�education’. Review of Research in Education,�32�(1),�109–46. Welzer,�H.�(2008)�‘Collateral�damage�of�history�education:�National�socialism�and�the�Holocaust�in�German� family�memory’. Social Research,�75�(1),�287–314. Wertsch,�J.V.�(2002)�Voices of Collective Remembering.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press. Wertsch,�J.V.�(2004)�‘Specific�narratives�and�schematic�narrative�templates’.�In�Seixas,�P.�(ed.)�Theorizing Historical Consciousness.�Toronto:�University�of�Toronto�Press,�49–62. Wineburg,�S.�(2001)�Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the future of teaching the past.� Philadelphia:�Temple�University�Press. Wineburg,�S.,�Mosborg,�S.,�Porat,�D.�and�Duncan,�A.�(2007)�‘Common�belief�and�the�cultural�curriculum:� An�intergenerational�study�of�historical�consciousness’. American Educational Research Journal,�44�(1),� 40–76. London Review of Education� � 193 � Related articles published in the London Review of Education This�paper�was�published� in�a�special� feature�called� ‘Negotiating�the�nation:�Young�people,� national�narratives�and�history�education’. The�articles�in�the�feature�are�as�follows: Angier,� K.� (2017)� ‘In� search� of� historical� consciousness:� An� investigation� into� young� South� Africans’� knowledge�and�understanding�of�“their”�national�histories’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Dawes�Duraisingh,�E.�(2017)�‘Making�narrative�connections?�Exploring�how�late�teens�relate�their�own� narratives�to�the�historically�significant�past’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Goldberg,�T.�(2017)�‘The�useful�past�in�negotiation:�Adolescents’�use�of�history�in�negotiation�of�inter- group�conflict’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Grever,�M.�and�Van�der�Vlies,�T.�(2017)�‘Why�national�narratives�are�perpetuated:�A�literature�review�on� new�insights�from�history�textbook�research’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Holmberg,�U.�(2017)�‘“I�was�born�in�the�reign�…”:�Historical�orientation�in�Ugandan�students’�national� narratives’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Létourneau,�J.�and�Chapman,�A.�(2017)�‘Editorial�–�Negotiating�the�nation:�Young�people,�national�narratives� and�history�education’. London Review of Education,�15�(2). Lévesque,�S.�(2017)�‘History�as�a�“GPS”:�On�the�uses�of�historical�narrative�for�French�Canadian�students’� life�orientation�and�identity’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Olofsson,�H.,�Samuelsson,�J.,�Stolare,�M.�and�Wendell,�J.�(2017)�‘The�Swedes�and�their�history’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Sheehan,�M.�and�Davison,�M.�(2017)�‘“We�need�to�remember�they�died�for�us”:�How�young�people�in�New� Zealand�make�meaning�of�war�remembrance�and�commemoration�of�the�First�World�War’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Van�Havere,�T.,�Wils,�K.,�Depaepe,�F.,�Verschaffel,�L.�and�Van�Nieuwenhuyse,�K.�(2017)�‘Flemish�students’� historical�reference�knowledge�and�narratives�of�the�Belgian�national�past�at�the�end�of�secondary� education’.�London Review of Education,�15�(2). Wertsch,�J.V.�(2017)�‘Foreword – Negotiating�the�nation:�Young�people,�national�narratives�and�history� education’. London Review of Education,�15�(2).