Objetivos de la propuesta

Narrative approaches, recommended in early guidance for primary history (Keating and Sheldon: 2011), have also been an implicit aspect of the primary NC from the beginning. Story and narrative were recommended by HMI as ‘central’ to history teaching (DES: 1988: 19), and narrative was implied in many of the POS in the first iteration of the NC, not least linked to the previously discussed elements of interpretation and chronology alongside myths and legends (DES: 1991:13). Yet it has also remained a controversial aspect of both the philosophy and the pedagogy of history. Despite Green and Troup’s (1999: 204) claim that narrative forms have often been perceived as a defining aspect of history writing, many professionals have demonstrated a rather uneasy relationship with narrative forms, possibly fearful of postmodernist accusations that history is little more than unverifiable stories about the past (White: 1976). Yet the links between narrative forms and historical accounts are strong. As Stone (1987: 74) stated, ‘historians have always told stories’, often using elegant, literary forms that can contain high levels of analysis (Hexter: 1968: 40-1). Indeed, Hexter and Stone, along with Taylor (1983: 160) and Starkey (2005), are noteworthy examples of the few historians to make a strong case for the return of narrative approaches to history after unsuccessful flirtations with social science methodology (Stone: 1987: 74-96; Phillips: 1984). However it was Bruner (1996) who presented the strongest case for the importance of narrative as part of his constructivist model of learning. Narrative forms, he argued, offered an alternative to the logico- mathematical form of reasoning by offering a ‘test of truth’ based on verisimilitude, internal cohesion and plausibility (Bruner: 1996: 90-2). Considering the case of history, Bruner further argued that history offered a ‘narrative construal of reality’ that imposed coherence on the past through a ‘culturally shared’ from of knowledge (Bruner: 1996: 143-147).

As Harnett (2000: 29-30) argued, the ‘story tradition’ was firmly established in the majority of primary schools by the 1970s (DES: 1978: 73). Prior to the NC there were

44 | P a g e many adherents of this approach including Fines (1975), Rogers (1977) and Little (1983). Echoing the changing attitude towards narrative held by some professional historians, there has been a similar re-evaluation and rehabilitation of narrative as a model of historical understanding within education, including a claim that narrative is arguably one of the main organising concepts of history (Gjedde: 2010; Levstik and Barton: 2011; Lang: 2003; Counsell: 2012). A further claim is that historical accounts can be both chronological and narrative in form, which also allow children to see the ‘big picture’ of history that allows both the development of an overview combined with depth and understanding (Hake and Haydn: 1995; Riley: 1997; Barnes: 2002). Bage has also been a powerful advocate, and he argued that children have a ‘natural narrative competence’ (Bage: 1999: 23), and that part of a teacher’s approach should be based on these ancient and fundaments models of learning; particularly potent is the drive to find out ‘what happened next’ due to the forward looking, chronological nature of narrative (Fines: 1975; Hake and Haydn: 1995). Furthermore, by using story as a pedagogic approach, Farmer and Cooper (1998) argued that children will develop an increased sense of the teacher’s authority, although this requires skill and preparation on behalf of teachers. Cooper (2007: 62) has argued a further point that narrative is ‘crucial’ for stimulating children’s imagination, creating a sense of history and evocation to help them fill in the gaps of the past, and engaging their interest in the subject.

The use of factual stories has long been advocated by the early years specialists, for example Blyth (1989) and Low-Beer and Blyth (1990), but more recently there has been a greater appreciation of story with older children, particularly due to the usefulness of detailed narrative as a way of introducing children to complex ideas (Husbands: 1996: 49-50; Banham: 2000), while still engaging with the evidence in a critical way. The links with drama are both obvious and extensive, and there have been many convincing accounts of the successful use of narrative through drama including Verrier (1976), Nichol (1976), Hoodless (2008) and Turner-Bissett (2005: 102-5), the

45 | P a g e latter arguing that it was a method ‘par excellence’ for attempting to understand history from the ‘inside’, firmly based on the available evidence thus retaining accuracy and criticality. There have been many drama techniques utilized in history lessons including ‘freeze-frame’, ‘teacher-in-role’ and ‘conscience alley’ alongside the more typical full re- enactments (Vass: 2005; Turner-Bissett: 2005),

Fines (1980: 3-5) used the technique of a fictional ‘half story’ to stimulate discussion and dramatic solutions, and this introduces the role of fiction into the debate. Understandably distrusted in some quarters, Vass (1992) was an early proponent of adapting a more relaxed approach to the use of story based on the argument that fiction can still provide children with genuine historical insight and understanding. This theme has been adapted by Hicks and Martin (1997) for context setting; while Little (1983; 2007), Cox and Hughes (1998) and Aiken (1985) have stressed the role of fiction in creating the imagery and mental pictures that could help to create an ‘imaginative grasp of the past’ (Aiken: 1985: 81).

Nevertheless, history’s uneasy relationship with narrative approaches is not without foundation. Lang (2003) advised that since narrative is a construction, and not a given, children need careful guidance concerning the rules of evidence and plausibility; similarly Levstik’s (1995) research conclusively demonstrated that children often accepted narrative accounts uncritically, thus requiring teacher interventions and modelling, and careful selection of a range of texts, while Bage (1999: 88-96), in the interests of balance, produced a concatenation of arguments used against narrative approaches including the dangers of singularity, oversimplification, propaganda and the blurring of fact and fiction. These are all important reminders that there are several clearly identifiable and genuine weaknesses associated with stories that must be considered if narrative is to be used as a teaching and organising approach to history.

46 | P a g e