ABSTRACT

Secondary education students do not usually perceive history as a subject connected with their lives, backgrounds and interests. At the same time, prospective and in-service teachers do not always have a coherent vision of this discipline, which can reflect on their students’ perceptions. This study makes use of a theoretical framework developed by Van Straaten, Wilschut and Oostdam to examine the validity and reliability of the model, and to analyse secondary and tertiary education students’ conceptions about the relevance of history using three categories: developing a personal identity, becoming a citizen and understanding the human condition. This quantitative study makes use of the RHMS questionnaire with a sample of 403 participants divided into three groups: secondary education students, pre-service teachers and undergraduate history students. After conducting a confirmatory factory analysis (CFA), a one-way ANOVA indicated statistically significant differences between the groups. While pre-service teachers and history undergraduate students obtained higher scores in all three subscales than secondary education students, fundamental differences were identified between the first two groups. A discussion is presented about the importance of initial teacher training and the necessity to reinforce notions related to the relevance of history in the formative development of prospective teachers.

摘要

中等教育学生通常不会将历史视为与他们的生活、背景和兴趣相关的学科。同时，准教师和在职教师并不总是对这门学科有一个连贯的愿景，这可以反映学生的看法。本研究利用 Van Straaten、Wilschut 和 Oostdam 开发的理论框架来检验模型的有效性和可靠性，并使用三个类别分析中等和高等教育学生对历史相关性的概念：发展个人身份、成为公民并了解人类状况。这项定量研究利用 RHMS 问卷调查，将 403 名参与者的样本分为三组：中等教育学生、职前教师和本科历史学生。在进行验证性工厂分析 (CFA) 后，单向方差分析表明各组之间存在统计学显着差异。虽然职前教师和历史本科学生在所有三个分量表中的得分都高于中等教育学生，但前两组之间存在根本差异。讨论了初始教师培训的重要性以及加强与历史在未来教师的形成性发展中的相关性相关的概念的必要性。虽然职前教师和历史本科学生在所有三个分量表中的得分都高于中等教育学生，但前两组之间存在根本差异。讨论了初始教师培训的重要性以及加强与历史在未来教师的形成性发展中的相关性相关的概念的必要性。虽然职前教师和历史本科学生在所有三个分量表中的得分都高于中等教育学生，但前两组之间存在根本差异。讨论了初始教师培训的重要性以及加强与历史在未来教师的形成性发展中的相关性相关的概念的必要性。