World History, Global History, Big History •

Susanne Popp
{"title":"World History, Global History, Big History •","authors":"Susanne Popp","doi":"10.1556/063.2023.00160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The international situation of history didactics as an academic discipline is characterized by the fact that many basic disciplinary concepts often differ considerably: The same or similar terms denote different concepts or vice versa comparable concepts not only have various names but also hold different positions in the respective disciplinary framework. The best example of this is history didactics, which is understood as the practical methodology of history teaching in the Anglophone community and an academic subdiscipline of historical science in Germany. This is a considerable obstacle to international research. Since the school subject of World History is taught in many countries, an international comparison of curricula and textbooks deserves great scholarly interest. Therefore, this article tries to deal with the terminological clarification of the concepts of World History, Global History and Big History for the discipline of history didactics. The four most important reasons behind the need for world history teaching are connected to transnational, anti-Eurocentric, decolonisation- and anthropogenic-focused history teaching. The paper discusses different approaches and relationships between world history and national historical viewpoints with the method of curricula comparison. The study programs assigned to national history are usually not explicitly referred to as ‘national history’, but simply as ‘History’. Tacitly equating the respective national history with ‘history’ as such indirectly makes ‘world history’ appear as the history of the ‘others’ rather than as a comprehensive or integrative concept.","PeriodicalId":235465,"journal":{"name":"Hungarian Educational Research Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hungarian Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2023.00160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The international situation of history didactics as an academic discipline is characterized by the fact that many basic disciplinary concepts often differ considerably: The same or similar terms denote different concepts or vice versa comparable concepts not only have various names but also hold different positions in the respective disciplinary framework. The best example of this is history didactics, which is understood as the practical methodology of history teaching in the Anglophone community and an academic subdiscipline of historical science in Germany. This is a considerable obstacle to international research. Since the school subject of World History is taught in many countries, an international comparison of curricula and textbooks deserves great scholarly interest. Therefore, this article tries to deal with the terminological clarification of the concepts of World History, Global History and Big History for the discipline of history didactics. The four most important reasons behind the need for world history teaching are connected to transnational, anti-Eurocentric, decolonisation- and anthropogenic-focused history teaching. The paper discusses different approaches and relationships between world history and national historical viewpoints with the method of curricula comparison. The study programs assigned to national history are usually not explicitly referred to as ‘national history’, but simply as ‘History’. Tacitly equating the respective national history with ‘history’ as such indirectly makes ‘world history’ appear as the history of the ‘others’ rather than as a comprehensive or integrative concept.
世界历史,全球历史,大历史
历史教学作为一门学科的国际形势的特点是,许多基本的学科概念往往差别很大:相同或相似的术语表示不同的概念,反之亦然,可比较的概念不仅有不同的名称,而且在各自的学科框架中占有不同的地位。最好的例子是历史教学法,它被理解为英语国家历史教学的实践方法和德国历史科学的学术分支学科。这是国际研究的一大障碍。由于世界历史这门学科在许多国家都有教授,因此对课程和教科书进行国际比较值得引起极大的学术兴趣。因此,本文试图对历史教学学科中“世界史”、“全球史”和“大历史”概念的术语澄清进行探讨。需要世界历史教学背后的四个最重要原因与跨国、反欧洲中心、非殖民化和以人为中心的历史教学有关。本文运用课程比较的方法,探讨了世界史与国家历史观的不同路径和关系。指定给国史的研究项目通常不明确地称为“国史”,而只是简单地称为“历史”。将各自的民族历史与“历史”等同起来,间接地使“世界史”看起来像是“他者”的历史,而不是一个全面或综合的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信