Explaining the events of the past is considered an important component of historical reasoning and it receives growing research attention in teaching history (Van Drie, 2005).

Several studies have revealed students’ inclination to explain the reasons of historical events as the personal intentions of characters, or from a personal stance (Lee, Dickinson & Ashby, 1997; Hallden, 1993, 1997). Carretero, Lopez-Manjon & Jacott (1997) found that experts (historians) are able to differentiate between causal explanations of world history events. However, the research paradigm on the explanations of historical events has incorporated neither the characteristics of the acquisition of emotionally charged events from national histories, nor the results of the narrative approach to social representation. Representatives of the latter approach (i.e. Reicher & Hopkins, 2001) claim that the shared historical knowledge of a given culture is originated from the transmission of emotional, collective narratives and thus consider it possible that the importance of some historical events are judged in different ways by people of different ages or socio-economic backgrounds, resulting in different explanations for the reasons of these events. This starting-point raises important questions with respect to historical reasoning and knowledge-acquisition.

Our study was developed as an initial, inquiry stage for a large scale survey, which proposes to answer the following questions: (1) Are there differences between the causal explanations of emotional, national history events and the causal explanations of world history? (2) What is the contribution of instruction to the acquisition of crucial historical events at different ages? (3) How can possible changes in the importance of events be accounted for? (4) What historical events may require the development of event-specific historical reasoning and conceptual understanding?

The present paper integrates the narrative approach of social representation with several research trends on instruction targeting historical reasoning. Its aim is to explore some characteristics of students’ historical reasoning in different age groups. The paper discusses (1) which events of Hungarian history are judged the most positive and negative by students; (2) students’ justifications for their choices; (3) the differences in the responses and explanations which can be contributed to age, and (4) the relationship between the knowledge of collective narratives and students’ responses (i.e. missing, inappropriate or appropriate responses).

Sample: 414 primary school students (12-13-year-olds) and 428 secondary school students (16-17-year-olds) were included in the sample. The sample was not selected to be representative, but the large number of subjects presented an opportunity to indicate particular tendencies. The data collection took place in December 2005.

Instruments: The components of the questionnaire were based on the structure of an instrument developed for a study in social-psychology by Laszlo, Ehmann and Imre (2002). As the study presented here formed a part of a complex and comprehensive empirical research project, subjects were administered several instruments.

Procedures: The questionnaire was comprised of open response items. Event categories and argument categories were established in a process of content analysis. The relationships between category variables were defined using contingency tables. The samples were compared in a homogeneity analysis. The relations between variables were explored with crosstable analyses.

Quantitative analysis: The results show significant differences (p<0.05) between the two age groups regarding both the events judged as positive and those as negative. Similarly, significant differences were found in the argument categories. It is considered a surprising outcome that almost half of the 12-13-year-olds in the sample found it difficult to mention events they judged most positive and most negative in the history of Hungary. This problem also surfaced in the responses of one quarter of the 16-17-year-old participiants.

Qualitative analysis: Results form the analysis of the argument categories identified in the supporting statements given for the selection of specific events revealed qualitative differences between the historical reasoning of primary and secondary school students. The responses of the older age group were more differentiated and more sophisticated and their  arguments were more largely based. In addition, several event-specific argument categories could be defined. In the younger sub-sample emotionally charged and concrete arguments were dominant, emphasizing the substantial and picturesque aspects of events, whereas among the older students’, arguments focused mostly on the abstract features, i.e. national unity or fight for freedom. The argument categories identified in the responses of the younger sub-sample proved to be insufficient to categorise data from those of older students, therefore it was necessary to introduce additional ones.

Analysis of relationships between variables: Achievement on the collective narratives test is not independent from the three answer patterns (missing, inappropriate, appropriate) on the evaluation of historical events questionnaire. Those with higher test results are more likely to have given appropriate responses on the questionnaire.

Although the questionnaire did not specify whether personal or scientific responses were expected (allowing for the influence of several factors in students’ choices), the results of crosstable analyses clearly indicate a close connection between responses to simple questions asking for selecting and naming historical events and the knowledge of historical narratives. Further research and sophisticated methods are necessary to answer what kind of curricular and extracurricular factors influence the rearrangement of the importance of events and the investigation of particular background factors of knowledge-acquisition must be stressed in this process.

Carretero, M., Lopez-Manjon, A. & Jacott, L. (1997): Explaining historical events. International Journal of Educational Research, 27. 3. 245-254.

Hallden, O. (1993): Learners’ conceptions of the subject matter being taught: A case from learning history. International Journal of Educational Research, 23. 1. 317-325.

Hallden, O. (1997): Conceptual change and the learning of history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27. 3. 201-210.

Laszlo Janos, Ehmann Bea & Imre Orsolya (2002): Tortenelem tortenetek: a tortenelem szocialis reprezentacioja es a nemzeti identitas. Pszichologia,  22. 8. 147-162.

Lee, P. J., Dickinson, A. & Ashby, R. (1997): „Just another emperor”: Understanding action in the past. International Journal of Educational Research, 27. 3. 233-244.

Reicher, S. & Hopkins, N. (2001): Self and nation. Sage Publications, London.

Van Drie, J. (2005): Learning about past with new technologies. Dutch Interuniversity Center for Educational Research, Utrecht.