지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper discusses secondary students’ ideas on revisions in historical representations on the basis of their responses to whether and how the cinematic past can be modified. Forty-four secondary school students viewed a set of historical films, October(1928) and Reds(1981), which were made before the fall of the USSR. In addition to film clips, five photographs and written sources that show a kind of post-Soviet evaluation of the October Revolution were employed in an attempt to identify students’ assumptions about the historical dimensions of contemporary value systems.
The viewing was followed by semi-structured interviews, which aimed to investigate a range of students’ approaches to interpretive difference across time, by asking ‘If these directors had experienced the collapse of the USSR like the narrators in written sources and the photographer, would they have made the films in a different way?’
Students’ responses to the possibility of changing the filmic representation of the Russian Revolution in the post-Soviet era show a range of ideas from 1) nomodification or 2) adding more information through 3) a revision based on practical interest to the attribution of different significance to the event, based either on 4) the passage of time and the course of the event or on 5) the focus and scope of the historical representation in question.
This paper suggests that students’ decisions about the alteration or non-alteration of filmic representations are closely linked to their perceptions of the role of perspective in historical inquiry, aligning along three axes: 1) ‘only one past’ no alteration or better documented past; 2) perspective as partisanship dogmatic revisions of history: 3) perspective as a cognitive tool legitimate revisions of history. Most of all, some students who view historical accounts as an answer to a particular question seemed to make a break-through, attributing a positive role to perspectival views of the past. It is this group of students who began to show a sign of coming to terms with a relationship between the historicity of historical knowledge and its claim to objectivity. Therefore, it is important to provide students an opportunity to encounter the ‘history of history’, leading them to develop a critically questioning relationship between past practice and the context of reconstruction.
The viewing was followed by semi-structured interviews, which aimed to investigate a range of students’ approaches to interpretive difference across time, by asking ‘If these directors had experienced the collapse of the USSR like the narrators in written sources and the photographer, would they have made the films in a different way?’
Students’ responses to the possibility of changing the filmic representation of the Russian Revolution in the post-Soviet era show a range of ideas from 1) nomodification or 2) adding more information through 3) a revision based on practical interest to the attribution of different significance to the event, based either on 4) the passage of time and the course of the event or on 5) the focus and scope of the historical representation in question.
This paper suggests that students’ decisions about the alteration or non-alteration of filmic representations are closely linked to their perceptions of the role of perspective in historical inquiry, aligning along three axes: 1) ‘only one past’ no alteration or better documented past; 2) perspective as partisanship dogmatic revisions of history: 3) perspective as a cognitive tool legitimate revisions of history. Most of all, some students who view historical accounts as an answer to a particular question seemed to make a break-through, attributing a positive role to perspectival views of the past. It is this group of students who began to show a sign of coming to terms with a relationship between the historicity of historical knowledge and its claim to objectivity. Therefore, it is important to provide students an opportunity to encounter the ‘history of history’, leading them to develop a critically questioning relationship between past practice and the context of reconstruction.
목차
1. 들어가는 글
2. 연구의 설계와 절차
3. 역사 재현의 수정에 대한 학생들의 견해
4. 역사 재현의 수정에 대한 이해의 인식론적 경향
5. 나가는 글
〈부록〉
참고문헌 (4)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
학생들의 역사 개념에 대한 이해 양상과 역사의식
역사교육
2009 .09
-
영화의 역사서술과 역사교육의 가능성
역사교육
2005 .06
-
학생의 다양성과 역사교육 : 학생의 역사 정체성 및 역사의식, ‘다원적 역사’에 대한 해외 연구 검토
역사교육
2018 .12
-
역사수업에 대한 학생들의 흥미연구
역사교육
2013 .09
-
역사적 사실의 특징과 역사교육의 특수성
역사교육
2010 .03
-
고등학생의 한국 현대사 인식과 역사수업 방안 : 1960,70년대 한국 현대사 수업 사례 -
역사와 세계
2009 .06
-
역사적 사고력 함양을 위한 유추의 활용 가능성 탐색
역사교육
2002 .09
-
포스트 소비에트 시대의 러시아영화에 나타난 역사적 재현의 문제들 : 영화 “시베리아의 이발사”와 “제독”을 중심으로
역사와경계
2009 .06
-
포스트모던 역사인식과 역사학습
역사교육
2000 .06
-
세계사 교과서 현대사 단원의 학생 활동 분석
역사교육
2020 .06
-
역사교육 개념어의 용례 검토 : 역사적 사고, 역사해석, 역사인식, 역사의식
역사교육
2010 .03
-
역사적 사고력의 하위범주와 역사학습목표의 설정방안
역사교육
2000 .04
-
Insight into Korean History and Education
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2010 .06
-
사료내용의 전달방식에 따른 고등학생의 역사이해
역사교육
2013 .03
-
비판적 사고를 위한 역사인식과 학습방법
역사와 담론
2016 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-374-002223949