![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
In the last decade, the issue of teaching the Palestinian perspective on the Jewish–Arab conflict in Israeli schools gave rise to considerable debate and competing curricula. A quasi-experimental study compared the effects of these competing approaches on learners’ attitudes to out-group narratives and perceived in-group responsibility (IR). A total of 176 Israeli Jewish and Arab participants were randomly allocated into teaching approaches differing in method of engagement with historical narratives (single authoritative narrative, empathetic dual narrative, and critical analysis of conflicting sources). Results revealed effects for teaching approach and majority–minority status. Engagement with a single authoritative narrative decreased interest in out-group perspectives while empathetic engagement with out-group and in-group perspectives increased it, though the effect was more pronounced for members of the Arab minority than for those of the Jewish majority. Among Jewish participants, an empathetic teaching approach led to a decrease in perceived IR while the critical approach led to the opposite outcome. The trends were inverted for Arab participants. Engagement with historical perspectives also moderated the impact of interest in out-group perspectives on acceptance of IR. Educational implications point to the harmful effects of enforcing a single narrative in conflicted societies and to the beneficial outcomes of multiple perspective teaching.
Notes
1. Despite the coincidence of rise in IO and perceived responsibility among Arab participants in the empathetic condition, bivariate correlation analysis showed the two changes were unrelated.