Page 45 - Balancing between the present and the past

Measuring historical contextualization
3, 30 3, 15 3, 00 2, 85 2, 70 2, 55 2, 40 2, 25 2, 10 1, 95 1, 80 1, 65 1, 50
Historical Perspective Taking
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
pop
2, 65
2, 48
2, 28
2, 21
2, 04
1, 93
1, 86
1, 66
roa
2, 94
2, 48
2, 28
2, 83
2, 90
2, 99
2, 96
3, 01
co nt
2, 40
2, 48
2, 71
2, 77
2, 92
3, 04
3, 00
3, 09
2
Figure 2. Historical perspective taking, plotted by age, Nazi Party instrument (N = 1,270)
Note. POP = present-oriented perspective, ROA = role of the historical agent, and CONT = historical
contextualization.
When compared with students in other educational levels, the pre-university students scored the highest on HPT. A one-way analysis of variance-based post hoc multiple comparison with assumed Scheffé equal variance was used to test for any significant differences across the different educational levels. The difference between senior general secondary education (total score of 2.44, SD = 0.51) and pre-university education (total score of 3.15, SD = 0.50) was significant at the .05 level. The comparison of elementary education with both senior general secondary education (total score of 2.90, SD = 0.54) and pre-university education showed significant differences at the .01 level.
2.6 Discussion and conclusions
Our study focused on the reliability and validity of the instrument of Hartmann and Hasselhorn (2008) when tested among a large and heterogeneous student population in a different country and when applied to a different historical topic. Furthermore, we explored possible differences between students on HPT performance. In this section, we discuss our findings, outline limitations of our study, and present suggestions for further research.
43
Average item score