Journal of Peace Education

ISSN: 1740-0201 (Print) 1740-021X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjpe20

Historical memory education for peace and

justice: definition of a field

Javier Corredor, Maria Emma Wills-Obregon & Mikel Asensio-Brouard

To cite this article: Javier Corredor, Maria Emma Wills-Obregon & Mikel Asensio-Brouard (2018)
Historical memory education for peace and justice: definition of a field, Journal of Peace Education,
15:2, 169-190, DOI: 10.1080/17400201.2018.1463208

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2018.1463208

Published online: 18 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 56

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjpe20
Journal of Peace education
2018, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 169–190
https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2018.1463208

Historical memory education for peace and justice:

definition of a field
Javier Corredora  , Maria Emma Wills-Obregonb,c and Mikel Asensio-Brouardd
a
Department of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia; bDepartment of
Political Science, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia; cÁrea de Pedagogía, Centro Nacional de
Memoria Histórica, Bogota, Colombia; dDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article proposes a new of field of research in social Received 21 December 2017
sciences education: Historical Memory Education (HME). Accepted 7 April 2018
Despite the large amount of educational experiences KEYWORDS
following the end of violent conflicts and totalitarian regimes History education; peace
during the twentieth century, historical memory has not been education; healing and
recognized as a field in educational research. From a review reparation; collective
of research and experiences worldwide, the authors identify memory
a new field in education research that cannot be reduced to
peace education, bullying prevention, or history education,
but that takes elements from all these fields, as well as from
local pedagogical experiences, to face the challenge of
healing the wounds of longstanding violent conflicts. This
article organizes prior research in a comprehensive framework
that describes the levels, pedagogical principles, and spaces
of HME.

Historical memory is at the core of processes of healing and reparation following

long, violent conflicts or sustained periods of authoritarian rule, such as civil wars
or dictatorships (Campisi 2014). Its importance rests on that collective memory of
past events acts as a means for victims’ reparation. First, it prevents perpetrators
to escape public scrutiny of their crimes; therefore, it is a requirement for justice.
Second, it allows victims to act on the public narrative to make it consistent with
their personal experiences and memories. Without a public acknowledging of the
truth, victims feel a discrepancy between their own account of events and the
public one, hindering closure. Third, memory allows healing the socio-political
context, which is basic for full reparation, particularly when transforming the public
discourse is basic for restoring victims’ dignity and mental health. Fourth, historical
memory opposes stories that blame victims of their suffering (Clamp and Doak
2012; David and Choi 2005). Historical memory is considered also a guarantee of

CONTACT  Javier Corredor  jacorredora@unal.edu.co

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
170   J. CORREDOR ET AL.

non-repetition because it creates a public understanding of the paths that led to

evil and promotes social imaginaries that prevent it (Bickford and Sodaro 2010).
As a matter of fact, multilateral organizations, the international law and numerous
legal decisions in several countries highlight the role of historical memory in vic-
tims’ reparation during transitional justice processes (Garcia-Godos and LID 2010;
Osiel 1999). In this task, education focused on historical memory is fundamental
(Oglesby 2007; Weinstein, Freedman, and Hughson 2007).
Despite these facts, there is not a clear framework regarding historical memory
education (HME). The term is seldom found in educational research databases, and
it seems to be a pending reflection on the limits and implications of the concept.
This is surprising giving that there is plenty of research on how collective memory
is constituted (Roediger and Wertsch 2008), and also on how violent conflicts affect
individuals (Duque and Lasso 2016; Gamba and Navia 2017; Hewitt-Ramirez et al.
2016), This is also surprising giving that there is a considerable amount of peda-
gogical interventions in historical memory, including titanic experiences, such as
‘Facing history and ourselves’ (https://www.facinghistory.org), ‘Dealing with the
past’ (http://euroclio.eu/projects/dealing-with-the-past-in-history-education), and
the ‘Caja de herramientas: Un viaje por la memoria historica. Aprender la paz y
desaprender la guerra’ by the National Center for Historical Memory in Colombia
(http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/informes/informes-2015-1/
un-viaje-por-la-memoria-historica).
However, this myriad of experiences has not been accompanied by a pedagog-
ical framework for the field. Most published literature focuses on the challenges of
curriculum design and implementation in post-conflict societies and on the debate
on textbooks’ content (Cole 2007; Hues 2011; Oglesby 2007; Paulson 2015; Pingel
2008; Weinstein, Freedman, and Hughson 2007; Weldon 2009). Therefore, a frame-
work for understanding this educational area is necessary, in part because histor-
ical memory has characteristics that are different from those of history or civics
education, and therefore its pedagogical processes need to be studied separately.
For example, given that historical memory is different from history, the relation-
ship between personal memories and historical truth needs to be rethought. In
collective memory, accounts of recent events depend strongly on public narratives
(Tulviste 1994), that interact with traditional learning materials, such as textbooks
(Carretero, Jacott, and Lopez-Manjon 2002), and other sources of information, such
as film and digital media (Wineburg et al. 2007). Additionally, from the normative
point of view, when it comes to historical memory, truth is not a mere academic
exercise that can neglect personal or community memories, but a victims’ right
that mandates the public acknowledgment of their suffering, despite the historical
accuracy of their accounts. For this reason, historical memory cannot place histor-
ical truth before personal and collective memories, but paradoxically it depends
on historical truth to give legitimacy to the victim’s claims. From these tensions
new questions arise: How can personal feelings and emotions be connected with
a complex understanding of history? At which levels can historical memory be
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION   

understood and taught? What are the dimensions that connect personal experi-
ence and historical truth? This article proposes a framework for HME based on the
pedagogical experience of the National Center for Historical Memory in Colombia
(Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica 2016) and contrasts this framework with
other educational perspectives that are part of peace education but do not relate
directly to historical memory.

What is and what is not HME?

HME refers here to the field within pedagogical and educational studies that
reviews instructional experiences and builds educational theory regarding the
healing of wounds of recent violent conflicts and authoritarian regimes, in con-
texts in which the victims’ right to truth and non-repetition needs to be warranted
through education. HME differs from peace education in that peace education is
a broader field that contains HME, as well as other educational initiatives that aim
at building a better world by preventing a variety of human ills, including war, vio-
lent conflict, inequality, prejudice, intolerance, violence and injustice (Bar-Tal 2002;
Danesh 2006). Other perspectives that belong to peace education but that do not
constitute HME are those focusing on aggression and bullying (Chaux, Arboleda,
and Rincon 2012; Frey et al. 2009), citizenship competencies (Chaux 2009), civic
education (Torney-Purta, Schwille, and Amadeo 1999), and democratic learning
environments (Brookfield and Preskill 2012; Davies 2005).

Differences with other perspectives

HME differs from education focused on decreasing aggression and bullying in that
HME highlights the socio-structural conditions that allow conflicts and authori-
tarian regimes to arise, as well as, the interpretative themes that social scientists
use to make sense of events of the past (Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica
2016). Although HME does work to develop the interpersonal characteristics that
foster non-aggressive behaviors, HME proposes that this change is not enough to
prevent long-lasting violations of human rights in the context of complex social
conflicts. As a matter of fact, history shows that, under certain political configu-
rations, ordinary citizens who at the interpersonal level do not show patterns of
pervasive aggression, do support and participate in evil or at least in creating the
conditions that lead to it (Bar-on 2005; Goldhagen 1996). Putting an excessive
weight on the individual ignores important of social processes and historical tra-
jectories that lead to conflict and human right violations.
HME is different from initiatives within civic education that focus on the under-
standing of democratic institutions (Galston 2001) in that these perspectives focus
more on the present of democracy than in the historical processes that produce
fractures in democracy, and led to human rights violations. From the perspective of
HME, history is essential to understand how societies lock themselves in situations
172 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

of evil, and to problematizing the idea that war is inevitable (McCorkle 2017).
For this reason, HME includes tools derived from the study of expert thought in
history (Shreiner 2014; Stoel, van Drie, and van Boxtel 2015; Wineburg 1998), as
well as, from research on both textbooks narratives and classroom practices in
history education (Alridge 2006; Breakstone 2014; Paxton 1999; Stearns, Seixas,
and Wineburg 2000; Wineburg and Reisman 2015). This characteristic also differ-
entiates HME from initiatives that aim at building more tolerant and democratic
classroom environments that allow individuals to develop open and democratic
world-views. HME also supports the transformation of classroom practices and
its effects at the individual level, but it requires additionally the incorporation of
activities aimed at increasing the understanding of history. Preventing evil (e.g.
human right violations and war crimes) depends not only on individual elements
but also on a complex understanding of social-structural factors and historical
dynamics. Without this understanding, good intentions can turn into dangerous
political decisions. For example, the idea of voting against the establishment to
‘bring a change’ can lead people to support authoritarian or populist leaders. The
difference between HME and programs focused on citizenship competencies is
similar to the cases already presented. Citizenship competencies programs aim at
developing personal skills to decrease aggression, improve classroom interactions
to support diversity, and scaffold the understanding of democratic institutions
(Chaux 2009). However, they do not have a strong historical angle. From the point
of view of HME, an understanding of history is basic for citizenship. A complex
understanding of history potentiates the elements included in citizenship com-
petencies programs.
However, HME is different from history education in its goals and constraints.
Whereas they both share the goal of developing a complex understanding of his-
tory from a disciplinary point of view, HME focuses specifically on recent history
and connects it with process of victim’s reparation in transitional justice contexts.
This fact creates a special set of constraints for HME regarding the role of personal
and collective narratives. HME requires presenting expert knowledge side-by-side
with the accounts of personal and collective memory. The primacy of recent his-
tory is also a difference. Whereas in history education, any time period can be
relevant, HME focuses on recent events, as well as on classic themes of democratic
transitions and peace processes, such as victims’ reparation and restorative justice.

Levels of historical memory

There are, at least, three levels of memory in HME (Centro Nacional de Memoria
Historica 2016; Zerubavel 2012). Personal memory refers to the memories of the
individual, his or her personal story, the milestones and events that constitute
the more important facts of anyone’s life. Collective memory refers to the shared
recollections of mnemonic communities. Events, facts, and stories that commu-
nities assume as core to their narrative as a group. Historical memory refers to
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 173

the historical narrative as it is constructed by expert historians and social science

researchers. When these three levels are connected during instruction, students
can understand how accounts at multiple levels can arise in the context of histor-
ical memory and how they represent valid lenses to analyze conflict.
Several connections can be made when working on these three levels of mem-
ory. The historical level gives context to personal experiences; and personal experi-
ences give emotional meaning to abstract historical concepts. Collective memory
acts then as bridge between these two levels, showing that personal experience is
not an isolated phenomenon but, on the contrary, a shared one, in which common
macro social processes shape the experience of the community. In fact, collective
memory seems to be organized around narrative templates that are shared by the
members of a social group and help to organize the remembering and processing
of historical events (Wertsch 2008). At a different level, personal memories include
events that are not central to collective memory, but collective memory, in general,
covers several milestones in a person’s life. Personal memories are full of emotions
and individual details that are highly relevant to the person but not to the larger
account of events. In many cases, details that are incorrect in historical terms but
that have an emotional relevance might help teachers to work on empathy and
to start conversations on social problem-solving, identity and agency. The dif-
ferences between personal accounts and historical truth might be used also to
facilitate the understanding of the different levels of memory. When the historical
level is aligned with the personal and collective levels, students realize that there
is a connection between historical truth and personal experience in which both
emotion and methodological rigor can co-exist.

HME: basic concepts

HME uses concepts coming from psychology, education and the learning sciences.
These concepts, when adequately coordinated, can serve to build successful edu-
cational interventions in historical memory. The concepts of HME at the personal
level are inspired by interventions aimed at developing empathy, emotional reg-
ulation and socio-cognitive skills to decrease aggression and bullying in school
environments (Merrell et al. 2008; ). The connection of these concepts with HME
is that in contexts of sustained conflicts and human-right violations, people learn
that violence is the solution to everyday conflicts (Posada and Wainryb 2008). In
the same line, prolonged exposure to violence produces emotional desensitization
(Tarabah et al. 2015). Working on emotional regulation and interpersonal prob-
lem-solving skills is a step to decrease violence in a post-conflict society.
However, this change is not enough without a deeper personal transformation
in which students start a have a different conception of the world and of them-
selves. Interventions should aim also at changing students’ identities to make
them more tolerant and open to the diversity that exists in today’s world (Banks
2008). For this reason, HME includes interventions that focus on the development
174 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

of diversity and tolerance as a core personal element. If students feel identified

with tolerance, diversity and non-violence, they will help to build a more peaceful
society. In post-conflict societies, this process is important because new identities
need to be transformed to heal divided nations (Weldon 2009), and because there
is a close relationship between identity and historical narrative (Lopez, Carretero,
and Rodriguez-Moneo 2014). It is important to note that, although we are aware of
the problems of strong national identities and official history (Carretero and Kriger
2011), we consider that, in contexts of reconciliation, it is positive and necessary to
foster new personal identities associated to narratives that support human-rights,
peace and victims’ reparation.
Interventions in HME aim at improving students’ agency (Beaumont 2010),
because agency connects individual reflection and action. Agency is defined here
as the sense that one is able to control the outcomes of one’s actions and deci-
sions, and to influence intentionally one’s circumstances of life (Schwartz, Cote, and
Arnett 2005). This construct, closely related to identity, allows students to be able
to impact the society in which they live. A basic sense of agency is necessary for
political participation (Amnå 2012). Agency, however, is blind without a complex
political and historical understanding. Even if students want to participate, they
need to be able to foresee the results of their actions and decisions. Understanding
the complexity of history is, therefore, essential to prevent evil.
For this reason, HME does not nourish exclusively from concepts related to
individual change. It takes also elements from literature on historical reasoning
and education, because, as mentioned before, change needs to happen not only
in the individual, but also in the larger social fabric. This change is made possible
by the understanding of social institutions and history. Providing students with a
complex historical understanding is a tool for them to make informed decisions as
citizens. Historical understanding complements the changes at the personal level,
helps to translate empathy into effective action towards victims, and agency into
intelligent political participation. In this sense, a solid disciplinary understanding
of history is a basic element in peace building through education (McCully 2011).

Historical understanding in HME

This understanding starts by acknowledging that explanation in history is narra-

tive and multicausal (Boix-Mansilla 2013). That is, historical processes or events
are explained by multiple factors that evolve in time in causal chains that involve,
among other things, social structures and individual intentions. In other words,
HME requires going beyond a conception of the past based on the memorization
of dates and places. To do so, it is necessary to use at least four concepts: events,
trajectories, emphases and methodologies. These concepts, drawn from research
in historical reasoning and instruction (Leinhardt 1997), were modified to capture
more precisely the nature of HME. Events are the basic building blocks of historical
narrative. They describe the basic facts of the past. HME needs to include events
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 175

because if events are forgotten, the door for repetition opens. However, remem-
bering events is not enough. The trajectories that connect structural factors and
events need to be understood. In general, conflicts that lead to violations of human
rights are explained, in part, by the interaction of several structural factors. These
structural factors are part of the social, economical and political systems of socie-
ties and determine their configurations at different levels (e.g. economic systems,
government systems, institutions, class structures). Trajectories were originally
called structures in historical education research (Leinhardt 1997) but we decided
to modify the concept to acknowledge its narrative and time-dependent nature.
When reviewing expert accounts of the Colombian conflict, it was evident that
structures did not exist in a non-temporal manner, but that they were transformed
and resignified by historical actors at different historical moments and geograph-
ical spaces.
Emphases refer here to interpretative themes that can be used to construe
historical events. Emphases illuminate different aspects of history, providing a
different interpretation and highlighting certain nuances (e.g. gender inequality).
Emphases were initially called themes by Leinhardt (1997) but we consider that
calling them emphasis would highlight the fact that they determine the possible
interpretations of a historical case. The inclusion of both trajectories and emphases
in HME serve to problematize recent conflict and social injustices, and to provide
alternatives to war, which are important aspects in the process of developing
capacities for peacebuilding (Bickmore, Kaderi, and Guerra-Sua 2017).
The last aspect to consider in this list is methodologies, called initially meta-
systems (Leinhardt 1997). History builds knowledge using several methodologies
that allow historians to produce accounts, explanations and interpretations of
historical events. Teaching methodologies helps students to know that historical
evidence is subject to interpretation and debate (Barton 2011). Sourcing is perhaps
the basic methodological tool of historians (Barton 2005). Wineburg (1998) has
shown that expert historians review carefully the characteristics of their sources
to identify from which point of view and in which context they were written.
Historian also contrasts sources to find links between accounts and to filter infor-
mation out. Sourcing is important because it creates a window into the relative,
although not random, nature of historical knowledge (Barton 2011). It also pro-
vides voice to other narratives and, in this way, enlarges the understanding of
conflict (Bickmore, Kaderi, and Guerra-Sua 2017) and prevents the imposition of
a single official narrative as official history (Carretero and Kriger 2011). For HME,
sourcing is an opportunity to highlight that historical memory can be seeing from
several different points of view.
The understanding of structures, emphases and sources provides complexity
to historical narratives in such a way that different accounts, including those of
victims, perpetrators and bystanders, can be compared through sourcing, and
understood as parts of a multidirectional history of violence that accounts for
both structural factors and historical trajectories. This complex understanding is
176 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

particularly important in contexts in which both sides of the conflict committed

human rights violations as in the case of Colombia but not necessarily of other
countries (Faundez et al. 2017). Although including perspectives other than the
ones of victims might be controversial, this pedagogical move supports the com-
prehension of other people’s goals and circumstances as moral agents, which helps
to develop moral agency (Pasupathi and Wainryb 2010) and prevents the moral
disengagement that characterizes violent conflicts (Villegas de Posada, Florez,
and Espinel 2018). Including diverse perspective counters also a view of memory
as a competitive process in which different interrelated accounts exclude each
other from the public sphere, instead of engaging in productive forms of memory
construction (Rothberg 2011).
Two caveats are necessary regarding which historical topics should be pre-
sented in HME: the first one regarding age appropriateness and the second one
regarding context sensitivity. Mainly by space constraints, we have described
HME in fairly general terms. However, specific instructional sequences need to
be designed for different age groups. For example, individual elements might
be more adequate for students in the lower age groups, leaving the exploration
of social dynamics for students in higher grades. The same can be said regarding
the harshness of the topics. More complicated situations should be analyzed only
with older groups at the end of high school. The second caveat is that historical
memory topics need to be chosen in accordance with the circumstances of each
educational context. For example, in regions with ongoing conflicts, talking about
recent violence might bring danger to educational actors, whereas in larger cities
in which the conflict is a distant reality, it might be fundamental to raise awareness
of the country’s problems. Before choosing the topics, educators should identify
the conflict’s intensity and status quo (e.g. ‘hot’ vs ‘cold’; ‘past’ vs ‘present’) and
design interventions accordingly.

A model for HME

Historical memory is a field in which multiple viewpoints need to be negotiated

(Grupo de Memoria Historica-Comision Nacional de Reparacion Reconciliacion
2013; Stevick 2007). For this reason, HME is also subject to complex debates regard-
ing content, curriculum, design and classroom strategies (Oglesby 2007). A central
debate in this area is the grain-size of the elements that need to be impacted
to heal wounds of the past and to avoid the repetition of atrocities. HME can
focus on interpersonal micro-interactions and its determinants. From this point
of view, changing individual propensity to violence and aggression is enough to
prevent future violations of human rights. On the other hand, HME can focus on the
understanding of the macro elements that explain the social dynamics that lead
to tragedy. From this point of view, preventing evil requires to modify socio-his-
torical dynamics and structural factors, not just individuals. Therefore, providing
students with an understanding of history is fundamental to impact the future.
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 177

Our claim is that HME requires activating both types of elements because both
are necessary for social change. At a different level, HME can focus on emotional
constructs or it can focus on knowledge. Emotions are, of course, basic elements in
the prevention of evil, but knowledge of social institutions and historical dynamics
is also necessary.
For this reason, HME needs to include elements closer to individual psychology
research such as emotion, emotional intelligence, empathy, interpersonal beliefs,
attribution of intent, and anger management (e.g. Chaux, Arboleda, and Rincon
2012), and also those that focus on embodiment and emotion (Zembylas 2012).
We consider here also contributions coming from research directed to reduce
bullying and aggressive behavior (Chaux, Arboleda, and Rincon 2012; Frey et al.
2009) and also to promote democratic interactions within schools (Brookfield
and Preskill 2012). HME needs to use also constructs closer sociocultural research,
such as identity and agency (e.g. Cote and Levine 2014). We include contributions
from perspectives in human and civil rights education focused on empowerment
(Tibbitts 2002) and on the development of individual identity and agency (Moore
2008; Torney-Purta 2002).
In terms of understanding, HME needs to delve into research on history educa-
tion and reasoning (Shreiner 2014; Stoel, van Drie, and van Boxtel 2015; Wineburg
1998; Wineburg and Reisman 2015). We include here also research on textbook and
classroom activities in history and other social sciences (Alridge 2006; Breakstone
2014; Paxton 1999; Stearns, Seixas, and Wineburg 2000; Wineburg and Reisman
2015), and initiatives that, from a disciplinary point of view, have worked to spread
knowledge regarding the causes and trajectories of recent violent conflicts and
human rights violations (Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica 2016; Grupo de
Memoria Historica-Comision Nacional de Reparacion Reconciliacion 2013). In the
same line, we include educational research that pushes for a broader structural
change in societies through the transformation of macro-structural elements (Bar-
Tal 2002).
We consider that all these elements can be organized along two axes: emo-
tion-understanding and individual-social. Change at the emotional level is nec-
essary because only empathic and tolerant citizen will support the construction
of better societies and will oppose initiatives that can lead to authoritarianism.
However, only those citizens that understand the underpinnings of history can
make informed decisions in complex social scenarios, such as voting and protest-
ing. The tension between both positions lies somehow between the primacy of
emotion and the need of understanding; or better, between the idea that con-
structs highly related to emotion, such as empathy and identity, are enough to
prevent the repetition of atrocious acts, or if, in this goal, comprehension needs to
accompany those emotional changes. We consider that both levels are necessary.
On the other axis, elements range from the individual to the social context.
Emotional regulation is a highly individual construct, whereas identity has a closer
relationship with social roles. Historical understanding grows in individuals but a
178 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

political culture with a complex public knowledge of history exists at the social level.
HME needs to impact both the individual and the social levels. Perspectives that
focus exclusively on emotional elements at the individual level (Chaux, Arboleda,
and Rincon 2012) and those that focus on historical and social dynamics (Centro
Nacional de Memoria Historica 2016) have different explanatory frameworks
regarding organized violence. Whereas perspectives that emphasize emotional
regulation assume that conflict arises from interpersonal confrontation, those that
focus on the understanding of historical and social dynamics understand that
conflict arises also from the way societies work. Inequality, discrimination, and
restrictions to democracy are among the multiple factors that favor conflict. When
the emphasis is put on the individual level questions about power or the canaliza-
tion of protest in pacific ways (e.g. nonviolent resistance) are forgotten. From the
point of view of political science is impossible to understand the processes that
produce internal conflicts without making questions about the formation, weak-
ness or strength of the State, and the role of elites and political parties (Richani
2013). From the point of view of sociology, questions about social mobilization and
inequality need to be also addressed (Stewart 2016). Psychologizing the problem
of historical memory leads to forget the explanatory frameworks produced in the
broad landscape of the social sciences.

Spaces for HME

Learning about the past can happen both in formal and informal environments.
(Ibanez Etxebarria, Vicent Otano, and Asensio 2012), but the affordances of each
type of space need to be taken into account when designing learning experi-
ences. For example, formal environments can serve to teach subject matter in
organized and systematic ways that cannot be achieved in museums or informal
environments. On the other hand, museums can be spaces to move emotion-
ally, in ways that cannot be achieved in classroom environments. This is possible
because museums have characteristics that facilitate emotional connection and
identity change, such as object authenticity and the opportunity for conversational
engagement (Asensio et al. 2012; Leinhardt 2014; Leinhardt and Crowley 2002). So,
when looking for a strong emotional experience, museums should be considered
first. In this section, we consider the characteristics of both types of environments
and outline their main uses within HME.
Formal learning environments, broadly defined, are spaces in which instruction
is conducted following a specific curriculum. These spaces define specific people
to be responsible for facilitating learning (e.g. teachers) and include evaluation
systems that certify the results of learners (Pol, Noguera, and Asensio 2016). Basic
examples of this type of spaces are schools. In schools, students participate in
classroom activities that follow a previously defined study plan, and are evaluated
accordingly. Although different school perspectives vary on the level of flexibil-
ity and teacher control of the learning process, schools, in general, are spaces
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 179

for learning with clearly defined goals that separate them from other everyday
activities, such as leisure or work. Informal learning environments, on the con-
trary, are less structured than formal environments and they have higher levels
of participant control over learning. Additionally, they do not incorporate formal
evaluation activities (Pol, Noguera, and Asensio 2016). These environments share
many characteristics with everyday life, such as the involvement of community,
family and peers, and the primacy of conversation and casual interaction. Museums
are typical examples of this type of learning environments.
In the case of HME, formal environments fulfill an important role. By includ-
ing historical memory in school curricula, policy-makers can guarantee that large
segments of the population come in contact with accounts of past conflicts.
Schools, additionally, are privileged interactional spaces for children and teenag-
ers, in which new, more empathic ways of interaction can be fostered. Also, the
affordances of schools make possible to conduct systematic processes of HME,
in which disciplinary knowledge can be methodically taught. Several, non-exclu-
sive strategies can be adopted to incorporate historical memory in schools. It is
possible to incorporate HME in social studies and history curricula, or to create a
specific course for the topic. It is possible also to include historical memory issues
in several subject matters through the design of projects that connect different
content areas. Incorporating historical memory in formal environments requires
also transforming textbooks. Research has shown that textbooks play a pivotal role
in defining how history and social sciences are taught (Alridge 2006). By transform-
ing textbooks, it is possible to surpass traditional versions of history and history
teaching (Paxton 1999). For this reason, introducing historical memory in textbooks
has been considered a basic step in changing the public narrative of a country
(Tejel 2015), although it needs to be taken into account that textbooks interact
with other sources of collective memory (Porat 2004).
Informal learning environments constitute also important spaces for HME. At
least two informal spaces are basic for HME: media and museums. Media is an
excellent medium for raising awareness about the past violations of human rights.
Research on historical education has shown that media can support the learning
of history (Marcus, Paxton, and Meyerson 2006). For example, documentaries can
serve as pedagogical tools to mobilize emotions related to memory (Epps 2016).
Media has the power of reaching demographics that are usually beyond the grasp
of schools. The use of media as a tool to support HME, however, needs to be
accompanied by other strategies. Research shows that historical depictions in
media sometimes contribute to foster simplistic versions of history (Wineburg et
al. 2007). In this sense, public policy needs to aim at connecting historical expertise
and media production, as well as to providing educational resources to support
learning from media.
Informal learning related to HME can also be promoted in museums and memo-
rial sites (Asensio and Pol 2017; Tamashiro and Furnari 2015), raising in this way
awareness about past atrocities (Flemming 2015), through objects that give a voice
180 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

to the past and show its relationship with the present (Higash 2015). This is pos-
sible because objects in museums have several features that make them unique:
resolution and density, scale, authenticity and value (Leinhardt and Crowley 2002).
These features foster several types of visitor talk and conversational engagement
(Allen 2002; Leinhardt 2014), which, in turn, produce cognitive and identity change
(Falk 2006). When designed correctly, museums and memorial sites can become
powerful tools to change our views of the past and make citizens aware of the
importance of human rights (Flemming 2015). It is important to note, however, that
the role of exhibition and pedagogical design needs to be considered seriously.
There is some risk of simplification, trivialization and misunderstanding of these
spaces. For example, reenactments of battles, and war or genocide museums can
be misunderstood and taken as places that honor violence and praise perpetrators
(del Marmol-Cartana and Reixach 2010). There is extensive evidence showing that
visitors can misunderstand museum messages under poor educational or design
conditions and, thus, it is necessary to design and redesign exhibitions according
to careful observations of visitors’ behavior (Asensio et al. 2012). In the case of his-
torical memory, the difficult nature of the heritage on display creates challenges
to transform the remembrance of a negative past, in a reflection for the present
and the future (Higash 2015). In this sense, meticulous educational planning needs
to be conducted in order to turn heritage into an effective educational tool for
memory (Asensio and Pol 2008). It is also necessary to have a critical perspective
on history while designing museums and memorial sites, one that balances the
need to heal wounds and the dangers of establishing a unified narrative as official
history. In this task, history as a discipline in which multiple accounts are negotiated
is a fundamental resource.

Methodological elements of HME

Research in education in post-conflict societies suggests that teaching meth-
ods in these contexts must abandon traditional instructional practices, such as
highly formalized routines and incorporate discussion and debate (Weinstein,
Freedman, and Hughson 2007). In this section, we present some methodological
principles that can help this goal. This list is not exhaustive but we consider that
these principles constitute a basic methodological line to teach historical memory.
The principles presented here come from prior research but we integrate them
in connection with the goal of preserving memory, preventing repetition, and
healing the wounds of recent conflicts.

Healing environment

All interventions in historical memory must be conducted in a healing environment

(Danesh 2006) and in an atmosphere of trust and hope (Salomon and Cairns 2011).
This implies that HME interventions must support the process of loss and grieving
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 181

and the presentation of action alternatives. Alternatives of action allow students

to feel that the situations they are studying are not inevitable. By giving students
agency and exploring the possibilities of this agency in class, HME can create an
environment of hope, in which violence is not inevitable. Emotional contention is
also necessary to foster a healing environment. Emotional contention refers here
to the fact that the instructional situation has plenty of activities to keep balanced
emotional states. Although HME topics are complex, spaces for relaxation, breath-
ing, and body exercises can foster the right environment to talk about them. Both
action alternatives and emotional contention are necessary to create a classroom
environment that contributes to reconciliation, a basic goal of HME.

Student-centered and collaborative learning projects

HME should create learning environments that are student-centered and collabo-
rative. The rationale for this methodological guideline is that agency and identity
are only transformed in environments in which the structure of participation is
transformed (Corredor and Gaydos 2014). Educational research has shown that
traditional schooling, based on individual work and teacher-centered environ-
ments, promote epistemological identities opposed to knowledge construction
and debate. On the contrary, when students participate in collaborative learning
environments they develop agency (Boaler and Greeno 2000). Fostering agency
through collaborative learning is fundamental for students to feel that they can
impact their realities both at the personal and social levels. Additionally, in collab-
orative learning environments students experience argumentation among peers,
a basic skill for democratic participation (Nussbaum 2008). Student-centered envi-
ronments transmit also the idea that problem-solving depends on the community,
and not on the teacher or other actor located at a higher level in the social hierar-
chy; an idea that underlies democratic participation. Cognitively, the advantages
of collaborative and student-centered environments are well-documented: by
explaining to others, students reorganize the knowledge structure and, in this way,
they identify the weak points in their own reasoning (Hannafin and Land 1997).

Multimodality and use of digital resources

Using documents in different formats (e.g. video, graphs, audio, text) has a pos-
itive effect in many educational activities (Corredor, Gaydos, and Squire 2014).
In HME, multimodality is made possible by activities that imply the integration
of documents and sources, which fosters the skills necessary to build coherent
representations of documents that present dissimilar accounts of an historical
event. In this way, multimodality pushes students to develop the representational
skills necessary to handle different historical sources (Prangsma, Van Boxtel, and
Kanselaar 2008). Multimodality supported by digital resources, particularly video,
plays a pivotal role in HME. Video is an excellent medium to present testimony
182 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

and other documentary sources. When it is combined, for instance, with pictures,
maps, newspaper reports and graphs depicting aggregated economic indicators
(e.g. land distribution), it can serve to connect personal memories (e.g. witnesses’
recollections) and historical accounts (e.g. historical descriptions of the conditions
that led to tragedy). Additionally, designing activities that use different formats
might help student to grasp difficult concepts. For example, structural elements,
such as land distribution and economic growth, can be studied using activities
than involve building graphs from primary or secondary sources.
The integration of memory levels can be also fostered through the use of mul-
timodal resources because time, a fundamental concept of memory, is better rep-
resented visually. Educational activities in which students compare timelines at
the personal, collective and historical level, are a good occasion to contrast the
milestones at each level and to explore the similarities and differences among
the different levels of memory (Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica 2016). In
fact, prior research shows that using timelines and other multimodal resources
increases the cognitive integration of different sources of information (Prangsma,
Van Boxtel, and Kanselaar 2008).

Conclusions
We have presented an educational framework to support and inform HME. We have
proposed a definition of HME. From that, three levels of memory have been identi-
fied and the concepts underlying historical memory have been outlined. We have
asserted that individual change needs to be accompanied by social change, which
requires supporting the development of emotional and interpersonal skills, as well
as of historical understanding. Basic guidelines regarding spaces and methodol-
ogies for HME have been included. Some nuances need to be made at this point.
The first question is whether or not it is necessary to talk in schools about war
and conflict, and particularly about past events that have produced a large amount
of human suffering. Our claim is that HME is a moral duty in the process of repairing
victims and restituting their right to public truth. In this logic, legal decisions assert
this right and mandate public educational initiatives in historical memory consid-
ering that, if the past is silenced, victims’ rights are not fully restored and, perhaps
worse, repetition of atrocities becomes possible. When people, for instance, do not
understand the dangers of group discrimination or far-right populism, they will
ignore the dangers of supporting these political options. When they understand
the power of civil resistance, the courage of those that return to the place where
they were hurt, the greatness of those that find justice in public acts of forgiveness
instead of vengeance, then, students gain a higher sense of political agency and
responsibility regarding their actions in times of trouble.
The second question is whether or not it is possible to talk about historical
memory in school environments. Historical memory issues are challenging in emo-
tional and cognitive terms and, for this reason, they require adequate pedagogical
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 183

conditions. However, we do think that it is possible to talk about HME in schools.

It is possible because, under adequate pedagogical conditions, students are able
to handle complex topics both emotionally and cognitively. In fact, social science
curricula include many topics that depict difficult historical circumstances (e.g.
World War II; The Conquest of America; Slave Trade; The Civil Rights Movement;
The Kennedy Assassination). It would not make sense, for example, to pretend
teaching about World War II without talking about the holocaust. It can be argued,
additionally, that students deal with difficult issues in everyday life, via direct expo-
sure, news or other media, and that schools need to address those issues. This is
true, of course, in countries with longstanding violent conflicts, but it is also true
in countries with higher levels of political stability, in which students face also
difficult political topics (e.g. racism, terrorism). When schools address these issues,
instead of ignoring them, they empower students against these problems. HME
provides students with the tools to handle difficult political situations by giving
them a larger framework in which locating their personal experiences and also
a course of action to change social realities. HME can be used also in contexts
in which memories of conflict have been forgotten or excluded from public dis-
course. In this case, unofficial narratives persist in the collective memory of social
groups guiding the interpretation of sources and the recollection of past events
in and out of classrooms (Goldberg, Schwarz, and Porat 2008). The design of HME
interventions requires therefore managing the tension between disciplinary his-
tory and dormant memories in such a way that students open to interpretations
different than their own group narrative and connect these interpretations with
their own personal identities. At a broader level, policy makers need to understand
the importance of HME and open spaces for it in educational settings and more
generally in the public discourse. This task is particularly urgent in societies in
which historical memory has been systematically suppressed for different reasons.
In this sense, the task of HME is also a political one.
To close this discussion, we want emphasize that even if HME is built from
contributions coming from other peace education initiatives, it has characteristics
that are proper to it. The first characteristic that defines HME is its connection with
memory reports from truth commissions established in processes of transitional
justice. This situation, although specific to countries with recent history of human
rights violations, is not marginal. Initiatives in HME have been proposed in a large
number of countries (e.g. Colombia, Peru, Ireland, Sudan, Germany, Spain, Ruanda).
The second defining characteristic is the connection between the individual, col-
lective and historical facets of memory. The connection between the personal and
the social is fundamental in guaranteeing non-repetition. From the point of view
of HME, peace education is incomplete without accounting for the social dynamics
that at the macro level made possible the rise of authoritarian regimes and sus-
tained violent conflicts. Peace education, from this perspective, is also incomplete
if the victims’ suffering is not acknowledged and collective emotional healing is
not conducted. In this sense, HME entails a difficult task: that of facing the past
184 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

and understanding the consequences of darker hours. There has been a growing
tendency in recent years to underestimate the capabilities of students to deal
with complex topics, particularly in the US where suits push institutions to protect
themselves by drawing contents out of curricula (Wyatt 2016). This tendency has
been extended quite arbitrarily to contexts in and out of the US where the answer
is not necessarily silence about evils of the past, producing what can be called
an over-Americanization of the world’s view on subjectivity. If something can be
learnt from historical memory is that people is resilient, strong and able to deal
with the complexity of life. The tales of the HME are, of course, tales of suffering
and wrongdoing, but they are also about the courage of human beings that fight
and resist evil. The tales of historical memory are tales of resistance, tolerance and
strength in the face of tremendously difficult circumstances. We do not expect our
students to live by a lower standard.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This article was made possible by a traveling grant from Fundación Carolina to the first author
and by the sabbatical leave granted to him by Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Notes on contributors
Javier Corredor is an associate professor at the psychology department of Universidad Nacional
de Colombia. He has a PhD degree on Cognitive Studies in Education from the University of
Pittsburgh and has collaborated with the Games and Learning Society as visiting scholar at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he researched how video games can favor the
learning of science. During the last years, his works has focused on the learning of history in the
context of the peace process in Colombia. More generally, his work focuses on the relationship
among cognition, media and education. He is interested on the process of learning in informal
environments, and on the impact of technology on human thinking, language, and identity.

Maria Emma Wills-Obregon is the director of the Pedagogy Group at the National Center for
Historical Memory in Colombia. Before that she led the Department of Gender and Women
in the Historical Memory Commission. Since 2005, she has been associate professor at the
Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá and chair of the political science department. For three
years prior, she was an associate professor at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, and from
2000 to 2002, she directed the master’s program for the university’s Institute of Political Science
and International Relations. she has done research on conflict and democracy and Colombian
social and feminist movements; she is now researching the relationship among war, memory,
peace building, and women in Colombia. She has also worked on women’s social movements,
grassroots education, and initiatives such as bringing women into politics. Most recently, she
published a book on women’s inclusion and representation under democratic regimes, focus-
ing on Colombia from 1970 to 2000. She has published book chapters on topics including
politics, the Colombian peace process, and President Alvaro Uribe’s government and gender
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 185

equality, as well as numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals. She has presented her work
at more than 40 conferences. She earned her PhD degree in 2004 from the Institute of Latin
American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, her MSc degree in political science from
the Université de Montréal in 1990, and her BA degree in political science from the Universidad
de los Andes in Bogotá.

Mikel Asensio-Brouard is a professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Director of

national research projects, DGICYT, CIDE and Plan Regional, and he participated on European
projects, SOCRATES, SENECA, LEONARDO; ‘APPEAR’ (Accessibility Projects. Sustainable
Preservation and Enhancement of Urban Subsoil Archaeological Remains); ‘PICTURE’ (Pro-
Active Management of the Impact of Cultural Tourism upon Urban Resources and Economies)
from the 6th Framework Program; and the V-Must.Net (Virtual Reality Museums Network) from
the 7th Framework Program. He has published more than 100 books, chapters and articles on
Museology, Education and Psychology issues, The last one about ‘Museums and Technologies
1, 2 & 3.0’. Also, he develop consulting, planning, and museum and exhibit projects, like the
National Library Museum, the Wine Museum, the Hidalgo History Museum, the National Energy
Museum, the Human Evolution Museum, the National Transportation and Civil Engineering
Museum, the National Health Museum, and The Córdoba Fine Arts Museum.

ORCID
Javier Corredor   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0893-6332

References
Allen, S. 2002. “Looking for Learning in Visitor Talk: A Methodological Exploration.” In Learning
Conversations in Museums, edited by G. Leinhardt and K. Crowley, 259–303. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Alridge, D. P. 2006. “The Limits of Master Narratives in History Textbooks: An Analysis of
Representations of Martin Luther King, Jr.” Teachers College Record 108 (4): 662–686.
Amnå, E. 2012. “How is Civic Engagement Developed over Time? Emerging Answers
from a Multidisciplinary Field.” Journal of Adolescence 35 (3): 611–627. doi:10.1016/j.
adolescence.2012.04.011.
Asensio, M., and E. Pol. 2008. “Conversations on Informal Learning in Museums and Heritage.” In
Tourism, Heritage and Informal Learning: Museums as E-Labs Emotions and Education, edited
by H. Fernandez, 19–60. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Escuela Universitaria de Turismo de
Lanzarote.
Asensio, M., and E. Pol. 2017. “The Never-Ending Story about Heritage and Museums: Four
Discursive Models.” In Palgrave Handbook of Research in Historical Culture and Education, edited
by M. Carretero, S. Berger and M. Grever, 755–780. London: Palgrave. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-
52908-4_39
Asensio, M., V. Mahou, C. G. R. Santana, and J. I. S. Sagasti. 2012. “Concepciones Erroneas en
los Museos de Historia: Una Evaluacion en el Museo y Parque Arqueologico Cueva Pintada.”
Educacion Y Futuro: Revista De Investigacion Aplicada Y Experiencias Educativas 27: 15–49.
Banks, J. A. 2008. “Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age.” Educational
Researcher 37 (3): 129–139. doi:10.3102/0013189X08317501.
Bar-on, D. 2005. “Psychology of Perpetrators.” In Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against
Humanity, edited by D. Shelton, 924–927. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
186 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

Bar-Tal, D. 2002. “The Elusive Nature of Peace Education.” In Peace Education: The Concept,
Principles and Practice in the World, edited by G. Salo6mon and B. Nevo, 27–36. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barton, K. C. 2005. “Primary Sources in History: Breaking through the Myths.” Phi Delta Kappan
86 (10): 745–753.
Barton, K. C. 2011. “From Learning Narratives to Thinking Historically.” In Contemporary Social
Studies: An Essential Reader, edited by W. B. Russell, 109–139. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Beaumont, E. 2010. “Political Agency and Empowerment: Pathways for Developing a Sense of
Political Efficacy in Young Adults.” In Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth,
edited by L. R. Sherrod and J. Torney-Purta, 525–558. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
doi:10.1002/9780470767603.ch20
Bickford, L., and A. Sodaro. 2010. “Remembering Yesterday to Protect Tomorrow: The
Internationalization of a New Commemorative Paradigm.” In Memory and the Future,
edited by Y. Gutman, A. D. Brown and A. Sodaro, 66–86. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/97802302923
Bickmore, K., A. S. Kaderi, and A. Guerra-Sua. 2017. “Creating Capacities for Peacebuilding
Citizenship: History and Social Studies Curricula in Bangladesh, Canada, Colombia, and
México.” Journal of Peace Education. doi:10.1080/17400201.2017.1365698.
Boaler, J., and J. G. Greeno. 2000. “Identity, Agency, and Knowing in Mathematics Worlds.” In
Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, edited by J. Boaler, 171–200.
Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Boix-Mansilla, V. 2013. “Expecting High Standards from Inner-City Students: Challenges and
Possibilities.” In Raising Standards in History Education, edited by P. Dickinson, P. Gordon and
P. Lee, 20–35. Portland, ME: Woburn Press.
Breakstone, J. 2014. “Try, Try, Try Again: The Process of Designing New History Assessments.”
Theory and Research in Social Education 42 (4): 453–485. doi:10.1080/00933104.2014.96586.
Brookfield, S. D., and S. Preskill. 2012. Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for
Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Campisi, M. C. 2014. “From a Duty to Remember to an Obligation to Memory? Memory as
Reparation in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” International
Journal of Conflict and Violence 8 (1): 61–74.
Carretero, M., and M. Kriger. 2011. “Historical Representations and Conflicts about Indigenous
People as National Identities.” Culture and Psychology 17 (2): 177–195. doi:10.1177/135406
7x11398311.
Carretero, M., L. Jacott, and A. Lopez-Manjon. 2002. “Learning History through Textbooks: Are
Mexican and Spanish Students Taught the Same Story?” Learning and Instruction 12 (6): 651–
665. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00036-6.
Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica. 2016. Los Caminos De La Memoria Historica. Caja De
Herramientas: Un Viaje Por La Memoria Historica, Aprender La Paz Desaprender La Guerra.
Bogota: Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica. Accessed September 26, 2016. http://www.
centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/Destacados-CNMH/Un-Viaje-por-la-Memoria-Historica
Chaux, E. 2009. “Citizenship Competencies in the midst of a Violent Political Conflict: The
Colombian Educational Response.” Harvard Educational Review 79 (1): 84–93. doi:10.17763/
Haer.79.1.D2566q027573h219.
Chaux, E., J. Arboleda, and C. Rincon. 2012. “Community Violence and Reactive and Proactive
Aggression: The Mediating Role of Cognitive and Emotional Variables.” Revista Colombiana
De Psicologia 21 (2): 233–251.
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 187

Clamp, K., and J. Doak. 2012. “More than Words: Restorative Justice Concepts in Transitional
Justice Settings.” International Criminal Law Review 12 (3): 339–360. doi:10.1163/15718121
2x648824.
Cole, E. 2007. Teaching the Violent past: History Education and Reconciliation. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Corredor, J., and M. Gaydos. 2014. “Language Games: How Gaming Communities Shape Second-
Language Literacy.” In Bridging Literacies with Videogames, edited by H. Gerber, S. Abrams
and M. Burgess, 103–128. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-668-4_7.
Corredor, J., M. Gaydos, and K. Squire. 2014. “Seeing Change in Time: Video Games to Teach about
Temporal Change in Scientific Phenomena.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 23
(3): 324–343. doi:10.1007/S10956-013-9466-4.
Cote, J. E., and C. G. Levine. 2014. Identity, Formation, Agency, and Culture: A Social Psychological
Synthesis. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Danesh, H. B. 2006. “Towards an Integrative Theory of Peace Education.” Journal of Peace Education
3 (1): 55–78. doi:10.1080/17400200500532151.
David, R., and S. Choi. 2005. “Victims on Transitional Justice: Lessons from the Reparation of
Human Rights Abuses in the Czech Republic.” Human Rights Quarterly 27 (2): 392–435.
Davies, L. 2005. “Teaching about Conflict through Citizenship Education.” International Journal
of Citizenship and Teacher Education 1 (2): 17–34.
Duque, N. H., and P. Lasso. 2016. “Autopercepcion De Saberes Praticas Sobre Educacion
Desplazamiento Forzado En Docentes De Cali, Colombia.” Revista Colombiana De Psicologia
25 (1): 155–173. doi:10.15446/Rcp.V25n1.49971.
Epps, B. 2016. “The Unbearable Lightness of Bones: Memory, Emotion, and Pedagogy in Patricio
Guzman’s Chile, La Memoria Obstinada and Nostalgia De La Luz.” Journal of Latin American
Cultural Studies 1–20. doi:10.1080/13569325.2016.1229661.
Falk, J. H. 2006. “An Identity Centered Approach to Understanding Museum Learning.” Curator:
The Museum Journal 49 (2): 151–166. doi:10.1111/J.2151-6952.2006.Tb00209.X.
Faundez, X., B. Azcarraga, C. Benavente, and M. Cardenas. 2017. “La Desaparición Forzada De
Personas a Cuarenta Años Del Golpe De Estado En Chile: Un Acercamiento a La Dimensión
Familiar.” Revista Colombiana De Psicologia 27: 85–103. doi:10.15446/rcp.v27n1.63908.
Flemming, D. 2015. “A Sense of Justice: Museums and Human Rights.” ICOM 68 (1): 8–9.
Frey, K. S., M. K. Hirschstein, L. V. Edstrom, and J. L. Snell. 2009. “Observed Reductions in School
Bullying, Nonbullying Aggression, and Destructive Bystander Behavior: A Longitudinal
Evaluation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (2): 466–481. doi:10.1037/a0013839.
Galston, W. A. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual
Review of Political Science 4 (1): 217–234. doi:10.1146/Annurev.Polisci.4.1.217.
Gamba, H. A., and C. E. Navia. 2017. “Adaptacion Del Inventario De Duelo Complicado En Poblacion
Colombiana.” Revista Colombiana De Psicologia 26 (1): 15–30. doi:10.15446/Rcpv26n1.51205.
Garcia-Godos, J., and K. A. O. LID. 2010. “Transitional Justice and Victims' Rights before the End
of a Conflict: The Unusual Case of Colombia.” Journal of Latin American Studies 42 (3): 487–516.
Goldberg, T., B. B. Schwarz, and D. Porat. 2008. “Living and Dormant Collective Memories as
Contexts of History Learning.” Learning and Instruction 18 (3): 223–237.
Goldhagen, D. J. 1996. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Grupo de Memoria Historica-Comision Nacional de Reparacion Reconciliacion. 2013. ¡Basta Ya!
Colombia: Memorias De Guerra Dignidad. Bogota: Imprenta Nacional.
Hannafin, M. J., and S. M. Land. 1997. “The Foundations and Assumptions of Technology-
Enhanced Student-Centered Learning Environments.” Instructional Science 25 (3): 167–202.
doi:10.1023/A:1002997414652.
Hewitt-Ramirez, N., F. Juarez, A. J. Parada Banos, J. Guerrero-Luzardo, M. Romero-Chavez, A. M.
Salgado-Castilla, and M. V. Vargas-Amaya. 2016. “Afectaciones Psicologicas, Estrategias de
188 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

Afrontamiento, Niveles de Resiliencia de Adultos Expuestos Al Conflicto Armado en Colombia.”

Revista Colombiana De Psicologia 25 (1): 125–140. doi:10.15446/Rcp.V25n1.49966.
Higash, J. 2015. “Eye on the Rear-View. Memorial Museum for Public Crimes against Humanity.”
ICOM 68 (1): 12–13.
Hues, H. 2011. “Mandela, the Terrorist”: Intended and Hidden History Curriculum in South
Africa.” Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society 3 (2): 74–95. doi:10.3167/
Jemms.2011.030205.
Ibanez Etxebarria, A., N. Vicent Otano, and M. Asensio. 2012. “Aprendizaje Informal, Patrimonio
Dispositivos Moviles. Evaluacion De Una Experiencia En Educacion Secundaria.” Didactica De
Las Ciencias Experimentales Sociales 26: 3–18.
Leinhardt, G. 1997. “Instructional Explanations in History.” International Journal of Educational
Research 27 (3): 221–232.
Leinhardt, G. 2014. “Museums, Conversations, and Learning.” Revista Colombiana De Psicologia
23 (1): 35–56. doi:10.15446/Rcp.V23n1.41000.
Leinhardt, G., and K. Crowley. 2002. “Objects of Learning, Objects of Talk: Changing Minds in
Museums.” In Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums, edited by S. G. Paris, 301–
324. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lopez, C., M. Carretero, and M. Rodriguez-Moneo. 2014. “Telling a National Narrative That is
Not Your Own. Does It Enable Critical Historical Consumption?” Culture and Psychology 20
(4): 547–571.
Marcus, A. S., R. J. Paxton, and P. Meyerson. 2006. “The Reality of It All: History Students Read
the Movies.” Theory and Research in Social Education 34 (4): 516–552. doi:10.1080/00933104
.2006.10473320.
del Marmol-Cartana, C., and J. F. Reixach. 2010. Los Lindes Del Patrimonio: Consumo Valores Del
Pasado. Barcelona: Icaria.
McCorkle, W. 2017. “Problematizing War: Reviving the Historical Focus of Peace Education.”
Journal of Peace Education. doi:10.1080/17400201.2017.1345727.
McCully, A. 2011. “The Contribution of History Teaching to Peace Building.” In Handbook on
Peace Education, edited by G. Salomon and E. Cairns, 213–222. New York: Psychology Press.
Merrell, K. W., B. A. Gueldner, S. W. Ross, and D. M. Isava. 2008. “How Effective Are School Bullying
Intervention Programs? A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Research.” School Psychology Quarterly
23 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26.
Moore, F. M. 2008. “Agency, Identity, and Social Justice Education: Preservice Teachers’ Thoughts
on Becoming Agents of Change in Urban Elementary Science Classrooms.” Research in Science
Education 38 (5): 589–610.
Nussbaum, E. M. 2008. “Collaborative Discourse, Argumentation, and Learning: Preface and
Literature Review.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (3): 345–359. doi:10.1016/J.
Cedpsych.2008.06.001.
Oglesby, E. 2007. “Historical Memory and the Limits of Peace Education: Examining Guatemala’s
Memory of Silence and the Politics of Curriculum Design.” In Teaching the Violent past: History
Education and Reconciliation, edited by E. Cole, 75–202. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Osiel, M. 1999. Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory, and the Law. London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
Pasupathi, M., and C. Wainryb. 2010. “Developing Moral Agency through Narrative.” Human
Development 53 (2): 55–80.
Paulson, J. 2015. “Whether and How? History Education about Recent and Ongoing Conflict: A
Review of Research.” Journal on Education in Emergencies 1 (1): 14–47.
Paxton, R. J. 1999. “A Deafening Silence: History Textbooks and the Students Who Read Them.”
Review of Educational Research 69 (3): 315–339.
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 189

Pingel, F. 2008. “Can Truth Be Negotiated? History Textbook Revision as a Means to Reconciliation.”
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 617 (1): 181–198.
doi:10.1177/0002716207313087.
Pol, E., L. Noguera, and M. Asensio. 2016. “Conocimiento Informal De La Ciencia, O Por Que Los
Museos De Ciencia Son Tan Eficientes.” Tarbiya, Revista De Investigacion E Innovacion Educativa
44: 67–86.
Porat, D. A. 2004. “It’s Not Written Here, but This is What Happened: Students’ Cultural
Comprehension of Textbook Narratives on the Israeli-Arab Conflict.” American Educational
Research Journal 41 (4): 963–996. Accessed August 25 2017. http://www.jstor.org/
Stable/3699469
Posada, R., and C. Wainryb. 2008. “Moral Development in a Violent Society: Colombian Children’s
Judgments in the Context of Survival and Revenge.” Child Development 79 (4): 882–898.
doi:10.1111/J.1467-8624.2008.01165.X.
Prangsma, M. E., C. A. Van Boxtel, and G. Kanselaar. 2008. “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of
Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History.” Instructional Science
36 (2): 117–136. doi:10.1007/S11251-007-9026-5.
Richani, N. 2013. Systems of Violence: The Political Economy of War and Peace in Colombia. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press.
Roediger, H. L., and J. V. Wertsch. 2008. “Creating a New Discipline of Memory Studies.” Memory
Studies 1 (1): 9–22. doi:10.1177/1750698007083884.
Rothberg, M. 2011. “From Gaza to Warsaw: Mapping Multidirectional Memory.” Criticism 53 (4):
523–548.
Salomon, G., and E. Cairns. 2011. Handbook on Peace Education. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Schwartz, S. J., J. E. Cote, and J. J. Arnett. 2005. “Identity and Agency in Emerging Adulthood Two
Developmental Routes in the Individualization Process.” Youth and Society 37 (2): 201–229.
Shreiner, T. L. 2014. “Using Historical Knowledge to Reason about Contemporary Political Issues:
An Expert–Novice Study.” Cognition and Instruction 32 (4): 313–352. doi:10.1080/07370008.
2014.948680.
Stearns, P. N., P. C. Seixas, and S. Wineburg. 2000. Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: National
and International Perspectives. New York: NYU Press.
Stevick, E. D. 2007. “The Politics of the Holocaust in Estonia: Historical Memory and Social
Divisions in Estonian Education.” In Reimagining Civic Education: How Diverse Societies Form
Democratic Citizens, edited by E. Stevick and B. Levinson, 217–244. Lahman, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Stewart, F. 2016. Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict: Understanding Group Violence in Multiethnic
Societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stoel, G. L., J. P. van Drie, and C. A. M. van Boxtel. 2015. “Teaching towards Historical Expertise.
Developing a Pedagogy for Fostering Causal Reasoning in History.” Journal of Curriculum
Studies 47 (1): 49–76. doi:10.1080/00220272.2014.968212.
Tamashiro, R., and E. Furnari. 2015. “Museums for Peace: Agents and Instruments of Peace
Education.” Journal of Peace Education 12 (3): 223–235. doi:10.1080/17400201.2015.1092712.
Tarabah, A., L. Badr, J. Usta, and J. Doyle. 2015. “Exposure to Violence and Children’s
Desensitization Attitudes in Lebanon.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31 (18): 1–22.
doi:10.1177/0886260515584337.
Tejel, J. 2015. “The Potential of History Textbooks and Curriculum Reform in Iraqi Kurdistan
within a Conflict Transformation Frame: Dealing with the past from a Processual and Dynamic
Perspective.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38 (14): 2569–2583. doi:10.1080/01419870.2015.1061
134.
Tibbitts, F. 2002. “Understanding What We Do: Emerging Models for Human Rights Education.”
International Review of Education 48 (3–4): 159–171. doi:10.1023/A:1020338300881.
190 J. CORREDOR ET AL.

Torney-Purta, J. 2002. “The School’s Role in Developing Civic Engagement: A Study of Adolescents
in Twenty-Eight Countries.” Applied Developmental Science 6 (4): 203–212. doi:10.1207/
S1532480XADS0604_7.
Torney-Purta, J., J. Schwille, and J. A. Amadeo. 1999. Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-
Four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: Eburon Publishers.
Tulviste, P. 1994. “History Taught at School versus History Discovered at Home: The Case of
Estonia.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 9 (2): 121–126.
Villegas de Posada, C., J. Florez, and N. Espinel. 2018. “Moral Disengagement Mechanisms and
Armed Violence. a Comparative Study of Paramilitaries and Guerrillas in Colombia.” Revista
Colombiana De Psicología 27: 55–69. doi:10.15446/rcp.v27n1.62191.
Weinstein, H. M., S. W. Freedman, and H. Hughson. 2007. “School Voices Challenges Facing
Education Systems after Identity-Based Conflicts.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 2
(1): 41–71. doi:10.1177/1746197907072128.
Weldon, G. 2009. “Memory, Identity and the Politics of Curriculum Construction in Transition
Societies: Rwanda and South Africa.” Perspectives in Education 27 (2): 177–189.
Wertsch, J. V. 2008. “The Narrative Organization of Collective Memory.” Ethos 36 (1): 120–135.
doi:10.1111/J.1548-1352.2008.00007.X.
Wineburg, S. 1998. “Reading Abraham Lincoln: An Expert/Expert Study in the Interpretation of
Historical Texts.” Cognitive Science 22 (3): 319–346. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3.
Wineburg, S., and A. Reisman. 2015. “Disciplinary Literacy in History: A Toolkit for Digital
Citizenship.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 58 (8): 636–639. doi:10.1002/jaal.410.
Wineburg, S., S. Mosborg, D. Porat, and A. Duncan. 2007. “Forrest Gump and the Future of
Teaching the past.” Phi Delta Kappan 89 (3): 168–177. doi:10.1177/003172170708900305.
Wyatt, W. 2016. “The Ethics of Trigger Warnings.” Teaching Ethics 16 (1): 17–35. doi:10.5840/
Tej201632427.
Zembylas, M. 2012. “Pedagogies of Strategic Empathy: Navigating through the Emotional
Complexities of Anti-Racism in Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education 17 (2): 113–125.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.611869.
Zerubavel, E. 2012. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.