Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Perceptions and approaches to Armenian genocide education among reputably effective public secondary school educators in greater Los Angeles
(USC Thesis Other)
Perceptions and approaches to Armenian genocide education among reputably effective public secondary school educators in greater Los Angeles
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Perceptions and Approaches to Armenian Genocide Education
Among Reputably Effective Public Secondary School Educators
in Greater Los Angeles
Sedda Antekelian
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023
© Copyright by Sedda Antekelian 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Sedda Antekelian certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Artineh Samkian
Mark Robison
Ruth Chung, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
This study aimed to gain a closer understanding how reputably effective public secondary
school educators in the greater Los Angeles region perceive and approach genocide education
generally and the practices they employ in the classroom as it relates to Armenian Genocide
education, specifically. This study also aimed to understand the sample population’s experiences
of efforts that have supported their instruction of the Armenian Genocide, to learn of the
strategies and resources that helped them to teach this history to students. The research design of
this study, was guided by Lee S. Shulman’s framework for the Categories of the Teacher
Knowledge Base, which served as the foundational frame to understand the essential knowledge
and skills educators need to build their capacity and confidence to teach about genocide histories
effectively and meaningfully in the classroom.
After 10 individual in-depth interviews with educators from the sample population, the
study’s findings revealed that all the participants viewed genocide education as a responsibility
to teach and a relevant subject for students to learn. While a majority of the participants had no
prior knowledge about the Armenian Genocide, their knowledge was strengthened by formal and
informal learning efforts. Due to their teaching experience and knowledge of the course
curriculum, the participants applied instructional strategies aligned to constructivist pedagogy in
the classroom to teach this difficult history meaningful for students. While the study participants
expressed that they were limited by the barriers of their course curriculum, they were able find
opportunities to teach about the Armenian Genocide and make relevant connections to this
history during the academic year.
Keywords: genocide, genocide education, Armenian Genocide, Armenian Genocide education.
v
Dedication
***
This dissertation is in dedication to the loving memory of Professor Richard G. Hovannisian,
who passed away on July 10, 2023. May the intention and purpose of this dissertation be a
testament to the lifetime of achievement he has pioneered in the field of Armenian Studies and
Armenian Genocide education.
***
To all the scholars in the field of Armenian Genocide research and education, thank you for your
unwavering dedication to bring historiography of this poignant period to the world’s attention. It
is with hopes that this dissertation will bring further recognition to the importance and the
necessity of your work in the field and advance knowledge and stories of those individuals
whose lives were forcibly disrupted as a result of the Armenian Genocide.
***
In loving memory of Sirvard Antekelian, my grandmother, who passed away December 20,
2008. I would not be who I am or have as much passion for my work if it were not for her love of
education which she passed down to me.
vi
Acknowledgments
To the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Ruth Chung, Dr. Mark Robison, and
Dr. Artineh Samkian for dedicating your time and energy to this dissertation. I appreciate your
knowledge, support, and insight through my journey. This process has been unforgettable, and I
thank you for guiding me along the way.
I’d like to also extend my sincere gratitude to my family, friends, and colleagues who
believed in my potential to complete this dissertation and supported me throughout this process
with patience, love and kindness.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of this Study .................................................................................................................. 6
Importance of the Study.............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................................. 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 10
Value of Genocide Education ................................................................................................... 11
Making History Meaningful in the Secondary School Classroom ........................................... 27
Genocide Education in Practice in the Secondary School Classroom...................................... 45
Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................. 59
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 67
Participants and Sampling Criteria ........................................................................................... 67
Data Collection and Instrumentation Procedures ..................................................................... 70
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 73
Credibility and Trustworthiness................................................................................................ 75
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 78
viii
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 81
Participants................................................................................................................................ 82
Finding 1: Genocide education is a responsibility to teach and relevant......................................
for students to learn.............................................................................................................. 89
Finding 2: A constructivist approach to genocide education instruction makes learning about
difficult histories meaningful............................................................................................... 98
Finding 3: Formal and informal learning opportunities are essential for effective instruction of
Armenian Genocide education........................................................................................... 107
Finding 4: Curricular limitations offer creative opportunities to teach about the Armenian
Genocide across the curriculum........................................................................................ 117
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 137
Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................. 139
Implications for Policymakers, School District Leaders, Educators and Genocide Education
Organizations.......................................................................................................................... 144
Recommendations and Implementations................................................................................ 147
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................. 150
Recommednations for Future Research .................................................................................. 152
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 155
References................................................................................................................................... 158
Appendix A: USC Shoah Foundation (iwitness.usc.edu) Brief Histories: The Armenian
Genocide, 1915-1923............................................................................................................. 169
Appendix B: Adapted from The White House, Statement by President Joe Biden on Armenian
Remembrance Day. April 24, 2021. ...................................................................................... 171
ix
Appendix C: California State Legislation and Related Curricular History-Social Science
Standards and Framework....................................................................................................... 173
Appendix D: National Council for the Social Studies National Standards for the Preparation of
Social Studies Teachers (NCSS, 2016).................................................................................. 176
Appendix E: Pedagogical Principles For Effective Holocaust Instruction ................................. 177
Appendix F: Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide Model with Definitions. ..................... 179
Appendix G: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 180
Appendix H: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 183
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Lee S. Shulmn’s Categories of the Teacher Knowledge Base, 1987 ............................. 32
Table 2: A Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action ............................................................. 33
Table 3: Four Sources of Knowledge............................................................................................ 35
Table 4: Objectives of Relevant Education and Four Teaching Strategies .................................. 43
Table 5: Participants' Educator Background (Delimited for Study Purposes).............................. 84
Table 6: Summary of Key Findings............................................................................................... 88
Table 7: Research Implications .................................................................................................. 147
Table 8: Recommendations for Implementation......................................................................... 150
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Instructional Triangle.................................................................................................... 61
1
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti (2012) said that to better understand how diverse people
can live together in social cohesion, innovative frameworks which emphasize learning “from
repeated historical patterns of mistakes” and “how we are implicated or complicit in the
problems we are trying to address” must be adopted (de Oliveira Andreotti, 2012, p. 25). A way
to support the outcome of social cohesion that de Oliveira Andreotti hopes to achieve is through
genocide education. When secondary school educators teach about examples of genocides in the
classroom, they provide an opportunity for their students to study these difficult histories,
recognize the patterns which lead them to happen again, and explore possibilities for responsibly
preventing them in the future. Thus, by integrating effective instruction of genocide education in
the classroom, educators can equip students with the knowledge, skills, and tools to become
empathetic, informed, and critical problem solvers who make sound decisions that better society.
Without the inclusion of genocide education in schools, there is a dangerous threat that attacks
on historically victimized groups can re-emerge (Hovannisian, 2003).
In recognizing the importance of genocide education, legislative mandates to teach about
examples of these difficult histories, such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, have
increased across the United States (U.S.). While this is encouraging, there still remains a gap
between legislation and effective classroom practice, caused by barriers in sufficient teacher
knowledge for how to approach the study and instruction of genocides of the past and present.
Therefore, it is essential that educators are provided with access to knowledge that will support
effective and meaningful instruction of these histories to their students in the classroom.
2
2
Background of the Problem
Zvi Bekerman and Michalinos Zembylas (2016) found that “what gets defined as the
official memory…reflects the power of certain groups and ideologies in society to define the past
according to their interests, often by silencing alternative and competing discourses'' (Bekerman
& Zembylas, 2016, p. 16). This concept often relates to how histories of atrocities, like crimes
against humanity, mass murder or genocide are told and remembered, especially by governments
who have a history in committing such crimes. One such example is the continuous denial of the
20th century Armenian Genocide by the Republic of Turkey.
The Armenian Genocide between the years 1915-1918, during the First World War,
resulted in the murder of over a million people (Akçam, 2018). These crimes against the
Armenians were denied and covered up by the perpetrating Ottoman Turkish government at the
time, led by the ultranationalist Young Turk party known as the Committee of Union and
Progress (CUP). For over a century, despite documented testimony of survivors and witnesses
which tell of the human realities that took place and other primary sources, like official Ottoman
Turkish government correspondence which reveal historical facts, Akçam (2018) shared that
consecutive governments of Turkey since this period have successfully created their own official
version of the events with “their own documentary evidence and truths” (Akçam, 2018, p. 2).
The promotion of genocide denial and distorted facts of this period have affected
worldwide knowledge of the true history of the Armenian Genocide and have caused confusion,
controversial repercussions, and geopolitical risks to any country who considers acknowledging
these atrocities as genocide (Smith et al., 1995). For example, in spite of having knowledge of
the scale and intention of the atrocities at the time, the United States for decades had neglected to
federally acknowledge these crimes against the Armenians as genocide (since the term was
3
3
officially coined in 1948), until most recently in 2019. And, while this recent recognition is of
great value, it does beg the question…why did it come so late? For more information about the
history of the Armenian Genocide, please see Appendix A of this dissertation.
Denial is a stage of genocide, according to Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide
model. For a full list of Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide, see Appendix F. At this stage,
the leading perpetrator group(s) organizes efforts of outright denial of their crimes, distorts facts,
tampers with historical evidence, spreads propaganda that puts blame on the victims, threatens
witnesses or academics who investigate the history, puts political pressure on international
governments, and offers financial bribes to individuals or corporations to support their claims
(Smith et al., 1995; Burleson & Giordano, 2016; Mamigonian, 2023). These efforts, as explained
above, are among the adopted tactics that governments of Turkey have continuously organized as
part of their campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide.
Denial and the absence of international justice to account for the serious scale and scope
of the realities of the Armenian Genocide committed over a century ago has caused the inclusion
of this period in history to be misrepresented, minimized, marginalized, or discounted in
educational curricula, globally. As absence of international justice continues, it further prevents
any accountability for the crimes committed, continued investigation or reparations to victims
(Amnesty International, 2023). These consequences also have the potential to motivate causal
patterns of genocide to resurface (Amnesty International, 2023). This potential, thereby, affects
all ethnic Armenians internationally, including descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors
and/or new victim groups.
As noted by Mark Mamigonian (2023), it is essential to realize that genocide denial is
“not always, or even mostly a product of ignorance, but instead a strategy for producing a kind of
4
4
ignorance” (Mamigonian, 2023, p. 2). It is therefore important to understand that messages
which promote revisionist narratives of denial and distortion are dangerous, divisive, and a threat
to historical truth and human rights. Mamigonian (2023) stressed that it is vital that we
“understand how it [denial] works and what it seeks to accomplish. It is there that education is
desperately needed” (Mamigonian, 2023, p. 2).
Statement of the Problem
In his definition, Zembylas (2017) defined difficult histories as “histories that are rooted
in the trauma, suffering and violent oppression of groups of people–such as racism, the
apartheid, genocides and the like” (Zembylas, 2017, p. 189). He continued to share that these
histories are difficult not only because of the trauma surrounding the events but also because
educators are confronted with challenges “to offer a moral or pedagogical response to these
events” (Zembylas, 2017, p. 189). Zembylas (2017) shared that some common reasons educators
may resist teaching difficult histories include “discomfort with certain perspectives,”
“disagreements with representations of trauma that acknowledge the loss of the ‘Other’; and fear
and uncertainty to teach about controversial aspects of traumatic histories, because such issues
create emotionally charged responses in the classroom” (Zembylas, 2017).
According to literature, instruction of genocide education in the 20th century was either
void or minimal for decades in U.S. schools until the late 1980s and early 1990s. At this time an
increasing number of state legislative mandates and standards for Holocaust and genocide
education provided political backing for educators to teach these topics, primarily as part of the
History Social-Science course curricula in secondary schools (Johnson & Pennington, 2018).
Despite these efforts and those that continue until today, research has shown that educators still
experience pedagogical barriers and challenges to teaching genocide education appropriately to
5
5
students, as noted by Zembylas (Apsel, 2003; McArthur Harris et al., 2019; Totten, 2001;
Zembylas, 2017). This issue is problematic, as without appropriate support and direction for
teaching these difficult histories in the classroom, educators are susceptible to neglecting to teach
them at all.
According to Adam Strom (2007), “to avoid [teaching] these realities [of genocide] is to
risk apathetic, skeptical non-participants in our society and future. Too much is at stake if we fail
to create a rationale for teaching about genocide and an interest in learning how to strengthen the
political skill needed to make a difference in this world” (Strom, 2007, p. 240). It is therefore
essential that educators are provided adequate support to develop their capacity and confidence
to teach difficult histories with appropriate pedagogical strategies that encourage effective and
meaningful instruction in the classroom. Strom’s statement aligns with research that addresses
outcomes for genocide education which involve developing in students the skills for inquiry,
critical thinking, historical consciousness, and civic capacities among others (Apsel, 2003;
Harshman, 2016; Manfra & Stoddard, 2008; Strom, 2007).
In 2020, Claims Conference, a non-profit organization revealed in their study that across
the United States, 49% of Millennial and Gen Z American students have seen Holocaust denial
posts on the internet and social media; 30% have seen Nazi symbols on their social media
platforms or in their community; 63% were unaware that 6 million people were murdered during
the Holocaust; and 11% believe that Jews caused the Holocaust (Claims Conference, 2021). The
results of this survey demonstrate the urgent need for educators in the field to recognize the gap
in students’ knowledge of the Holocaust and contemporary antisemitism as well as the critical
skills they need to navigate these harmful messages in their environment. According to Comber
et al., (2019) critical literacy enables students to interrogate text and deconstruct what they read
6
6
in order “(1) to make more informed decisions regarding issues of power and control, (2) to
engage in the practice of democratic citizenship, and (3) to develop an ability to think and act
ethically” (Comber, 2019, p. 4). This is especially important given the findings of the 2020
survey and further emphasizes the need for adequate educator training to support their efforts to
develop these critical capacities in students.
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study was to examine how effective public secondary school
educators in the greater Los Angeles region perceive and approach genocide education, how they
experienced efforts that support their instruction of the Armenian Genocide, specifically, and to
understand the practices they have used in their classrooms, across the curriculum, to teach this
history. To gain a deeper understanding, this study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. How do effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles region
perceive and approach genocide education?
2. What are effective public secondary school educators’ experiences of efforts that support
instruction of Armenian Genocide education in the greater Los Angeles region?
3. What practices do effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles
region employ in their respective classrooms to teach about the Armenian Genocide and
why?
Importance of the Study
Studies have found that Holocaust education heightens awareness about antisemitism in
the past and present, as it also sparks broader discussions about the consequences of racism,
hatred, intolerance and the importance of responsible civic action to counter these injustices
7
7
(Ziulkoski et al., 2022). Raffi Sarkissian (2017) noted that the goals of genocide education, more
broadly, are meant to “dispel feelings of resentment, hatred, and discrimination that may exist
between ethnic groups” (Sarkissian, 2017, p. 109). If these goals are not met, tensions between
individuals and groups can undoubtedly rise and patterns of genocide could repeat again. In this
way, genocide education offers a gateway for students to understand consequences of destructive
patterns of human behavior when it goes unchecked and the importance of resistance against
human destructiveness (Apsel, 2003). This resistance can be achieved when educators are able to
strengthen students’ affective connection to these histories, their ability to interrogate texts and
draw informed interpretations as well as empower their agency to participate in civic society
(Van Straaten et al., 2016).
As cited by PBS News Hour’s contributing author Aaron Morrison in 2022, based on
Southern Poverty Law’s 2021 annual report on hate and extremism in the United States, the
country had 733 active hate groups in 2021 (Morrison, 2022). While this number has decreased
since 2020, in which there were reported 838 hate groups and 940 reported in 2019, the reality is
that these groups continue to spread their ideologies (Morrison, 2022). In its audit of reported
antisemitic incidents in 2022, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recorded 3,697 incidents of
assaults, vandalism, and harassment (ADL, 2023). These reports and the implications they
provide remind us of the urgency to counter antisemitism and hate in order to prevent further
harm and protect human rights. Thus, genocide education provides the tools to address and
respond to these extreme ideologies.
I once again stress the importance of genocide education. It is through the study of this
subject that students can identify the repetitive nature of genocides and identify their root causes.
When students have the knowledge and skills to engage in this type of critical thinking, they find
8
8
relevance when learning about these histories of the past to the current day and the role they can
play toward genocide prevention (Johnson & Pennington, 2018). Thus, the application of
appropriate pedagogical practice in the classroom to facilitate instruction of genocide education
is necessary to build students’ knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that can help prevent
continued group-targeted violence (UNESCO, 2017). In this way, preparing educators is critical
as they prepare the youth of today to become responsible citizens who have the freedom to make
choices and decisions that can break through the cycle of destructive human behavior.
This study applied Lee S. Shulman’s 1987 edition of the Categories of the Teacher
Knowledge Base, as the foundation of the conceptual framework which informed the frame
through which to understand the essential components of teacher knowledge as it relates to
effective and meaningful instruction of genocide education. In addition, the conceptual
framework also includes Shulman’s Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action and Shulman’s
four sources of a teacher’s knowledge base, which informed how teachers develop and access
knowledge to support their classroom practices. A more comprehensive explanation of these key
aspects of Shulman’s work and how they relate to the study’s key focus will more deeply be
explored in the second chapter of this dissertation.
While this study has identified important findings for the field of genocide education, it is
important to bear in mind the limitations and delimitations of the research design. For example,
data collection was specifically delimited to a sample population of public secondary school
educators from Los Angeles, California. This sample population of educators represented a select
group who have led reputably effective instruction of Armenian Genocide education. Further,
this study was limited to one researcher, which prevented the study from being conducted on a
9
9
large scale. Further limitations and delimitations of the study are further discussed in Chapter
Five of this dissertation.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This first chapter has introduced the
study and provided context for understanding the relevant need for genocide education today.
The next chapter will present literature that addresses the value of genocide education and its
evolution in U.S. federal and state legislature. The chapter will also present examples of
empirical research that offer a closer look at understanding the landscape of genocide education
instruction across the United States and research-based pedagogical practices which provide
frameworks and new-age strategies for teaching about genocide meaningfully in the classroom.
The chapter will conclude with an explanation of the conceptual framework of this study to
understand the knowledge and skills educators need when leading effective instruction of
difficult histories in the classroom.
The third chapter will present the research design of this study including the methods for
data collection and analysis. The fourth chapter will reveal the key findings of the study and
present key themes that emerged. The final chapter will provide a discussion of the key findings,
its implications for policymakers, school leaders, educators and professional genocide education
organizations and offers recommendations for future studies related to this topic.
10
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to have a better understanding of how effective public
secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles, perceive and approach genocide
education, generally, and specifically as it relates to Armenian Genocide education. To be better
informed about this topic, I consulted the related literature to understand the field of genocide
education and the essential elements of the knowledge and skills educators need in order to
facilitate effective and meaningful instruction of this subject with students. The literature review
of this chapter served as valuable context to inform the research questions of this study and the
evaluation of the data collected.
The first section of this chapter begins with an explanation of genocide education, its
value and connection to human rights education. The section continues with an introduction to
the history of the term genocide and then provides examples of federal and state policies, related
to Holocaust and genocide education in the United States. The section concludes by drawing a
connection between policy and its impact on curriculum and supports for educators to teach these
difficult histories in the classroom.
The second section of this chapter highlights the importance of teaching history
meaningfully and provides insight to understand the type of knowledge and skills that educators
need to lead effective classroom instruction by providing an overview of Lee S. Shulman’s
Categories of the Teacher Knowledge Base, the Sources of Influence on this knowledge as
determined by Shulman and his Model for Pedagogical Reasoning and Action. The section also
shares information about the standards that history social-science educators, specifically, are held
accountable for when teaching students courses across this discipline. The section concludes by
11
11
providing an overview of classroom strategies that educators can apply in their practice to make
teaching and learning about history relevant to students.
The third section of the chapter offers examples of frameworks and strategies that support
educators in leading effective and meaningful instruction of Holocaust and genocide education in
the secondary school classroom. This section also presents a close understanding of the
complexities that educators need to be aware of when teaching about the Holocaust and genocide
histories and provides suggestions from literature for how to navigate through them. The final
section of this chapter presents the conceptual framework of this study which synthesizes the
literature collected in this chapter and provides a frame to understand the essential knowledge
and skills that make teaching and learning about genocide meaningful across the curriculum.
Value of Genocide Education
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) states
on their website that genocide education is the study of “genocide and violent pasts…of atrocity
crimes and persecution, their causes and legacies, and how they can be prevented in the future”
(UNESCO, 2023, para. 1). UNESCO emphasizes that by studying these events, “we can better
understand what drives mass violence globally, raise awareness of the warning signs and
promote human rights and responsible civic engagement that support peace and human
solidarity” (para. 1). The UNESCO site also shares a rationale for genocide education instruction,
as it claims:
Learning about past genocides and other atrocity crimes illustrates the dangers of
antisemitism, racism, and all forms of discrimination and dehumanization. Examining
these histories raises questions about human behavior and our capacity to succumb to
scapegoating or simplistic answers to complex problems in the face of societal
12
12
challenges. It also reveals the full range of human responses raising important
considerations about ideological, societal and individual motivations and pressures that
lead people to act as they do – or to not act at all (UNESCO, 2023, para. 2).
In general, this definition of genocide education, as well as its purpose and rationale iterate
similar perceptions held by scholars and researchers for teaching about genocides to students.
This dissertation uses this definition as the foundation to understanding what genocide education
is and the importance of its instruction in secondary education.
Genocide Education and Human Rights Education
The goals of genocide education as noted by UNESCO apply broadly to the study of
various cases of genocide across the 20th and 21st centuries and connect to human rights
education. One such example is through the study of the Armenian Genocide. In 1915, amidst
the brutal atrocities perpetrated against the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire, former
United States Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau, inquired with Talaat Pasha, the Ottoman Young
Turk Minister of the Interior, about the on-going violence. In response to Morgenthau’s
questions, Talaat Pasha replied:
Why are you so interested in the Armenians, anyway?…You are a Jew; these people are
Christians...What have you to complain of? Why can’t you let us do with these Christians
as we please?
To which Morgenthau replied:
You don’t seem to realize...that I am not here as a Jew but as [the] American
Ambassador…I do not appeal to you in the name of any race or any religion, but merely
as a human being (Morgenthau, 1919/2017, p. 334).
13
13
According to Adam Strom (2007), this conversation between Henry Morgenthau and Talaat
Pasha can be interrogated by students to uncover “lessons about the kind of society that is built
on rule of law and human dignity, one that preserves rights and demands responsibility for the
safety of our neighbor and encourages us to choose to learn how to participate” (Strom, 2007, p.
243). This concept relates to the outcomes of genocide education and human rights education as
stressed by the United Nations.
Human rights education is an “important investment” for the future. On the United
Nations Human Rights Office of High Commissioner (OHCHR) (2023) website, human rights
education “promotes values, beliefs and attitudes that encourage all individuals to uphold their
own rights and those of others…[it] constitutes an essential contribution to the long-term
prevention of human rights abuses and represents an important investment in the endeavor to
achieve a just society in which all human rights of all persons are valued and respected”
(OHCHR, n.d., para. 1). One way to invest in achieving these outcomes is by empowering our
educators with the confidence and capacity to lead effective genocide education instruction to
students. Thus, as Joyce Apsel (2003) notes, by expanding students' knowledge of genocide and
human rights violations, students will recognize the enormity of “human destructiveness and of
human resistance” and “face the limited success to date in efforts to protect life integrity and
human rights” (Apsel, 2003, p. 189).
Defining Genocide
In her 2002 book, A Problem From Hell, Samantha Power noted that the definition of
genocide was initially coined by Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish university student, in
the early 1920s, learned of the story of Soghomon Tehlirian, a survivor of the atrocities
committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government, 1915-1918 (Power,
14
14
2002). Tehlirian, who had witnessed the tortuous murders of his entire family, was put on trial in
June 1921, for the assassination of Talaat Pasha, one of the leading government officials who
was an architect of the systematic crimes against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. At the
time of these atrocities, the violent acts were referred to as “crimes against humanity,”
“massacres,” or “slaughter” by international news sources and memoirs from those who
witnessed the events first-hand.
While Tehlirian was acquitted by the jury, Power (2002) shared that after the trial,
Lemkin posed the following question to his professor, “It is a crime for Tehlirian to kill a man,
but it is not a crime for his oppressor to kill more than 1.5 million men? This is most
inconsistent” (Power, 2002, p. 17). This story would inspire Lemkin to pursue a degree in law,
where he would begin to embark on a search for legal codes that would punish perpetrators and
prevent future mass atrocities (Waller, 2016).
In 1942, during World War II and the Holocaust, Lemkin proposed a memo to President
Roosevelt that would call for a treaty to make targeted mass murder an international
crime…years later he would publish a book that would propose a term for these actions,
genocide. The term is derived from the ancient Greek word geno-, meaning race or tribe and the
Latin -cide, which means to kill (Waller, 2016). The term genocide and its definition would
finally be adopted as a crime by the United Nations in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The definition is outlined in Article II of the
Convention and states: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (1) Killing members of the group;
15
15
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (3) Deliberately inflicting
on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part; (4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (5) Forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group (United Nations, n.d.).
While the term was adopted by the United Nations several decades after its orchestration,
what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire beginning in 1915 and thereafter
constitutes as genocide. One of the most notable recognitions as such is by the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), which passed it’s Armenian Genocide Resolution, on
June 13, 1997. The resolution stated:
That this assembly of the Association of Genocide Scholars in its conference held in
Montreal, June 11-13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of over a million Armenians
in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United
Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns
the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and
unofficial agents and supporters (IAGS Armenian Genocide Resolution, 1997).
Policies, Resolutions and Genocide Education in the United States
Over the past several decades, the importance of Holocaust and genocide education
instruction has increasingly been recognized by the U.S. federal government and U.S. state
governments (Bitensky, 2018; Johnson & Pennington, 2018). For example, while federal
legislation for Holocaust education has more recently been adopted, state legislation enacting
Holocaust and genocide education instruction in public primary and secondary schools has
gradually progressed over the past 30 years. Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, several
16
16
states adopted policies that would require educators to teach Holocaust and genocide education
across the curriculum to different grade levels (Bitensky, 2018; Johnson & Pennington, 2018).
Among these early states were Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey (Bitensky, 2018).
In addition, most recently, states like Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon have also been added to the
map (Hedger, 2021).
Though the purposes of educational mandates are debated, it can be argued that they
provide a legal backbone for teaching genocide education in course curricula. In what follows, I
will provide an example of federal legislation related to Holocaust and genocide education and
analyze its implications. I will also reference the United States federal recognition of the
Armenian Genocide, the responsibilities of this recognition and its implications. Then, I will
provide examples of state legislation that reference Holocaust education and/or Armenian
Genocide education and specifically address California’s related state legislation and its
curricular impact on Armenian Genocide education instruction. To conclude, I will present
results from several different surveys which offer a closer understanding of the influence of
federal and state policies directly on educators and what critics suggest about these mandated
statutes.
U.S. Federal Policies
On May 29, 2020, the “Never Again Education Act” of House of Representatives (H.R.)
Bill 943 became public federal law in the United States. As stated in the bill:
The United States has demonstrated a commitment to remembrance and education about
the Holocaust through bilateral relationships and engagement in international
organizations such as the United Nations and the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance; the United States works to promote Holocaust education as a means to
17
17
understand the importance of democratic principles, use and abuse of power, and to raise
awareness about the importance of genocide prevention today (H.R.943, 2020).
In this way, the federal government claims to say that Holocaust education is essential for the
protection of human rights and global citizenship. While the United States not only promotes
educational efforts it also commits to “remembrance.” The act of remembrance is
complementary to education as the process allows for reflection on the human lives that were
lost and how they were lost. This reflection stresses that humanity will never forget and the
notion that these crimes should never repeat (Bitensky, 2018). Thus, education and remembrance
go hand in hand in order to enforce the understanding of the importance of learning about and
from this history and its relevance in the current day.
The federal bill also stated that the U.S. Holocaust Museum and other related educational
programs will be authorized to disseminate and make accessible resources to educators that are
historically accurate and timely. The aim is that these resources will ensure that educators’ deep
understanding of this history and how to teach it to their students will be elevated. This federal
law is thus a timely response to rising antisemitism and hate in the country as it commits to
making sure that the consequences of this history are not forgotten and that educational efforts
are perceived as essential. The “Never Again Education Act” was the first bill of its kind.
Federal Recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the United States
About a year prior to the “Never Again Education Act,” on the 106th commemorative
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, April 24, 2021, President Joseph Biden stated the
following statement in his address to the American people, “Each year on this day, we remember
the lives of all those who died in the Ottoman-era Armenian Genocide and recommit ourselves to
preventing such an atrocity from ever again occurring” (The White House, 2021). From this brief
18
18
statement, what is most significant is his use of the term genocide in reference to the crimes
which were perpetrated against the Armenians starting in 1915.
While there are several dozens of Armenian-American community cultural organizations
and institutions across the U.S., there are also several Armenian-American political groups who
represent the community’s interests at large. One of those is the Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA), the largest Armenian-American grassroots political organization. In
response to the President’s statement, the ANCA-Western Region of the organization noted in its
press release that his use of the word genocide is meaningful as ends a longest-standing foreign
gag rule in U.S history. The acknowledgement also boldly ends U.S. complicity in the Republic
of Turkey’s genocide denial campaigns and confirms the official recognition of the Armenian
Genocide (ANCA-WR, 2021). Thus, this statement by the President validates that the country’s
belief in the narrative promoted by the perpetrator about this chapter in history has ended. It is
thus a wake-up call to educators to reflect on their own practice in how they have been
pedagogically approaching this history for decades. Please see President Biden’s full statement
in Appendix B.
President Biden’s statement makes him the second president in U.S. history to ever
publicly use this term in reference to these crimes. The first time the term genocide was used in
reference to this history was by former President Ronald Reagan on April 21, 1981, in
Proclamation 4838. While the history behind the former President’s statement is complex, what
is different in the context of Biden’s statement in 2021, was that it comes just two years after
official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by U.S. Congress in 2019—House Resolution 296
on October 29, 2019, and Senate Resolution 150, on December 12, 2019. Therefore, twenty
years later, the use of the word genocide to describe these events was backed by Congress.
19
19
According to the U.S. Senate Resolution 150, it is U.S. policy to appropriately
commemorate the Armenian Genocide through official recognition and remembrance, reject any
efforts that associate the United States government with denial of the Armenian Genocide and
encourage education and understanding of this history and its relevance in modern times (S.Res
150, 2019). The terms of this resolution hold value and relief for the Armenian-American
diaspora, who for decades have led significant efforts to ensure U.S. federal recognition of the
Armenian Genocide and the integration of this history in educational curricula across the nation.
However, it is critical to note that that while the resolution calls for “recognition and
remembrance” of the events and the rejection of Armenian Genocide denial, it also uses the term
“encouraged” in reference to educational efforts. Thus, Armenian Genocide education is not
mandated by federal law under this resolution as Holocaust education is under the “Never Again
Education Act.” This brings a critical question into view which asks: why is this the choice of
language being used?
In response to this federal effort, on April 21, 2022, Representatives Carolyn Maloney
(D-NY) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) introduced the Armenian Genocide Education Act, a bipartisan measure to Congress, backed by ANCA, to fund the Library of Congress to build
educational programs about the history, lessons, consequences, and ongoing costs of the
Armenian Genocide (H.R.7555, 2022). This response by the community suggests the importance
of federal mandates for descendants of victims and the critical importance of teaching this
history across the nation to ensure future genocide prevention. Thus, through educational policy
there is a belief that this effort will hold President Biden’s statement and that of Congress with
accountability.
20
20
U.S. State Policies
Echoes & Reflections is a renowned Holocaust education program which partners with
three leading professional organizations involved in Holocaust education—USC Shoah
Foundation, Yad Vashem and the Anti-Defamation League. The program offers comprehensive
resources for teaching and learning about the Holocaust and professional development for
educators. According to the U.S. state legislation map their website, to date there are 26 states
that mandate Holocaust education, four states that have legislation pending, five states which
have permissive statutes or that make Holocaust education optional, and 17 states that support a
Holocaust education commission or task force (Echoes & Reflections, 2023). Susan Bitensky
(2018) notes that these U.S. state efforts suggest that there is an awakened sense of responsibility
“to prevent genocides, a goal that requires educating schoolchildren,” about these crimes
(Bitensky, 2018, p. 52). In reference to states that have not yet mandated Holocaust education in
schools, Bitensky (2018) shares that if genocide education is essential for the next generation of
students to be knowledgeable about genocides and to have the skills to prevent it, “then state
mandate statutes are the only real option” (Bitensky, 2018, p. 58).
While most states specifically mandate Holocaust education, it is important to recognize
that language explicitly used by each state in reference to Holocaust and genocide education
instruction more broadly varies (Bitensky, 2018). For example, in some states, legislation may
only explicitly name instruction of the Holocaust in schools while other states use language
references such as “Holocaust and genocide” without explicitly naming other cases of genocide
to be taught. For example, since its original 1994 statue for Holocaust and genocide education,
New Jersey’s legislation states, “every board of education shall include instruction on the
21
21
Holocaust and genocides in an appropriate place in the curriculum of all elementary and
secondary school pupils” (NJ Stat, 1994/2018). While this is the language of the law, New Jersey
does include mention of the study of the Armenian Genocide for students in grades 9th
-12th as
part of its 2020 student learning standards for Social Studies.
Additionally, as seen in this example, Holocaust and genocide education instruction in
New Jersey is mandated in both elementary and secondary schools. However, state statutes also
vary in their explicit approach to Holocaust and genocide education instruction per age and grade
level. For example, Bitensky (2018) reports that “Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey extend the
mandate to all grade levels…Texas and Michigan extend it solely to high school…and
California…grades seven to twelve…Florida and Rhode Island extending it to middle and high
school and New York…over eight years of age” (Bitensky, 2018, p. 56-57).
In an effort to address the use of language in state mandate statues, as it relates to the
Armenian Genocide, community organizations in states like Michigan, such as the local ANCA
chapter aimed to ensure that the Armenian Genocide was explicitly named in its 2016 Genocide
and Holocaust Education Bill (Bogikian Kasparian, 2023). As a result of their efforts the former
governor signed into law HB4493, which explicitly named the Armenian Genocide and the
Holocaust to be taught by law in the state of Michigan (Bogikian Kasparian, 2023). A new law,
MCL 380.1168, also stated that a minimum of six hours of genocide education instruction in
grades 8th-12th is required (Bogikian Kasparian, 2023).
According to Ani Bogikian Kasparian (2023), “with the passing of the law came
responsibility,” thus, she shared, “the governor appointed five members from the Armenian
community to serve alongside with five members from the Jewish community and five
22
22
nonaffiliated members and charged them with the task of providing resources and the necessary
tools for educators to teach specifically about the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust”
(Bogikian Kasparian, 2023). This effort led by the former governor of Michigan encouraged
formal and informal efforts led the local community to advise on the effective support that would
increase to educators’ capacity to led genocide education instruction. Through continued efforts
like this in Michigan and across various states which mandate Holocaust and genocide education,
educators will be supported to achieve the task that is being asked of them.
California and Armenian Genocide Education
To date in 2023, there are 14 states which mandate instruction of the Armenian Genocide
and/or primarily include instruction of Armenian Genocide education in the classroom via state
standards or frameworks. One of the U.S. states which mandates Armenian Genocide education
is California. Almost 40 years ago, in 1985, California Assembly Bill, AB 1273, incorporated
Armenian Genocide education into the 10th grade World History curriculum. Then, in 1992,
California Education Code 51220, was passed which detailed that instruction of Armenian
Genocide education may be included as part of Social Science courses between grades 7th-12th.
See the full text in Appendix C.
In an effort to support educators with their instruction of this history, The Genocide
Education Project (GenEd) a leading nonprofit organization based in California, was established
in 2005, to develop and distribute instructional materials as well as to facilitate teacher training
workshops across the United States. In 2011, GenEd partnered with the California Department of
Education (CDE) to conduct a statewide survey study, Teaching the Armenian Genocide in
23
23
California, to gain an understanding of the way in which Armenian Genocide education was
perceived and approached in the classroom by teachers who taught in the Social Sciences.
The survey was emailed to 3,500 educators, of whom 2,200 were school administrators
and the remainder were district and county superintendents or charter school administrators.
These educators were asked to forward the survey link to the Social Science teachers in their
school or district. A posting with the link was also put forth on the CDE’s social media accounts.
The survey captures responses from 653 respondents, of which 285 taught World History. The
findings of the report were delimited to the responses of the World History teachers.
Overall findings from the survey suggest that a low number of World History teachers in
California were teaching about the Armenian Genocide at this time (GenEd & CDE, 2011). A
majority of educators who reported that they did not teach about the Armenian Genocide in their
course claimed that it was due to a lack of materials that supported their instruction and a lack of
awareness about the California state mandate (GenEd & CDE, 2011). About 77% of teachers
reported spending some time on teaching about the Armenian Genocide during instruction and
38% of these respondents claimed that they spent less than 30 minutes teaching the subject
(GenEd & CDE, 2011). About 59% claimed that they would spend more time teaching about the
Armenian Genocide if they received professional development (GenEd & CDE, 2011).
The implications from this survey demonstrate a discrepancy between state policy and
accountability. The results were deemed problematic by the survey orchestrators, especially
since this subject is mandatory to be taught in the course curriculum by state law (GenEd &
CDE, 2011). The results presented the understanding that with or without knowledge of the
mandate there was a very minimal number of World History teachers who were adequately
24
24
teaching about the Armenian Genocide in their classrooms at this time (GenEd & CDE, 2011).
Due to the inadequate amount of time spent on teaching this subject to students, it was
interpreted that the level of instruction in the classroom was superficial (GenEd & CDE, 2011).
As a result, the authors recommended that: (a) the state needed to address this gap in teaching
and learning about this history; and (b) educators must be provided with a variety of lessons and
activities as well as more professional development which can support their content knowledge
and instruction (GenEd & CDE, 2011).
In an effort to fill the gap that was discovered by the 2011 survey, California Assembly
Bill, AB 1915, signed by former California Governor Brown on September 18, 2014, enacted the
Armenian Genocide Education Act. This Act would add language to legislation that would
advise Armenian Genocide survivor and witness testimonies to be used as part of Armenian
Genocide education instruction in public secondary schools between grades 7th-12th (Artsakh
Press, 2014). The Act also encouraged the facilitation of professional learning opportunities and
resource development for educators to prepare them to teach about this history to students
(Artsakh Press, 2014). In response, a brief history, and strategies for teaching about the
Armenian Genocide with testimony were outlined in the redesigned 2016 History Social-Science
Framework, specifically cited in Chapter 15 for the 10th grade World History course. To see this
text, see Appendix C. In addition, several professional genocide education organizations such as
The Genocide Education Project, USC Shoah Foundation, and Facing History and Ourselves,
increased their efforts to provide educational resources and professional development to
educators.
25
25
Summary
Genocide education in secondary school aligns with the outcomes of human rights
education which encourage students’ critical thinking and agency to stand for justice. While
there have been substantial efforts to ensure that legislation supports genocide education
instruction in the United States, it is still unclear whether it has much influence over educators’
instruction of genocide education in the classroom. The reason for this lack of clarity is the result
of a gap in recent research that assesses and measures the influence of mandates on educators. In
one survey over twenty years ago, 327 educators affiliated with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum were surveyed (Donnelly, 2006). The survey revealed that legislation did not drive the
rationale of a majority of the respondents to teach about the Holocaust in their courses
(Donnelly, 2006). This suggests that the majority of respondents were already teaching about the
Holocaust in their classrooms. These results reveal that with or without policy educators were
already teaching about the Holocaust.
In a recent survey conducted by Echoes & Reflections in 2020, 1,500 post-secondary
students enrolled in four-year colleges or universities across the nation were surveyed. A key
finding of the study reported an overall “positive impact of Holocaust education on students’
attitudes towards diversity, tolerance, and upstander behavior in the face of hate and intolerance”
(Echoes & Reflections, 2020). This outcome demonstrates an upward progression in students’
values held by those who have left high school and have had Holocaust education instruction.
While we cannot be certain that legislation played a role in this progress, it is a possibility that it
may have made an impact in more ways than we are aware.
It is important to note that some research argues that while genocide education laws can
be understood as a sign of moral progress, there can be a political nationalist incentive to the
26
26
passing of genocide education laws, specifically about those genocides that have happened in
faraway locations (Spector, 2021). In her article, “The Imperial Nationalism of Human Rights
and Genocide Education Laws” (Spector, 2021), Hannah Spector noted that while mandates
require the teaching of mass atrocities and genocides that have occurred abroad, outside of the
United States, she questions why there are not enough mandates that support teaching about
similar cases of atrocities and violence which have occurred in the United States. In addition, to
this critical viewpoint, Bitensky, who maintains a stance that genocide education mandates are
positive and important, also suggests that it is of importance to note the timing of these mandates
in conjunction with historical events taking place in the world, which may have added influence
on legislator motivations. Though Spector and Bitensky both support genocide education
mandates, generally their suggestions ask us to remain critical.
Nonetheless, while educational policies set foundational rules, standards, and processes
for school systems to follow, the expectation is that school districts, schools and teachers, as
applicable, will oblige, and create or reorganize their systems and processes in order to make
sure that the law is followed. In turn, school districts, schools, and teachers, will be held
accountable for meeting the objectives set forth by the law. The purpose of this accountability is
to ensure that the quality of the educational experience for all students improves, and that school
performance positively increases (Elmore, 2002). As it relates to policies regarding Holocaust
and genocide education, curricular adjustments as well as the development and dissemination of
supports for teachers must be done to provide the knowledge and skills educators need to be able
make teaching and learning in the classroom possible. Thus, with this expectation, it is critical
that teachers are held accountable for teaching this subject to students. In order for this
27
27
accountability to be successful, it is important that an investment is made in teachers (Elmore,
2002).
Research from the early 21st century noted that while states added legislation and
standards for Holocaust and genocide education, what was often missing from the language was
how teachers were expected to teach these topics to students (McArthur Harris et al, 2019). To
address these findings, gradual progress over the past decade has been made to review and
amend legislative language and curricular frameworks to ensure teachers are provided support
for their instruction and learning goals for students in the classroom. Still, there is more work to
be done. However, in order to address these gaps, it is essential to understand what it is that
teachers need to have as part of their knowledge and skills to deliver genocide education
effectively and meaningfully to students.
In the following section of this chapter, I discuss the types of knowledge needed by
educators to effectively and meaningfully teach about genocide in the classroom, which a focus
on secondary education. I provide an overview of key pedagogical approaches to teaching this
subject to students in secondary school and frameworks that can support teachers in meeting
lifelong learning outcomes that can result from genocide education. The chapter will conclude
with an outline of this study’s conceptual framework that provides a frame for understanding the
knowledge and skills educators need to lead instruction of genocide education to students and
how they can be supported in gaining this knowledge.
Making History Meaningful in the Secondary School Classroom
When people commonly think of the purpose of learning history, they think of the idea
that we learn history so that we do not repeat it. While it is debated over who might be deserving
of the attribution for this concept, the following key historic figures come close: Edmund Burke,
28
28
the Irish Statesman said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it;” George
Santayana, the Spanish philosopher, who said, “Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it,” and Winston Churchill, the British statesman who said, “Those that fail
to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” (Virginia Tech, 2023). While these prominent
figures emphasized the dangers of not learning from the past, scholars and educational
researchers have long debated the purpose of teaching history (Van Straaten et al., 2016).
According to Schneider (2014), the “basic realm of history is a series of events, people,
places, and things that happened in the past” (Schneider, 2014, p. 26). For some, the purpose of
learning history is merely this, to study past events for the sake of knowing that they occurred in
the historical record (Schneider, 2014; Van Straaten et al., 2016). However, studies have shown
that this perception of history does not resonate with students (Van Straaten et al., 2016). On the
other hand, educational researchers and scholars have noted that a key indicator of good teaching
is when an educator promotes student learning by understanding (Shing et al., 2015). Through
this approach, learning becomes more valuable and relevant for students’ life-long learning.
Based on research studies, Shing et al., (2015) noted that a good measure of quality
teaching can be found through assessment of students’ ability in “making connections between
the isolated pieces of knowledge, making connections between the new and old knowledge,
thinking with flexibility, and solving problems” (Shing et al., 2015, p. 42). As an extension of
this view, scholars and researchers have also noted that while studying past events is important,
the key is to explicitly draw connections between the past to students' present-day lives and
society (Van Straaten et al., 2016). In this way, teaching history is not just about sharing with
students what happened in the past, but it rather supports their efforts to draw connections
29
29
between what they are learning to what they know and to consider why it is relevant in the
present day.
In agreement with the key figures aforementioned, the idea of teaching and learning
about history is understanding what happened in the past so that we learn from mistakes, and we
do not repeat them in the present. Thus, by taking more informed actions we can make a positive
difference and change the outcome of yet again cyclically repeating the same patterns. To ensure
that mistakes are not repeated takes critical skill, knowledge, understanding of one's personal and
human values, and recognition that personal decision-making can play a role in future outcomes.
Therefore, with this understanding of the purpose of history, teachers must be equipped with the
knowledge and skill to support their students in achieving these outcomes.
In what follows, I begin with an outline of Lee S. Shulman’s Categories of a Teacher’s
Knowledge Base and Shulman’s related ideas and concepts for how educators develop
knowledge and skills as well as how this transfers to classroom practice. I will then specifically
present the national standards for Social Studies teachers and how they are applied through the
following three frameworks for educators as they plan instruction for teaching history, especially
difficult histories like genocide: C3 Framework, Global Citizenship Education, and Relevant
Education. These standards and frameworks were recurring themes and topics discussed in
educational theory and I consider them valuable for teacher knowledge as it pertained to
pedagogical content knowledge needed for teaching history.
A Teacher’s Knowledge Base
According to education researcher Lee S. Shulman, it is essential that teachers have a
clear sense of understanding what is needed to be learned by students and how best it should be
30
30
taught (Shulman, 1987). Having this knowledge leads to successful learning outcomes and
effective instruction in the classroom. In 1986, Shulman and his team of researchers sought to
understand the domains of teacher knowledge. Under the domain of content knowledge,
Shulman (1986) initially identified three core categories of knowledge—subject matter content
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge (Shulman, 1986).
Shulman (1986) described subject matter content knowledge as a teacher’s understanding
“that something is so”, “why it is so, on what grounds its warrant can be asserted, and under
what circumstances our belief in its justification can be weakened and even denied” (Shulman,
1986, p. 9). In this way, Shulman emphasized that factual knowledge of subjects presented in a
given course an educator teaches as well as conceptual knowledge of these subjects is critical to
understanding the interrelationships between basic information and how these ideas fit into larger
structures. Additionally, Shulman also noted that sufficient subject matter knowledge is helpful
when making pedagogical judgements and connections across the curriculum during instruction.
Shulman (1986) defined pedagogical content knowledge as “the ways of representing and
formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).
Pedagogical content knowledge supports teachers’ use of instructional strategies that encourage
student connections between preconceptions about a topic or skill to new knowledge and
breakthrough misconceptions (Shulman, 1986). Lastly, Shulman (1986) identifies curricular
knowledge as knowing the “full range of programs designed for the teaching of particular
subjects and topics…the variety of instructional materials in relation to those programs”
(Shulman, 1986, p.10).
31
31
A year after these initial conclusions drawn by Shulman, he and his team continued to
conduct more philosophical and empirical research on teacher knowledge. Given the new
findings, Shulman expanded the three categories under the domain of content knowledge to
include seven total categories of the teacher knowledge base. These included: (1) Content
Knowledge (subject matter content knowledge), (2) General Pedagogical Knowledge, (3)
Curricular Knowledge, (4) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), (5) Knowledge of Learners
and their Characteristics, (6) Knowledge of Educational Contexts, (7) Knowledge of Educational
Ends, Purpose, and Values and their philosophical and historical grounds (Shulman, 1987). Each
of these categories is explained in detail in Table 1.
32
32
Table 1
Lee S. Shulman’s Categories of the Teacher Knowledge Base, 1987
(Source: Shulman, 1986; Shulman, 1987; and interpretations from Shing et al., 2015, p.47.)
1 Content Knowledge Relates to subject matter knowledge and its
structures and teacher understanding of the
accepted truths in a domain (Shulman, 1986).
2 General Pedagogical
Knowledge
Shulman (1987) refers to this category as the
“broad principles and strategies of classroom
management and organization that appear to
transcend subject matter” (Shulman, 1987, p.8).
3 Curricular Knowledge Shulman (1987) refers to this category as the
understanding of the “materials and programs
that serve as ‘tools of the trade’ for teachers”
(Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
4 Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
Shulman (1987) identifies this as the
representation of “the blending of content and
pedagogy into an understanding of how
particular topics, problems, or issues are
organized, represented, and adapted to the
diverse interests and abilities of learners, and
presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
5 Knowledge of Learners and
their Characteristics
Pertains to knowing who students, their learning
styles individually and their dynamics as a whole
group.
6 Knowledge of Educational
Contexts
Shulman (1987) refers to this category as
“ranging from the workings of the group or
classroom, the governance and financing of
school districts, to the character of communities
and cultures” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
7 Knowledge of Educational
Ends, Purpose, and Values and
their philosophical and
historical grounds.
Refers to the short- and long-term goals
educators have for students, their teaching
philosophy, values and rationale for their
lessons.
33
33
As part of his work, Shulman (1987) also put together the Pedagogical Reasoning and
Action Model, which identifies six processes which support the development of PCK among
teachers. These six processes include: (1) Comprehension, (2) Transformation, (3) Instruction,
(4) Evaluation, (5) Reflection, (6) New Comprehension (Shulman, 1987). Each of these
processes is explained in detail in Table 2, below.
Table 2
A Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action
(Source: Shulman, 1987).
Aspect of Pedagogical
Reasoning
Action and Explanation
Comprehension Of purpose, subject matter structures, ideas within and outside the
discipline.
Transformation i. Preparation:
● Critical interpretation and analysis of texts,
structuring and segmenting, development of a curricular
repertoire, and clarification of purposes.
ii. Representation:
● Use of a representational repertoire which includes
analogies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations,
explanations, and so forth.
iii. Selection:
● Choice from among an instructional repertoire which
includes modes of teaching, organizing, managing, and
arranging.
iv. Adaptation and tailoring to student characteristics:
● Consideration of conceptions, misconceptions, and
difficulties, language, culture, and motivations, social class,
gender, age, ability, aptitude, interests, self-concepts, and
attention.
34
34
Aspect of Pedagogical
Reasoning
Action and Explanation
Instruction Management, presentations, interactions, group work, discipline,
humor, questioning, and other aspects of active teaching, discovery
or inquiry instruction, and the observable forms of classroom
teaching.
Evaluation Checking for student understanding during interactive
teaching. Testing student understanding at the end of lessons
or units. Evaluating one’s own performance and adjusting
for experiences.
Reflection Reviewing, reconstructing, re-enacting and critically analyzing
one’s own and the class’s performance, and grounding explanations
in evidence.
New Comprehensions Of purposes, subject matter, students, teaching, and self.
Consolidation of new understandings, and learnings from
experience.
Finally, Shulman (1987) identified four key sources related to how teachers acquire their
knowledge base. These include the following: (1) scholarship in content disciplines, (2) the
materials and settings of the institutionalized educational process (for example, curriculum,
textbooks, school organizations and the structure of the teaching profession, (3) research on
schooling, social organizations, human learning, teaching and development, and the other social
and cultural phenomena that affect what teachers can do, and (4) the wisdom of practice itself
(Shulman, 1987). A more in depth look at Shulman’s sources of knowledge for educators can be
seen in Table 3.
35
35
Table 3
Four Sources of Knowledge
(Source: Shulman, 1987).
Source of Knowledge Explanation
Scholarship in content
disciplines
Shulman (1987) finds that this knowledge “rests on two
foundations: the accumulated literature and studies in the content
areas, and the historical and philosophical scholarship on the nature
of knowledge in those fields of study” (Shulman, 1987, p. 9).
Educational materials
and structures
Shulman (1987) finds that this source has to do with “the materials
and settings of the institutionalized educational process, including:
curricula, textbooks, school organizations and finance, and the
structure of the teaching profession” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
Formal Educational
Scholarship
Shulman (1987) finds that this source is research on schooling,
social organizations, human learning, teaching and development,
and the other social and cultural phenomena that affect what
teachers can do (Shulman,1987, p. 8).
Wisdom of Practice An educator’s experience accumulated over the course of their
profession (Shulman, 1987).
Shulman’s work offers a valuable framework for understanding the mind of an effective
educator and how their knowledge impacts teaching and learning in the classroom. While there
have been researchers who have critiqued and revised Shulman’s framework, for the purposes of
my study I will use his work as the foundation of my conceptual framework. With this
understanding, my conceptual framework will more deeply explore how Shulman’s framework
can be applied to teaching and learning genocide education in the classroom and the processes
that support their efforts. My conceptual framework will be further explained in the final section
of this chapter.
36
36
Teacher Knowledge and Standards for the Social Studies Teacher
Zevin (2015) referred to social studies as “everything having to do with human history
and society” (Zevin, 2015, p. 3). The National Council for Social Studies (NCSS), “the largest
professional association for social studies educators in the world,” defines the aim of social
studies as promoting civic competence in students. In this case, according to NCSS, civic
competence refers to a “commitment to democratic values and requires the ability to use
knowledge about one’s community, nation and world” (NCSS, n.d.). NCSS continues to say that
“young people who are knowledgeable, skillful, and committed to democracy are necessary to
sustaining and improving our democratic way of life and participating as members of a global
community” (NCSS, n.d.). Thus, the stakes of this responsibility for teaching social studies are
high. In order to hold social studies and history teachers accountable to their instruction and
learning goals for their students, in 2016, the NCSS approved the outline of the following five
core competencies for teachers to have in mind as part of their expectations and disciplinary
knowledge: Content Knowledge, Application of Content Through Planning, Design and
Implementation of Instruction and Assessment, Social Studies Learners and Learning,
Professional Responsibility and Informed Action. For a full list of what each standard entails see
Appendix D.
From what can be implied by the NCSS standards, teachers must have the knowledge and
skills as outlined in the competencies to be able to lead effective and meaningful instruction in
history. Since the goal of Social Studies is to develop students who are prepared for democratic
civic life, it is also essential that students are able to be critical of what they are learning and ask
questions. Thus, it is important that students develop their capacity for inquiry. Research has
37
37
long promoted the concept of an inquiry-based approach to instruction. The inquiry process
involves asking meaningful questions, investigation, drawing conclusions, and problem solving.
In order to develop these capacities in students, the NCSS published the College, Career and
Civic Life Framework (C3 Framework) for Social Studies State Standards, which promoted an
inquiry arc as its key philosophy.
As per the C3 Framework, its purpose is to “provide guidance to states on the concepts,
skills and disciplinary tools necessary to prepare students for college career and civic life” (C3
Framework, 2013). The C3 Framework takes form in “an Inquiry Arc–a set of interlocking and
mutually reinforcing ideas that feature the four Dimensions of informed inquiry in social studies:
(1) Developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) Applying disciplinary concepts and tools;
(3) Evaluating sources and using evidence; and (4) Communicating conclusions and taking
informed action” (NCSS, 2013). While there are not a sufficient number of studies that tell us of
the impact of the C3 Framework on teaching and learning, the following study provides us with
an early understanding of how teachers may perceive this framework.
In a 2017, quantitative exploratory study, Thacker et al. (2017) explored how teachers’
instructional practices related to inquiry-based learning as outlined by the C3 Framework. The
study was specific to a U.S. public school district in a southeastern state. Through their study, the
researchers explored the beliefs and practices of social studies teachers as they relate to inquiry
and disciplinary literacies and the current instructional practices of teachers and how they align
to the C3 Framework. Data for their study was collected through the use of an online survey with
30 close-ended questions, four open-ended questions and 11 demographic questions. To recruit
respondents, the surveys were sent by email to all middle school and high school teachers
38
38
throughout the district. However, there was only a 28% response rate, which resulted in 45 total
respondents. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and open coding.
The results as reported by Thacker et al., (2017) indicated that for a majority of teachers
the ideas of the C3 Framework “resonated” and that teachers “use instructional practices that
may be supportive of the C3 Framework. However, what stood out most from the results was
that teachers experienced challenges with the dimension of taking informed action and “using
questions to initiate inquiry” (Thacker et al., 2017, p. 89). Thus, as determined by the
researchers, the extent to which teachers “believe in and practice inquiry methods is unclear”
(Thacker et al., 2017, p. 89). While the results of this study have the potential to spark more
research studies that explore how teachers are using the C3 Framework in their classrooms, what
can be understood is that teachers do need extra support as it relates to increasing their
knowledge and skills to lead an inquiry-based approach to learning in the classroom.
Global Citizenship Education
It is often said that history is told by the victors. Studies have shown that this is true,
especially when it involves topics like mass murder, atrocities, or genocide perpetrated by a
dominant group over another. Schneider (2014) noted that the use of counter-narratives is the
way “to push back against the Dominant Discourse (the language of those in power) of history
that celebrates only the ones who were able to ‘win’ (Schneider, 2014, p. 25). She shared that
due to these hegemonic narratives, a majority of people across time and cultures are left out of
the social studies curriculum which finds its way to textbooks (Schneider, 2014). What
Schneider noted is what Elliot Eisner referred to in 1985 as the null curriculum (Flinders et
al.,1986). In reference to Eisner’s concept of the null curriculum, Flinders et al. (1986) shared
39
39
that the null curriculum is what school curriculum leaves out. However, in many cases, what is
left out “may be as educationally significant as what is taught” (Flinders et.al, 1986, p. 34). Thus,
it is important to ensure that when learning history, the teacher must be aware of whose voices
and histories are being represented and whose are being left out and be creative and strategic in
the way that students are exposed to multiple perspectives of a historical time, place and/or
event.
Jason Harshman (2016) noted that work in global education has shifted toward global
citizenship education and a critical approach to reading history, that examines “global power
dynamics, inequity, privilege, and social injustice” (Harshman, 2016). This shift has encouraged
critical global competence education which seeks to develop critically global-minded students
with skills related to inquiry, perspective consciousness, and civic literacy (Harshman, 2016).
With these capacities, students become more curious thinkers, consider counter narratives that
represent marginalized perspectives and develop agency to act on important global issues
(Harshman, 2016). When educators apply this critical approach to genocide education, they have
the ability to build students’ knowledge and skills to decipher messages of denial and distortion
and to critically think about what they are reading, hearing and seeing. Having this critical
literacy will prepare students to lean into inquiry and investigation in order to make informed
judgements, engage in democratic citizenship, and to think and act ethically (Comber et al.,
2019).
As part of the 2030 UNESCO Education agenda, Global Citizenship Education “GCE” is
top priority and includes Holocaust and genocide studies as part of the key themes to drive its
mission. GCE confronts the reality that while the world is becoming increasingly interconnected,
40
40
“human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability”
(UNESCO, 2017). Therefore, GCE serves to build students' understanding that these issues are
not just local but global, and builds their ability to “become critical thinkers, responsible and
active global citizens who value human dignity and respect for all, reject antisemitism, racism
and other forms of prejudice that can lead to violence and genocide” (UNESCO, 2017).
Constructivist Pedagogy and Relevant Education
Research tells us that students internationally find the study of history irrelevant (Van
Straaten et al., 2016). This is highly problematic as the foundation of our present and future has
much to do with the consequences of the past. In schools where educators have been more
purposeful when it comes to teaching history, students have been able to find relevance between
the past and the present (Van Straaten et al., 2016). As it relates to the study of history, Van
Straaten et al., (2016) identified that relevance education is about “allowing students to recognize
and experience what history had to do with themselves, with today’s society and their general
understanding of human existence (Van Straaten et al., 2016, p. 482). The theory behind the
ideas presented here are related to those of constructivist theory and its pedagogical practices.
Constructivism suggests that teachers must create conditions where students construct
meaning of the content (Harris & Graham,1994). Constructivism perceives learning as a social
activity in which students can see learning as associated with others in their environment and its
functionality, meaningfulness, and authenticity in contexts outside of the classroom (Harris &
Graham, 1994). As it relates to this concept, in their article, Van Straaten et al., (2016) discussed
the type of objectives that would play a key role in teaching history as a subject relevant for
students to learn and the classroom strategies that would support these objectives.
41
41
In order to respond to these questions, the researchers answered the first question by
exploring historical and educational theory. To respond to the second question, the researchers
explored several teaching strategies that were described in literature as well as a small-scale
experiment conducted by them. Through their research, Van Straaten et al., (2016) aimed to
“provide a basis for developing meaningful history curricula” (Van Straaten et al., 2016, p. 479).
They hoped that through their study future research may also be conducted into how educators
can support students in making connections between the past, present, and future.
When teaching history is meaningful, students are able to create a deeper awareness of
themselves and their values and can build agency for responsible citizenship. Vaughn (2020)
defines agency as a multi-dimensional phenomenon that “extends beyond individuals pursuing
their interests to strengthening learning contexts where students’ cultures, languages and interests
are in the foreground and where students and teachers co-create learning contexts together”
(Vaughn, 2020, p. 109). Thus, as Van Straaten et al. (2016) noted, this idea is related to teaching
history with the purpose for “building a personal identity and becoming a citizen” (Van Straaten
et al., 2016, p. 483).
According to their assessment of educational theory, Van Straaten et al., (2016) found
that “in meaningful learning, knowledge is actively constructed.” (Van Straaten et al., 2016, p.
483). For this to take into effect requires the process of drawing connections between new
knowledge and prior knowledge and then application of what has been learned to a new situation
or context, in settings in and out of school. This prior knowledge may come from personal
experiences or what real-world issues students have been exposed to. At this stage of application,
students are making unique interpretations of what they have learned, thus learning is being
42
42
constructed. This process of learning is connected to the constructivist approach to teaching and
learning, which is meaningful and motivating, as it activates student participation in the learning
process (Van Straaten et al., 2016).
Van Straaten et al., (2016) found three key objectives when applying relevant education
in practice: building a personal identity (orientation on self), becoming a citizen (orientation on
present society) and understanding the human condition (orientation on humanity)” (Van
Straaten et al., 2016). For students to reach these objectives requires complementary support
from the teacher. Van Straaten et al., (2016), identifies four strategies through which these three
objectives can best be achieved: (1) Longitudinal lines, (2) Enduring Questions, (3) Historical
Analogies, and (4) Decision-making and scenario thinking. Table 5, which was adapted from the
study, identifies the key learning the strategy entails and the objectives that they most closely
relate to.
43
43
Table 4
Objectives of Relevant Education and Four Teaching Strategies
(Source: Van Straaten et al., 2016)
Teaching Strategies Objectives of Relevant History Teaching
Key Pedagogical
Transactions
Building a
Personal
Identity
Becoming a
Citizen
Understanding
the Human
Condition
Longitudinal
Lines
Describe long-term
developments in relevant
domains of human existence
(e.g., labor, food, religion,
protection, etc.)
X X
Enduring
Questions
Study and evaluate issues
common to all humans by
means of various historical
examples from different
periods, e.g., about paying
taxes, dealing with criminals,
resolving conflicts.
X X X
Historical
Analogies
Compare two or more
historical situations or
developments from different
periods or the present to
study differences and
similarities
X X
Decision
making and
scenario
thinking
Use historical knowledge to
assess the probability of
developments in the future to
be able to anticipate them.
X X X
44
44
While these strategies have not been vetted for their effectiveness through a sufficient
amount of empirical research, the objectives and strategies set forth in this framework for
relevant education, pull together wider student objectives and outcomes for the history socialscience discipline as noted by NCSS and global citizenship as noted by UNESCO. The
framework also lends itself to the key universal outcomes hoped to be achieved through the
student of genocide education as it is hoped that through the study of genocide students are better
able to discover their personal values, democratic citizenship, and human rights.
Summary
When history is made meaningful for students, their curiosity is activated, and they are
encouraged to engage in inquiry and investigation of the past. When students ask questions and
engage in activities that draw connections to their prior knowledge, develop their critical
thinking, and skills for problem solving, they are better able to find relevance between the past
and the present. However, in order to develop these skills in students and to make learning
effective, educators need a well-rounded set of skills and competencies as well as experience and
continued professional development.
As found by Shulman’s Categories of the Teacher Knowledge Base, it is critical that
educators build layers of knowledge as it relates to the curriculum they teach in their courses,
their instructional practices and strategies, their knowledge of their students, their school
community, and their own educational values. When this knowledge is applied, effective
educators evaluate their approach and reflect on their impact. To further their knowledge and
skills, educators can seek out informal and formal support to help add to their educational
repertoire. Educators can also look to the expected standards and values of their course
45
45
discipline. For example, History Social-Studies educators must engage in classroom practices
that help students prepare for democratic civic life. To support their efforts, History SocialStudies educators can look to frameworks and standards such as those outlined in the NCSS’
core Social Studies educator competencies, the C3 Framework and/or those that are specific to
their state curriculum.
Teaching history meaningfully also adds value to a student's lifelong learning. Thus,
educators must consider the application of constructivist and critical pedagogical practices that
encourage global citizenship education and relevant education. It is through the integration of
strategies that support these educational competencies that students are able to strengthen their
skills for perspective-taking, responsible problem-solving and decision-making in the present
based on what they have learned from the past. The goals of global citizenship education and
relevant education relate to genocide education as they all encourage students to discover their
values and encourage their agency to make a difference and break the cycle of destructive human
behaviors.
Genocide Education in Practice in the Secondary School Classroom
Research finds that educators often resist teaching about difficult histories like genocide,
because they are “rooted in trauma, suffering, and violent oppression of groups of people”
(Zembylas, 2017, p. 189). When students learn about genocide, they encounter difficult
knowledge to process. Zembylas (2017) explained that difficult knowledge is difficult “not only
because of the traumatic content of knowledge” being learned, but also because students'
encounter with this content can be “emotional and conceptually unsettling” (Zembylas, 2017, p.
46
46
190). Thus, it is necessary that educators have adequate pedagogical knowledge when teaching
about difficult histories, so as to make sure their instructional strategies are critical and strategic
(Zembylas, 2017).
When engaging in decision making for the type of content to use during instruction,
Lindquist (2011) cites that there are four factors teachers should consider in their instructional
design: the validity and significance of the content for the intended academic setting, the
learnability of the content by the students for whom the curriculum is being planned, the
appropriateness of the content for those students, and the consistency of the content relative to
the culture in which it will be taught (Lindquist, 2011, p. 117). Holocaust and genocide
education, generally, requires that teachers carefully identify the best instructional approaches
for their students to ensure effective and appropriate teaching of these difficult histories while
avoiding potential challenges (Lindquist, 2011). Thus, in this section, I will present several
approaches cited from research studies referenced most often that have been deemed to be
effective for facilitating Holocaust and genocide education instruction with students. I will first
begin by sharing literature as it pertains to Holocaust education and then will follow with
literature related to the use of a comparative genocide education approach and will conclude with
interdisciplinary and experiential approaches that include integration of testimony into
instruction.
Teaching Holocaust Education
According to research, the emergence of Holocaust education came into American
consciousness starting in the late 1970s (Johnson and Pennington, 2018). It was at this time that
teachers began to develop their own curriculum to teach the subject in states like New York,
47
47
New Jersey, and Massachusetts (Johnson and Pennington, 2018). However, as Holocaust
education became more ubiquitous, important discussions started to arise about how to teach
about the Holocaust appropriately to students in K-12 schools. For example, debates regarding
the use of simulations were criticized and ultimately it was determined that teaching through this
strategy was inappropriate due to the oversimplification of complex topics. Thus, it was found
that simulations can distort students’ understanding of the realities of the experience and can lead
to misleading perspectives of the history and raise high emotional tension in the classroom
(Lindquist, 2011).
As pedagogy for Holocaust education has evolved and continues to evolve, it remains
crucial to be critical and strategic when planning instruction of the Holocaust due to the
complexity of the subject matter. In the 2011 article “Instructional approaches in teaching the
holocaust,” Lindquist (2011) noted that it is essential for teachers to consider the following
factors when making pedagogical decisions before teaching about the Holocaust: historical
accuracy, the topics to be included, the selection of materials to be used, and the use of graphic
materials given the possibility that unintended consequences may result from the use of
emotionally wrenching images that depict the horror of the event (Lindquist, 2011, p. 118). Thus,
to avoid complexities of Holocaust education, Lindquist offered several helpful suggestions to
teachers when teaching about the Holocaust, that included the important consideration of:
framing the Holocaust within context of the period, including regard to historical events that
occurred before and/or after, paying thoughtful attention to the depiction of violence as
appropriate to student age and grade level, and understanding that the study of the Holocaust
does not necessarily lead to definitive conclusions about why it occurred or what meaning if any
can be made of it (Lindquist, 2011).
48
48
In addition, as part of Lindquist's (2011) approach, he identifies five key teaching tools to
use in the classroom with students when leading Holocaust instruction: primary sources, film,
interdisciplinary units, the Internet, and survivor testimony (Lindquist, 2011, p. 118).
In their take on the essential pedagogical principles for effective Holocaust instruction,
Echoes & Reflections recommended nine strategies to ensure that teachers are equipped with
appropriate pedagogy for leading instruction: Define terms, Provide background on the history of
antisemitism, Contextualize the history, Teach the human story, Use primary source materials,
Make the Holocaust relevant, Encourage inquiry-based learning and critical thinking, Foster
empathy, Ensure a supportive learning environment (Echoes & Reflections, 2023). For more
details on each of these principles see Appendix E.
A Comparative Approach to Genocide Education
Studies show an agreement that the application of a comparative approach to teaching
genocide can help students examine ethical questions about perpetrator participation in mass
atrocities as well as local and international responses to prevent or stop mass violence from
occurring. By expanding students' knowledge of human rights violations and crimes against
humanity, students will more greatly understand the consequences of human destructiveness and
human resistance (Apsel, 2003). Thus, integrating a comparative approach to genocide education
provides a pedagogical model that raises awareness of the relevance of genocide in the present
and allows students the opportunity to recognize historical patterns of human behavior (Apsel,
2003). It is important to note that a comparative genocide approach to instruction is not a
comparison of suffering but rather a closer look at the similarities and differences as they relate
49
49
to examining preexisting conditions common to various genocides, parallels that exist in regard
to what took place, why, and how the violence escalated (Totten, 2001).
Totten (2001) stressed that by teaching about multiple genocides students will be able to
understand that genocides have repeated throughout time and even in the current day and will be
better able to “detect and prevent genocide” or become aware of the “barriers that mitigate
against intervention and prevention” (Totten, 2001, p. 310). He warned that when educators do
not teach about multiple examples of genocide in the classroom, including those not part of the
explicit curriculum, they could suggest harmful implicit messages to students (Totten, 2001).
McArthur Harris et al. (2019) noted that through a comparative approach to studying
genocide, “genocides are examined in their own specific contexts as well as compared to other
cases across cultures and time” (McArthur Harris et al., 2019, p. 498). In this case, through a
comparative analysis, McArthur Harris et al. (2019) claims that the question being asked is:
“why genocide occurred?” (McArthur Harris et al., 2019, p. 498). Thus, Holocaust, as an isolated
historic event, can lead to the assumption that other genocides are not as important to know
(Totten, 2001). Thus, educational policies, standards and resources that are not inclusive of
teaching multiple cases of genocide, only further encourage distorted and denialist narratives to
persist and prevent students from identifying the root causes of genocide, such as but not limited
to prejudice, hate, and intolerance.
Studies have found that when adopting a comparative approach to teaching about
genocides, students were generally able to construct meaning around the patterns they noticed
from the similarities between genocides and also glean distinctions from the differences (Bruner
et al., 2017). One way in which this is possible is through Gregory Stanton’s model of the 10
50
50
Stages of Genocide. According to the model, Stanton identified that genocide builds up in a nonlinear process made up of stages. The stages may occur simultaneously. What is important to
note is that at each stage in the process, there are possible ways in which proper intervention and
prevention of genocide can be possible. When historical genocides are closely analyzed through
the stages, students are able to closely recognize the patterns and warning signs that take place in
society. Thus, by studying multiple examples by using this approach, students can find the
similarities and differences between each example of genocide as well. See Appendix F for a full
list of the 10 Stages of Genocide Model.
Bruner et al. (2017) found that a comparative approach is “analytically and pedagogically
crucial to the study of genocide,” they argued that it is also essential to include genocide survivor
testimony as a valuable source to use with students during instruction (Bruner et al., 2017, p. 3).
When students interact with testimony, they are able to emotionally connect with the individual
(McArthur Harris et al., 2019). However, when using a comparative approach, it is important
that teachers and students identify both differences and similarities between genocides. The
study of the distinctions can support students understanding of the unique paths taken in each
genocide in order to prevent generalizations (McArthur Harris et al., 2019). McArthur Harris et
al. (2019) notes that if there is more focus on one genocide than the other than it could result in
“students failing to see the particularity and horror of others” (McArthur Harris et al. 2019, p.
498).
Using A Comparative Approach in the English Language Arts
Teaching about genocide is very common in English Language Arts classrooms, most
notably through the use of multiple forms of texts (McArthur Harris et al., 2019). In a 2019,
51
51
McArthur Harris et al. (2019) led a qualitative exploratory case study which sought to
understand the instructional contexts and strategies for employing a comparative genocide
approach in two high school elective English Language Arts, Holocaust Literature courses
(McArthur Harris et al., 2019). In this way, this study offered a close examination of the
instructional contexts for comparative genocide instruction in these two classrooms, how the two
teachers used survivor testimonies and other materials to teach comparative genocide, and the
challenges that arose in the classroom from teaching about genocide histories through this
approach.
Data were collected from two pre and post semi-structured interviews with both teachers,
classroom observations, and student work analysis. The pre-interviews were followed by
classroom observation using a two-member team of researchers. In total, 18 classes were
observed. Then, classroom observations’ written student work was collected, which included
graphic organizers, journal entries, and class notes. Post-interviews with teachers were also
conducted.
Findings identified that the teachers set up their classrooms as safe spaces for learning
about difficult histories as they were cognizant of the emotional impact the unit would have on
students. In relation to the emotional impact on students when engaging with genocide histories
and/or testimonies, the findings showed that the use of emotion was a key contributor to
students’ engagement and learning (McArthur Harris et al., 2019). During the close of the class,
teachers also checked in on students to gauge their emotions so as to not overwhelm them.
As it pertained to which genocides would be included in their instruction, one teacher
noted that her decision was based on her students’ backgrounds. Both teachers also began the
52
52
unit by defining the United Nations definition of genocide and focused on the aspect of intent.
Then, they used testimony of survivors and other primary and secondary sources to explore the
emotional impact of the historical events studied, in this case the Holocaust and the 1994
Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda (Rwandan Genocide). In both instances there was more
of a focus on comparing the similarities than differences. McArthur Harris et al., (2019) suggests
that possible reasons include the lack of students’ knowledge about the two genocides and
because of the comparative graphic organizer students were expected to complete.
The two teachers felt limited by the ELA discipline and had to balance the historical
content with the ELA content. They noted that it was important to provide students with
contextual information about each genocide, especially for deeper understanding of the
survivor’s experience. They also noted that the curricular materials were helpful in keeping
students engaged in the process of comparison. The teachers also felt that it was challenging to
teach students to compare genocides in just one semester. Students in both classes acknowledged
that they did not have enough background knowledge about the two cases of genocide they were
studying, especially the Rwandan Genocide. However, teachers did express that their students
were appreciative of having learned about the Rwandan Genocide since a majority had not
known about it previously. As it relates to how both teachers developed their knowledge, both
acknowledged that they sought after professional development opportunities on their own, or
built up their own networks of learning support from experts in the field.
Teaching With Testimony
Studies also show that using testimony of survivors of genocide challenge and extend
student learning by exposing them to human, personal narratives that build their social-emotional
53
53
capacities (Bruner et al., 2017; Manfra & Stoddard, 2008). By providing students with the
opportunity to engage with testimonies of survivors, educators are able to make learning personal
by having students draw connections between what they learn from testimony to their prior
knowledge or experiences from their own lives. It is essential that when teaching with
testimonies, educators recognize the presence of emotion and construct their classrooms to be
safe spaces for learning about difficult histories (Bruner et al., 2017).
In the previously mentioned 2020 Echoes & Reflection survey, key findings reflect that
“one teaching modality–the use of video or in-person testimonies of survivors recounting their
lives and accounts of their experiences during the Holocaust–stood out as having the most
significant positive impact on students” (Echoes & Reflections, 2020). Genocide survivor
testimony, may be represented in a variety of different forms, including but not limited to:
written text, audiovisual, audio, and memoirs. As students engage with testimony, they become
exposed to collections of memory and thus bear witness to another individual’s human story. In
this way, when interacting with testimony, it is important for teachers to set the tone that in
listening to survivor stories there is a responsibility that students carry forward. This can also be
a valuable learning tool for students to discover what message they would take away from a
survivor’s story.
Testimony has the power to provide a human perspective to a historical event that cannot
often be grasped during a sole study of facts and figures. Thus, through their experience of
engaging with testimony, students are not only able to learn about historical themes but broader
themes as well including but not limited to those of hate, dehumanization, human rights, culture,
identity, etc… Students also not only learn about what happened during the events but also learn
54
54
about the emotional experience. Integrating testimony can thus transcend disciplines, literacies,
and skills which can enhance student cognitive affective and critical capacities.
In noting the power that testimony has when using a comparative approach to instruction,
Bruner et al., (2017) shared that the process of analyzing testimony of genocide survivors from
multiple experience groups, can help to determine the patterns in destructive human behaviors
before and during the events (Bruner et al., 2017, p. 4). While survivors may differ from students
in their experiences, cultural backgrounds, and age, Bruner et al., (2017) shared that testimony
compels the reader, viewer, or listener “with enormous emotional power… basic emotions such
as fear, social isolation, flight, failure to comprehend the baseness of the perpetrators, and hope”
(Bruner et al., 2017, p. 4). In this section, I will share one example of how testimony can be used
as an interdisciplinary tool in the classroom and also share an example of how it can be used
during experiential learning experiences with students.
Interdisciplinary
An interdisciplinary approach to instruction involves engaging students with learning
knowledge and skills that draw from multiple different disciplines. According to the Maine State
Department of Education, interdisciplinary instruction strengthens “student knowledge, problemsolving, self-confidence, self-efficacy and passion for learning while supporting students’
various learning styles, diverse backgrounds, interests, talents, backgrounds, and values” (Maine
Department of Education, n.d.). Schneider (2014) shared that when planning for interdisciplinary
instruction, the use of the “Understanding by Design” framework is effective. This framework
encourages the idea of backwards planning, in which the teacher identifies the learning goals for
students, that then drives the rest of the instructional design process where students can achieve
the learning goal. This approach to planning makes instruction purposeful. Schneider (2014)
55
55
claimed that teachers who work in this way are able to have more autonomy in how they
approach a topic and offers opportunities that “spark inquiry, raise essential questions, produce
authentic assessment, and learning activities” that transcend various content areas (Schneider,
2014, p. 24).
One way in which teachers can incorporate interdisciplinary skills during instruction is
through the use of digital technology. In the past decade of the 21st century, digital technologies
have become a critical aspect of the learning process in schools as well as informal spaces for
student learning (Pavlović, 2022). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE,
2022) envisions that all educators are “empowered to harness technology to accelerate
innovation in teaching and learning and inspire learners to reach their greatest potential” (ISTE,
2022). As part of their vision, the ISTE Standards encourage educators to leverage digital
technologies that improve students’ learning. As stated in ISTE Standard 2.1.a., educators must
“set professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made possible by
technology and reflect on their effectiveness” and in ISTE Standard 2.6.b., educators must
“manage the use of technology and student learning strategies in digital platforms, virtual
environments, hands-on makerspaces or in the field” (ISTE, 2022). Through these efforts and
guidelines, educators recognize their responsibility to integrate opportunities for students to learn
history with digital technology.
One organization that offers educators an opportunity to integrate the use of technology
in the classroom is USC Shoah Foundation-The Institute for Visual History and Education (the
Institute). The Institute is a non-profit organization that collects, preserves, and promotes
education and research of audio and audiovisual testimonies of genocide survivors and witnesses
through access to its online Visual History Archive (VHA). For over a 30-year period, the
56
56
Institute has collected testimonies from experience groups across the 20th-21st centuries,
including but not limited to the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the 1994 Genocide Against
the Tutsi in Rwanda, the Cambodian Genocide, the Guatemalan Genocide and Anti-Rohingya
Mass Violence. As it relates to use in the classroom, the Institute’s educational website, IWitness
(IWitness.usc.edu), offers a platform where educators and students can access a portion of these
testimonies that are age appropriate. Through complementary multimedia resources and
classroom ready activities, educators can provide students an opportunity to engage with
testimony-based materials that enrich their understanding of the historical context surrounding
genocide histories and the human experiences as they relate to survivor and witness stories,
before, during and after the events.
In this section, I discuss the findings of a classroom pilot study conducted by The
Institute in 2017, which evaluated the use of a testimony-based activity on IWitness that
integrated audiovisual testimonies of Armenian Genocide survivors. The activity focused on
developing students' deeper understanding of the role that eyewitnesses played in documenting
historical events and the value of testimony as one source of documentation. The study took
place in the classroom of one high school 10th grade A.P. World History teacher in the Los
Angeles region. This mixed methods study relied on pre and post surveys, two classroom
observations, focus groups and analysis of completed student work- a short video essay.
The findings of the study revealed that teaching and learning with testimony had a
positive impact on students. For example, the study found that
The use of testimony in this activity was valuable to students because it made the events
of the Armenian Genocide more real and relevant to their lives, helping them to make
57
57
personal connections to the testimonies and making the lesson more meaningful to them
personally (Kim, 2017, p. i).
One student noted,
The testimonies I saw affected me personally, because now I have an emotional
connection to the genocide so that I never forget it. It will influence my future actions,
because I want to now delve deeper into forgotten events in history, like the Armenian
Genocide (Kim, 2017, p. 6).
Other relevant findings from the study found that by using IWitness, students “gained
digital literacy skills by carrying out research and creating videos that showed the effect these
testimonies had on the views of their roles in society” (Kim, 2017, p. i). Additionally, students’
engagement with testimony and IWitness strengthened their desire “to be more active
participants in their communities” (Kim, 2017, p. i). Overall, the findings of the study aligned
with research studies that present the effectiveness of using testimony as a way to make teaching
and learning about genocide meaningful in the classroom.
Experiential
Research finds that experiential learning offers an expanded worldview for students, as it
engages them in active participation in real-world situations (Gross, 2017; Lindquist, 2011). As
found by researchers, the experiential learning approach is beneficial as it engages student
interest, encourages thoughtful reflection and interpretation of knowledge based on their
experience (Gross, 2017; Lindquist, 2011). In one study that captured the impact of experiential
learning experiences on students, Gross (2017) collected evidence from observations of a student
program that brought 117 students together for a workshop, where they engaged with three
Holocaust survivors. This mixed methods study collected data from surveys completed by 24
58
58
student participants, one-to-one interviews with a total of 20 survivors, educators and students,
and two focus groups with a total of seven participants. The data was collected one month after
the program was completed.
During the workshop, students listened to the survivors tell their story, transferred what
they learned by making connections to current-day world issues of injustice and then
collaboratively with the survivors, they filmed a Public Service Announcement that included a
call-to-action message to stand up against injustice, hate and/or discrimination (Gross, 2017).
Overall, the study revealed that the experiential experience of the program was the most
meaningful. Gross (2017) also found that the negotiation between past and present-day injustices
allowed students to have deeper appreciation for history and shared experiences with others, in
addition to becoming “more critically aware and socially responsible” (Gross, 2017, p. 602). The
program ultimately engaged students cognitively, affectively and somatically (Gross, 2017).
Thus, this study demonstrated that this experiential approach had an effective impact on the way
that students interact, the way they perceive their relationships and their civic responsibility in
society.
Summary
What can be learned from this section of the literature review is the importance of
adequate teacher pedagogical content knowledge of teaching about difficult histories in a way
that encourages students to draw relevant and meaningful learning. When approaching genocide
education is it necessary for a teacher to set clear goals for instruction that will ensure that
student learning is critical and valuable. By using multiple types of pedagogical approaches to
genocide education instruction with age-appropriate testimony as a tool, teachers are able to
strengthen students’ civic competence and democratic values. For example, by adopting a
59
59
comparative approach to learning about the difficult histories, educators are better able to make
the topic relevant to students by helping them to draw the parallels that exist between the past
and the present.
Thus, integrating a multidisciplinary and comparative approach to genocide education
provides a pedagogical model and raises awareness of the relevance of studying genocide in the
present. This approach allows students the opportunity to recognize historical patterns of human
behavior while promoting the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that can help prevent
current day group-targeted violence (UNESCO, 2017). Through this approach, students are able
to develop skills for critically deciphering messages that are divisive to society, learn to
interrogate text and draw their own informed conclusions (Comber et al., 2019). However, in
order to effectively use a comparative approach in the classroom, educators need models,
resources, and support.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study is a “tentative theory,” as it informed my overall
research design and the type of data to be collected (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). According to
Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is a “system of concepts, assumptions, expectations,
beliefs and theories that supports and informs your research” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). In this
section, I will discuss in more detail about this study’s conceptual framework and will explain
why and how it evolved throughout the process of this dissertation.
The original foundation for the conceptual framework of this study was based on
Shulman’s 1986, research on teacher knowledge focused on his research as it relates to the
domain of content knowledge. Per this research, the domain of content knowledge was made up
60
60
of three core categories—subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and
curricular knowledge (Shulman, 1986). This frame in addition to my own experience in the field
of genocide education supported the development of my interview protocol, which guided the
data collected from the study participants. The methodology of data collection will be further
explained in Chapter Three of this dissertation. Based on information rich data collected from
participants of this study and early stages of data analysis, I discovered that my initial framework
was limited and partial as it related to effective teaching and learning in the classroom overall as
well as effective instruction of genocide education. Thus, as a result, I continued to investigate
and search for a more expanded perspective of the essential categories of teacher knowledge that
could also serve as a solid frame to support understanding the data collected.
Therefore, as a result of my research, the initial conceptual framework of my study
expanded to include four additional categories of the teacher knowledge base as found by
Shulman in 1987, the four major sources of teacher knowledge he determined and the
Pedagogical Reasoning and Action Model from his work. These additions are explained at the
beginning of this chapter. In this way, the new conceptual framework of this study provided a
more thorough frame to guide and interpret the findings from the data collected from the study
participants and the process of data analysis. In the sections below, the revised conceptual
framework of this study is discussed and illustrated in more detail, especially as it relates to
teacher knowledge for effective instruction of genocide education.
The Instructional Triangle
The conceptual framework of this study is explained visually through Figure 1. In the
figure, Cohen, Raudenbush & Ball’s 2003 Instructional Triangle is used to outline the dynamic
interaction between the teacher, students, and content in the learning environment (Cohen et al.,
61
61
2003). From the instructional triangle it can be understood that knowledge of the teacher plays a
significant role on the content taught in the classroom and the type of materials used to facilitate
instruction, which influence student engagement and learning outcomes.
In the figure, the characteristics of the teacher are more fully expanded with the inclusion
of Shulman’s seven categories of the teacher knowledge base and the four sources of knowledge
which they must have access to and experience with to influence and strengthen these categories.
At the heart of the triangle is “Pedagogical Reasoning and Action,” which plays an internal role
in influencing classroom instruction.
Figure 1
Instructional Triangle
62
62
Teacher Knowledge and Genocide Education Instruction
As gleaned from the literature and findings of this study, in the context of genocide
education instruction, educators must have sufficient knowledge about global genocides and why
they occur, have the ability to deliver instruction of these difficult histories based on wellresearched pedagogical practices and have knowledge of tools and strategies that have been
deemed effective and meaningful. Underlying my own theory of what teachers need to
effectively teach genocide education, it is my belief that teachers must be constructivist in
orientation and must draw on critical theories to enact genocide education, meaningfully in the
classroom.
I argue that in order to drive genocide education instruction, a teacher must have
knowledge of their teaching philosophy, values, and outcomes that they would like to have their
students reach, when planning for genocide education instruction. Then, through the combination
of adequate subject matter content knowledge of global genocides and curricular knowledge,
teachers can support their students’ ability to draw connections to multiple examples of genocide
in the past and the present day and the parallels between them. This knowledge supports
literature which emphasizes that a comparative approach to teaching about genocides makes
learning about these difficult histories relevant for students to understand and recognize that
genocide histories are interconnected and continue to occur in the present day. Having this
understanding motivates students to take agency in a more active and responsible role as global
citizens in society.
Educators must also have a clear understanding of the curricular standards and/or
frameworks that guide the course and discipline and the type of materials that can be used to
63
63
complement the curriculum. For example, studies also show that using testimony of survivors of
genocide challenge and extend student learning by exposing them to human, personal narratives
that build their social-emotional capacities (Bruner et al., 2017; Manfra & Stoddard, 2008). By
providing students with the opportunity to engage with testimonies of survivors, educators are
able to make learning personal by having students draw connections between testimony to their
prior knowledge or experiences from their own lives. It is essential that when teaching with
testimonies, educators recognize the presence of emotion and construct their classrooms to be
safe spaces for learning about difficult histories (Bruner et al., 2017).
As it relates to general pedagogical knowledge, teachers must facilitate practices in the
classroom grounded in constructivist pedagogy that make learning accessible to all students
through differentiated forms of instruction. Having knowledge of learners and their
characteristics plays a supportive role in determining how the teacher structures this access.
Thus, as part of their approach to genocide education instruction, studies find that a learnercentered environment is effective and supports students in developing skills for collaboration and
inquiry. The teacher also builds in opportunity in the classroom for formative and summative
assessment to check for students' understanding.
As it relates to teacher’s knowledge of their educational context, it is important to know
what type of school or school district expectations or benchmarks are set for students to achieve
or learning goals as it relates to genocide education. Teachers should also be aware of genocide
commemorative days and how their school gives representation to those days.
When thinking about educator’s pedagogical content knowledge, an effective instructor is
cognizant that genocide education is a difficult history and must approach teaching this history
critically and strategically. Thus, a teacher must be aware of critical theories which enable
64
64
students to interrogate text and recognize how power, privilege and domination can influence
official historical narratives. In this way, teachers must integrate counter-hegemonic stories that
validate the experiences of marginalized and minority groups, misrepresented or neglected in
dominant narratives (Epstein & Peck, 2017). For example, global education scholars who have
turned toward critical theory have called for an emphasis on the examination of global power
dynamics, inequity, privilege and social injustice as part of global citizenship education
(Harshman, 2016).
It is also critical to take into consideration the use of the instructional approaches to
teaching about the Holocaust as set forth by Lindquist (2011) and to explore how these
approaches may be modified for teaching about different examples of genocide, so as to
understand and recognize the uniqueness of each.
Another way in which teachers can approach the topic strategically is through the use of
teaching students about the aftermath of genocide. How did survivors move forward? For
example, Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2015) also noted that the final section of a unit on genocide
should enable students to “memorialize the past and also see examples of perpetrators being held
accountable” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, p.14). In this way, they suggest that having
students conduct an investigation of topics related to justice would be valuable for student
learning as it can “fight feelings of hopelessness and fulfill some expectations of fairness in an
unjust world” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, p.14). Through this approach students are able
to “examine how rights are protected, and see victims as transformed…victims are seen as
empowered” rather than pitied (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, p.14). Therefore, by presenting
information on “how societies seek justice after emerging from genocide may enable teachers
65
65
and students to face tragic events with hope for the future” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, p.
14).
Finally, it is critical that when approaching genocide education, educators must have
clear knowledge of the educational outcomes they hope to achieve, and be clear and transparent
with students about the rationale for teaching about genocides in the classroom. Additionally, it
is also important that educators be well prepared when teaching these difficult histories to
students and that they have an awareness of their teaching values.
Summary
Overall, the literature review of this study provides a wide perspective of understanding
the field of genocide education in the United States and the complexity of its instruction in
secondary school education. While the study of genocide has evolved overtime, especially in
secondary school education, literature has found that in addition to developing students’ subject
matter knowledge of global genocides, the study of these difficult histories also builds their
cognitive and critical thinking capacities as well as their social-emotional aptitudes. These skills
encourage students to ask thoughtful questions, the opportunity to making meaningful
connections between past and present-day global issues and form deeper connections with
others. Genocide education is thus a valuable subject that engages students in developing lifelong learning skills which are relevant for understanding real-world issues, strengthening social
relations, and making informed decisions that can better influence positive change in society.
In addition to exploring the field of genocide education more broadly, the literature
review of this study also sought to understand the field of Armenian Genocide education more
specifically in the United States. Despite limited research studies on this subject, it was found
66
66
that throughout the past decade there have been several formal and informal efforts to ensure that
educators provide Armenian Genocide education to their students and that they have access to
professional development opportunities to build their capacity and confidence to teach this
history in the classroom. The educational organizations most notable in the United States for
providing high-quality training to educators on Armenian Genocide education, include The
Genocide Education Project, Facing History and Ourselves as well as USC Shoah Foundation.
Researchers do need to continue to work with these institutions to conduct studies that
evaluate the impact of current educational materials available to educators to teach about the
Armenian Genocide and the pedagogical strategies they use to appropriately teach this subject
effectively and meaningfully to students. An assessment of secondary school educator practices
and materials would support policymakers, professional genocide education organizations, and
administrators in understanding the field of Armenian Genocide education and the needs of
educators to support their overall instruction of this history across the curriculum.
In the next chapter, I will offer a closer look at the methodology of my study, as it aligns
to a qualitative research design. I will provide more information about the data collection
methods of this study and the study participants, as well as the methods I used for data analysis.
67
67
Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter outlines the qualitative approach that was used for this study. The
instrumentation and data collection methods of the study were informed by the principles of
qualitative methodology. As this was an emergent research design, methods were adjusted during
the process of data collection to ensure that the best possible data was collected efficiently and
maintained alignment to the research questions of the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The
research questions of this qualitative study are as follows:
1. How do effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles region
perceive and approach genocide education?
2. What are effective public secondary school educators’ experiences of efforts that support
instruction of Armenian Genocide education in the greater Los Angeles region?
3. What practices do effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles
region employ in their respective classrooms to teach about the Armenian Genocide and
why?
In this chapter, I will begin with a descriptive explanation of the population and sample
of the study, followed by a description of the instruments used for data collection. Then, I will
provide an explanation of my methods for data analysis. To conclude, I will discuss the ethical
principles I have considered as well as the credibility and trustworthiness of my data analysis.
Participants and Sampling Criteria
Participant Selection
The research questions of this study informed selective criteria for my population sample.
Thus, in order to identify eligible participants, I used purposeful sampling, a nonrandom
sampling technique, and specific criteria (Johnson & Christensen 2015). The criteria consisted of
68
68
the following: (1) an active or retired reputably effective educator (2) with five or more years of
experience teaching about the Armenian Genocide in (3) a public secondary school (4) within the
greater Los Angeles region, who (5) currently or has previously taught about the Armenian
Genocide in at least one or more courses in a humanities discipline.
My rationale for these criteria was to ensure that my sample population would represent
credible and distinguished educators who were already familiar with the topic of the study and
could respond to the questions of the interview protocol from their lived experience. A more
detailed explanation of each criterion is set forth below:
Criterion 1. An active and/or retired, reputably effective educator was best determined
by referral or public acknowledgement of having a trusted reputation for teaching and
reaching student learning outcomes as they relate to genocide education. Additionally, I
verified that each participant represented school districts having distinguished
recognitions and awards for academic achievement.
Criterion 2. The study participant must have taught for at least five years so as to be sure
that they were not a new educator but rather experienced, and to assess a timeline of the
acquisition of the educator’s content knowledge within at least 5 or more years.
Criterion 3. The study participant must also have represented a population sample of
educators who taught public secondary school since Assembly Bill (AB) 1915 was
addressed to this level of education. Therefore a reputably effective educator who taught
any grade between 7th-12th was eligible.
Criterion 4. The geographic criteria delimited to the greater Los Angeles region, was
also purposeful as it specifically connected to research questions of my study. As
previously noted in the literature review of this dissertation, a significantly high
69
69
demographic population of students, staff, and parents with Armenian ethnic background
live and work within the greater Los Angeles region, as compared to other regions in
California and the United States at large. Thus, I was curious to explore the possibility of
this factor having an influence on the sample population rationale and approach to teach
about the Armenian Genocide in their course.
Criterion 5. Additionally, while AB 1915 is specific to Armenian Genocide education
instruction in the Social-Science discipline, I expanded my study to include educators
who taught courses from related humanities course disciplines in order to broaden the
data collected across multiple curricula. Thus, a participant who taught any course subject
in the following disciplines, but not limited to, was eligible: Social Science, English
Language Arts and Visual Arts.
Based on the criteria of the population sample, the study participants were selected with
the support and assistance of the Armenian National Committee of America-Western Region
(ANCA-WR). Since 2017, ANCA-WR, has annually honored public-school educators, KUniversity, from states west of the Mississippi, for their extraordinary instruction on the
Armenian Genocide and contribution to bringing awareness about this history to their wider
school community. The honorees were either nominated by their own students, colleagues,
students’ parents, or administrators who believed the educator was deserving of this recognition.
Nominations were application based. By 2021, a total of 45 educators had been honored by the
ANCA-WR. Out of these 45 educators, 35 of them were local to the greater Los Angeles region.
Of these 35 educators, 22 of them met the specific criteria outlined for this study. Therefore, I
purposefully delimited my sample population to the 22 educators who were honored by the
ANCA-WR from the greater Los Angeles region and taught courses in a humanities discipline.
70
70
After I identified the participants who fit my criteria, I emailed each individual with an
invitation to participate in the study along with a digital copy of the study information sheet
(Appendix G). The email invitation described the study, their expectations as participants and
how their identity and data collected would be protected. The invitation also notified them of the
$25.00 gift card incentive they would gain from their participation. Once informed, I asked that
each participant reply back to the email with confirmation of their willingness and interest to
participate. Once I received a reply, I notified participants that I would coordinate next steps.
From the total list of 22 individuals whom I emailed, nine of them replied with interest.
As was previously stated, this was an emergent research design. Thus, in my original proposal, I
had determined that all the study participants in the population sample must be representative of
active educators. However, due to the need for more well-rounded representation of educators
who could provide input from each discipline mentioned above, I adjusted my criteria to include
retired educators. As a result of this update, I gained one more participant in my study, for a total
of 10 participants.
Data Collection and Instrumentation Procedures
The purpose of this study was to understand how effective public secondary school
educators perceived and approached genocide education instruction in the greater Los Angeles
region. As outlined in my conceptual framework, I was specifically interested in understanding
the knowledge that this sample group of educators had in their repertoire and how they applied
their knowledge in the classroom to make teaching and learning about genocide effective and
meaningful. Furthermore, I wanted to explore the study participants’ knowledge as it relates to
the history of the Armenian Genocide, how they accessed this knowledge and applied it to their
respective classroom.
71
71
Once I received voluntary consent from participants by email, my role as the qualitative
researcher began. In order to collect data from the study participants, I originally planned to use
two qualitative research instruments—interviews and documents. However, by the end of the
data collection process, I made the determination that documents were not essential to include as
part of data analysis. Below, I will provide a more detailed explanation of my data collection
process and the way in which I used each instrument.
Interviews
Interviews were the dominant strategy used for data collection in this study (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). As the researcher, I facilitated one round of 10 one-on-one, semi-structured
interviews with each of the study participants. Interviews were the most appropriate instrument
as they helped to collect in-depth descriptive data from information-rich educators that offered
varied perspectives and deep insight about their knowledge and experiences with genocide
education and instruction as it relates to Armenian Genocide education, specifically, in the
classroom (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Patton, 2002). In this section, I provide a step-by-step
overview of the interview procedure.
Interviews with the participants were highly valuable as they represent the key
stakeholder group of the study, educators. Interviews were conducted virtually, face-to-face via
the digital platform, Zoom. Each interview was in English and lasted between 40 to 75 minutes.
Before beginning each interview, I asked the study participants for their consent to record the
conversation via Zoom. I also made sure to clarify any questions the participants had before
beginning the interview.
An interview protocol (Appendix H) guided the line of questioning throughout the
duration of each interview. Guided by the research questions and the conceptual framework, the
72
72
interview protocol highlighted essential topics of the study, through 16 preset questions (Patton,
2002). As the interviews were semi-structured, some questions during the interview were
improvised and modified to include questions that sought clarity and/or were probing (Merriam,
2009). This flexibility allowed room for natural conversational flow that developed organically.
To start each interview, I made time for small talk in order for the participants to feel safe
and at ease (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). As the interview began, I asked each participant questions
to understand their teaching background and expertise, their purpose for being an educator and
their general pedagogical approach to classroom instruction. Next, I asked each participant to
share their overall instructional practices as they related to genocide education, generally, and
Armenian Genocide education specifically. Then, I asked participants to share more information
about their experiences of efforts that supported their instruction of Armenian Genocide
education. I concluded each interview by asking participants to share a message that they would
like to impart to educators interested in beginning or improving their instruction of Armenian
Genocide education. This structural flow of questions helped to collect valuable insight from
participants to support deeper understanding of the study research questions. Additionally, the
video recording of each interview as well as the transcription, both provided by Zoom, was saved
in a secure file via USB drive.
Documents
After each interview was complete, I requested that participants share with me via email
any document they had mentioned using in the classroom, during the interview. Documents
could have included an example copy of a lesson plan, PowerPoint presentations, classroom
handouts distributed to students, informational articles, rubrics and/or student work samples
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The purpose of collecting these documents was meant to provide a
73
73
visual depiction of the classroom materials they used with students and to serve as a valuable
source for corroboration during data analysis.
Participants had at least two weeks after the conclusion of the interview to submit their
documents. I also requested that the study participants block out any names of students on
documents in order to ensure the safety of all identities. However, by the end of the data
collection process, only three out of 10 participants voluntarily shared the relevant documents
they mentioned during their interview. While these documents were useful in showing alignment
to information the study participants shared, I made the decision to not use these documents in
the data analysis of this study. Therefore, they were not used to inform any findings of the study.
However, the documents which were collected have been stored in a file with the participant
initials, to maintain confidentiality, in a secure USB drive.
Data Analysis
As soon as data collection began, so did data analysis. Data analysis involves a process of
giving meaning to data by identifying its essential components and understanding how these
components functioned and how they related to each other (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). To aid in
my process of analyzing the data I collected from each participant, I used the video recordings of
each interview from Zoom, the text-based transcriptions of each interview and the reflective and
analytic notes I had taken during and after each interview.
Reflective and Analytic Notes
As the study participants responded to questions, I documented my reflections of
participant responses and their relation to my personal experiences of teaching and genocide
education. I later referred back to these notes and added to them as I listened to the video
recordings and followed the transcript of each interview. Additionally, I wrote analytic memos
74
74
after each interview which provided a brief summary of the key concepts highlighted during the
interview and their connections to the conceptual framework, research questions of the study and
any other additional unique findings that made each participant stand out.
Text-Based Transcripts
The next phase of data analysis began once I started to review the transcripts of the first
study participant. During this review, I engaged with the data by critically analyzing each piece
of information and made comments as if having a conversation with the data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Thus, I used open coding by being open to the possibility that there would be
emergent codes that would arise from patterns or unique data that stood out. These codes
remained relevant to my research questions and my conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The codes were either exact words from participants, my own words or concepts pulled
from the literature (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Some examples of these emergent codes I used
were: learner-centered, prior knowledge, connections, higher-order thinking skill, awareness,
comparison, interdisciplinary, engaging, meaningful, what's happening now, patterns, crosscurricular, relevance, and agency.
Then, analysis was aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In this phase, I made
interpretations of the data and categorized the codes in groups that represented larger key ideas,
patterns and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions.
Thus, I assigned codes to categories and tracked them on a digital spreadsheet. Once I completed
the analysis process for the first study participant, I followed a similar process for each transcript
thereafter.
75
75
Video Recordings
The final phase of data analysis was using the video recordings of each interview. This
method was most useful as it provided a way to clear any misconception or spelling errors that
emerged in the transcription. In this way, using the video recording supported my efforts to
reference what the study participants said during their interview using verbatim data. This
verbatim data offered a valuable tool of evidence to support my findings of this study, which are
more thoroughly explained in Chapter 4.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In every qualitative study, it is essential to maintain credibility and trustworthiness during
the data collection and data analysis process. Maxwell (2013) refers to this idea as validity,
which is the “correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation or
other sort of account” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 112). Maxwell suggests that two possible validity
threats to conclusions drawn from data collection and analysis include researcher bias and
reactivity. Merriam & Tisdell (2016) agree by sharing that “human beings are the primary
instrument of data collection and analysis in qualitative research, interpretations of relativity are
accessed directly through their observation and interviews” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 243).
To avoid this personal bias, it was vital to investigate my own positionality before and during
data analysis to ensure that there would be no threat to credibility. Furthermore, as
complementary strategies that would test the validity of my conclusions, I used triangulation,
rich data, and analytic notes.
Positionality
As the key researcher of this study, it was important to choose a role for myself that
would be meaningful for the study participants during the interview process and would
76
76
encourage open dialogue (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). In this way, Rubin & Rubin (2012) shared that
“you should not pretend to be someone that you are not” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 75). Thus, it
was necessary to be transparent with the study participants about my current role as a
professional in the field of genocide education, a former secondary school social studies educator
and my personal connections to the Armenian-American community of Los Angeles.
Specifically, as a professional in the field of genocide education, I develop testimony-based
resources for teachers to use in their classroom and facilitate professional development
workshops to educators, internationally. This transparency informed them of who I was and my
positionality as it related to the topic and purpose of this study.
It is my belief, therefore, that students learn best when they find relevance and value in
what they are learning and can draw their own interpretations based on the primary and
secondary sources they engage with. From my perspective, when teaching about genocides the
most essential resource is introducing students to testimony, in all its varied forms. Through
teaching and learning with testimony students engage with the human experience of the events
and their emotions, which extend their perspective of the period and inform thoughtful
connections to understanding the short- and long-term impact of these histories and why they
matter. In this way, testimony offers students the opportunity to learn about genocide beyond the
surface. When educators are able to share with their students multiple examples of genocide
survivor testimonies from experiences across the 20th to 21st centuries they offer the opportunity
to draw meaningful parallels between these human experiences.
My background, therefore, informed the interview protocol, the thoughtful probing
questions I asked the study participants and influenced my ability to connect with the study
participants as classroom educators. Through this engagement, I avoided leading questions and
77
77
asked participants to elaborate on their responses as appropriate. Being mindful of the study
participants and the population sample of teachers that they represent, I expected that their values
and pedagogical strategies would align close to my own and was aware that their classroom
experiences would differ from my own. During data collection, the study participants offered
new approaches to teaching about genocide that extended my perspective. Rather than relying on
my own experiences and understanding, I consulted literature to help me make sense of their
approaches that I was familiar and unfamiliar with in order to draw my conclusions. In this way,
I avoided research bias.
Rich Data
As a strategy for promoting credibility and trustworthiness, Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
described the use of rich, thick descriptions of data as helpful “to contextualize the study such
that readers will be able to determine the extent to which their situations match the research
context, and, hence, whether findings can be transferred” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 259).
During data collection, I ensured that I maximized my time with each of the study participants so
as to gain detailed and thorough responses that would reveal a deep understanding of the study
participants’ perception and approaches to genocide education and Armenian Genocide,
specifically. Thus, my interview protocol encompassed questions that would offer descriptive
context to inform a well-rounded understanding of each of the study participants’ teaching
philosophy, general pedagogical practices in the classroom and how these categories of
knowledge transferred to their pedagogical approaches to genocide education, and their practices
for teaching about the Armenian Genocide in the classroom.
In order to aid my conclusions and explanations of this rich data collected from the study
participants, I corroborated the video recordings, text-based transcriptions, and personal notes
78
78
that I had taken during the interview. This approach was most useful, in providing verbatim data
that would support clarity in understanding what participants specifically said during their
interview and the context to avoid my own interpretation.
Adequate Engagement in Data Collection
Another strategy for promoting the validity of findings is adequate engagement in data
collection. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also identify this strategy as “adequate time spent
collecting data such that the data becomes ‘saturated’’ this may involve seeking discrepant or
negative cases” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 259). In this way, many questions answered by the
study participants provided similar data and were not revealing any new information. Thus, I
began to look for variation in the data to find any new emerging information or alternative
perspectives across participant responses.
Ethics
As a researcher, my ethical responsibilities toward the human participants of my study
ranged from showing them respect, keeping my promises and ensuring that they were not
deceived or pressured in any way (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Participants in this study were given
the opportunity to voluntarily partake through informed consent. In this way, the relationship
between the researcher and research participants was symmetrical and participants felt
empowered by their choice to partake in the study (Glesne, 2011). The study participants were
invited to participate through an initial email invitation sent to them by me directly. By
reviewing the information provided in the email, participants were able to make an informed
decision as to whether they would like to engage in the study. They were also made aware that
despite their initial choice to participate, they had the right to stop participating at any time
(Glesne, 2011).
79
79
The initial invitation email revealed the data collection process of the study, its analysis,
and the ways in which the data would be shared and kept confidential. This disclosure of
information was critical to the ethical code of research which emphasizes that participants must
understand all of the risks involved and how their contributions will be used, and how their
identity would be kept confidential throughout the duration of the study up to its publication.
Once participants made the decision to participate, they were informed that all data collected
would be stored safely. At the conclusion of the study, all recorded data will be destroyed to
further conceal and protect participant confidentiality.
The initial recruitment email provided participants with access to key biographical
information about me, so they were able to learn more about my positionality as the researcher of
the study. The purpose of revealing this information was so that I was transparent about my
positionality on the topic of this study. This transparency was critical to reveal in my role as a
researcher, so participants were aware of the lens through which I approached this study and how
this may influence the types of questions asked to participants during their interviews (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). Therefore, my role as a researcher was one of an investigator who sought to
genuinely understand their perception and approach to genocide education instruction and to
Armenian Genocide education instruction in particular.
Empirical research on teaching about the Armenian Genocide is limited in the field of
education. Thus, I explained to participants that their contribution to this study was highly
valued. Participants were made aware that the data collected from their interviews may be
reported and shared with scholars, educators, and organizations in the field who live and work in
the greater Los Angeles area, so as to advance knowledge on this topic. For example, it is
possible that information from this study may be published in Armenian community news
80
80
outlets. I hope that this study will pave the way for more of its kind in other states which
mandate Armenian Genocide education.
81
81
Chapter Four: Findings
This dissertation aimed to understand how reputably effective public secondary school
educators perceive and approach genocide education in the greater Los Angeles region.
Furthermore, this study explored the practices that these effective educators employ in the
classroom to teach about the Armenian Genocide, specifically, and their experiences of efforts
that support the instruction of this history in their respective classrooms. The findings of this
study addressed the following research questions:
1. How do reputably effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles
region perceive and approach genocide education?
2. What are reputably effective public secondary school educators’ experiences of efforts
that support instruction of Armenian Genocide education in the greater Los Angeles
region?
3. What practices do reputably effective public secondary school educators in the greater
Los Angeles region employ in their respective classrooms to teach about the Armenian
Genocide and why?
Research finds that educators often shy away from teaching difficult histories to students.
While the study participants are representative of a sample population that is exceptional,
overall, through data analysis, I concluded that there are multiple factors which play a role on
their perception and approach to genocide education in their respective classrooms. The
conceptual framework informed the findings of this study by acting as a “tentative theory”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 39) to make sense of the data. Grounded in Shulman’s categories of the
teacher knowledge base, my conceptual framework helped me to understand the essential types
of knowledge and skills educators need to have in order to lead instruction of genocide education
82
82
effectively in their course subjects (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). It also served as a source to draw
connections from literature which discuss the impact of integrating constructivist pedagogy in
the classroom as well as research-based educational frameworks and strategies which make
teaching and learning about genocide meaningful.
In this chapter, I will present the four major findings that emerged from this study as
related to the research questions: (1) Genocide education is a responsibility to teach and is
relevant for students to learn; (2) A constructivist approach to genocide education makes
learning about difficult histories meaningful; (3) Formal and informal learning opportunities
contribute to effective instruction of Armenian Genocide education; and (4) Armenian Genocide
can be taught across the curriculum. Before providing a thorough explanation of these findings, I
will first present an overview of pertinent information related to the participants of this study
which provide a frame to understand the overall key findings of this study.
Participants
This qualitative study was based on 10 individual interviews with the population sample.
All participants were deemed to be reputable educators due to public recognition for their
individual efforts to teach about the Armenian Genocide effectively and meaningfully to
students. The participants also taught in school districts with several recognitions for academic
achievement and excellence. At the time of data collection, eight out of 10 participants were
actively teaching high school, while one of the two remaining participants was teaching middle
school and the other was a retired high school educator. More information about participants as it
relates to their teaching experience, for the purposes of this study can be seen in Table 6.
All study participants were experienced educators who work in the greater Los Angeles
region and have anywhere between seven to 34 years of teaching experience. Collectively,
83
83
participants have taught varied course subjects across three humanities focused disciplines–
History Social-Science, English Language Arts and Visual Arts. For the purposes of this study,
the study participants courses taught has provided in Table 6, is delimited to one or two courses
in which they have specifically taught about the Armenian Genocide to their students. During
their interview, each participant responded to questions through the lens of this specified
course(s). See Appendix H for reference to the interview protocol used in this study.
As noted in my literature review, the greater Los Angeles region has a high demographic
population of people with ethnic Armenian background as compared to other regions in
California and the United States at large. In this region, seven out of 10 participants shared that
they worked in a school district that designates Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day–April
24–as a school day off in commemoration of this history. Over the course of their career, all the
study participants noted that through their time teaching in their school district, they have each
engaged with Armenian students, families, colleagues, or community members. The study
participants’ ethnic background, race or cultural affiliation was generally not collected unless
revealed by the participant. Ms. Kussajikian and Mr. Keshishian both revealed that they were of
Armenian descent and Ms. Zimmerman revealed she was of Jewish descent. This information is
referenced in this chapter within the explanation of the findings when relevant for context.
Pseudonyms were used to identify each participant for confidentiality purposes. The
pseudonym used for each participant is significant in that each name is that of an individual who
at one point from 1915-1930, worked for the Near East Relief, which was the American
organization responsible for providing large scale humanitarian relief in response to the
Armenian Genocide. The efforts of the organization, originally known in 1915 as the American
84
84
Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief was later known in 1919 as the Near East Relief,
after it was incorporated by an act of U.S. Congress (Near East Foundation, n.d.). Their efforts
supported many refugees and orphans at the time including but not limited to Armenian, Greek
and Assyrians. Today, the Near East Relief is known as the Near East Foundation.
Table 5
Participants' Educator Background (Delimited for Study Purposes)
Participant Gender Years
Teach
ing
Level Discipline Courses Taught School District
Mr. Keshishian M 12 High School History SocialScience
U.S. History (11th) District 1
Ms. Cushman F 24 High School History SocialScience
A.P. Human Geography
(11th)
District 1
Ms. Zimmerman F 24 High School History SocialScience
A.P. Government (12th) District 1
Ms. Corning F 7 Middle
School
History SocialScience in Spanish
World Language
World History (7th)/
US History (8th)
District 1
Ms. Jacobson F 34 High School English Language
Arts
English Language
Arts/World History
Combined (10th)
District 1
Mr. Kunzler M 30 High School History SocialScience
A.P. World History
(10th)
District 2
Ms. Kussajikian F 24 High School Social-Science A.P. Human Geography
(11th)/
World History (10th)
District 2
Ms. Atkinson F 7 High School Visual Arts Studio Art II District 3
Mr. Kerr M 28 High School Social-Science World History (10th) District 4
Mr. Dewey M 33 High School Social-Science A.P. U.S. History District 5
85
85
For a more collective understanding of the population sample and the way in which they
perceive their role in education, I have provided the following brief overview that tells of each
participant’s drive to be an educator and their overall teaching philosophy. Having knowledge of
an educator’s teaching philosophy can support better understanding of the learning environment
they create for students and the pedagogical approach(es) that guides their instructional practice.
Each teaching philosophy can vary according to contextual factors, such as personal experiences
and/or course discipline specialization. As part of Shulman’s (1987), categories for teacher
knowledge base, this information collected about participants relates to “Knowledge of
Educational Ends, Purpose, and Values and their philosophical and historical grounds”
(Shulman, 1987, p.8). From the findings as they relate to this category of knowledge, it can be
understood that each of the study participants is an educator with agency, having the intention
and purpose to inspire their students to be agents of change.
Drive to be an Educator
While each participant was asked “Why are you an educator?,” a few participants
responded with answers that alluded to the idea that it was because they strived to make a
difference in society. For example, Ms. Zimmerman shared, “I wanted a career where there
would be evidence of positive change.” Mr. Keshishian shared that his decision can be traced
back to his personal experiences in secondary school when he was inspired by getting involved
with issues of social justice. Other participants shared that they were an educator because they
wanted to serve as an inspiration to students. For example, Ms. Cushman said that for her, high
school was a “place of refuge.” She explained that she “fell in love with the idea that [she] might
be able to be there for some students in the same way that other educators were there for [her].”
Mr. Kerr stated:
86
86
I had some great teachers in my life that have kind of inspired me, and you know, to
engage a classroom, there is nothing more powerful than that…[to] impart what you’ve
learned unto others, and work with young people that has just been a great pleasure in my
life, to be able to have the opportunity to do that.
Other participants, like Mr. Kunzler and Mr. Dewey, expressed that after teaching for over 30
years neither could have imagined having an alternative career. Though being an educator was
not their first-choice profession, they both noted that it was the best decision they ever made.
Teaching Philosophy
A few participants stressed the importance of creating a classroom space where students
feel “safe,” “comfortable” and “cared for.” To support this notion, Ms. Zimmerman shared, “My
number one goal is that in my classroom students feel safe and they feel comfortable. And, if in
that space they also hopefully learn some stuff about the American government, great.”
Similarly, Ms. Cushman stated:
I try to value the person over their performance…what they learn doesn’t always match
what grade they get. They might not remember what you teach, but they will remember
how you treated them. If by caring about them first, they’re able to attach more to the
subject area, then that’s obviously a big deal.
In this way, we can understand that for educators like Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Cushman, their
philosophy is grounded in the idea that students’ well-being is prioritized above content
knowledge learned in the classroom. Through this approach, educators can ensure that students
are in a safe and supportive learning environment where they are more inclined to make
connections, perform well and ask for help.
87
87
Other participants described teaching philosophies which focused on the aim of widening
students’ perspectives. For example, as related to the History Social-Science discipline, Ms.
Kussajikian stated, “It’s very important for me to give them [students] knowledge of the world,
and then have them be aware of different people and how people live in different parts of the
world.” Additionally, Ms. Jacobson, who described her teaching philosophy through the lens of
English Language Arts, shared that:
Education in many respects shouldn’t be isolated into these [separated] subjects because
humanities, what humans create…all weave in together. What’s going on historically is
affecting what people decide to write and what they decide to paint…being able to
incorporate the History and English pieces together was really important.
These educators emphasized that by bringing in multiple voices and experiences from people
around the world who have lived history, students are better able to recognize the similarities and
differences in the way people lived throughout the world and across time as related to the present
day and the importance of historical context in influencing people and their decisions
.
88
88
Table 6
Summary of Key Findings
Research Question 1:
How do effective public
secondary school educators in the
greater Los Angeles region
perceive and approach genocide
education instruction?
Finding 1: Genocide education is a
responsibility to teach and is relevant for
students to learn
Finding 2: A constructivist approach to genocide
education makes learning about difficult histories
meaningful.
•Awareness of genocides
•Accountability for personal behavior
•Prevent repetition
•Relationship between past and present
•Active student participation in learning process
•Discover parallels between genocides
•Deepens empathy
•Agency building
Research Question 2:
What are reputably effective
public secondary school
educators’ experiences of efforts
that support instruction of
Armenian Genocide education in
the greater Los Angeles region?
Finding 3: Formal and informal learning opportunities contribute to effective instruction of Armenian
Genocide education.
a) Formal Learning
•Attend mandatory professional development
(i.e. hosted by school districts, institutions,
etc...)
b) Informal Learning
•Receive support from individuals in the school community
(i.e. colleagues, student families, etc…)
•Armenian-American community descendants
•Self-learning
Research Question 3:
What practices do reputably
effective public secondary school
educators in the greater Los
Angeles region employ in their
respective classrooms to teach
about the Armenian Genocide
and why?
Finding 4: Armenian Genocide education can be taught across the curriculum.
a) Can be taught beyond limitations of World
History courses.
•Political conflicts and/or ethnic/religious
conflicts
•Literary texts based on survivor accounts
•From an American perspective
b) Builds knowledge and skills beyond awareness of history.
•Primary and secondary sources
•Cross-curricular collaboration
•Transitional Justice Education
89
89
Finding 1: Genocide education is a responsibility to teach and relevant
for students to learn.
As it relates to the first part of the first research question, this study sought to understand
how effective public secondary school educators in greater Los Angeles perceive genocide
education. Through the process of data analysis, I concluded that in general the study participants
regard genocide education as a responsibility to teach and a subject relevant for students to learn.
In support of this conclusion, this section will offer context for understanding this key finding
and how it relates to the importance of educators having Knowledge of Educational Ends,
Purpose and Values and their philosophical and historical grounds as identified by Shulman to be
an essential category of a teacher's knowledge base. Thus, as outlined below, I will provide
specific examples of how the study participants uniquely defined genocide education and a
closer look at their rationale for teaching this subject to students. To conclude, I will summarize
how these elements have collectively shaped the overall perception of genocide education held
by the population sample of this study, as described through the key finding of this section, and
the relation of this perception to literature.
Defining Genocide Education
In a basic explanation of genocide education, Apsel (2003) referred to genocide
education as the study of “human destructiveness and of human resistance” (Apsel, 2003, 189).
Apsel (2023) shared that the subject explores the “history of mass destruction of a targeted
people with examination of processes and repeated patterns, techniques, and directions” (Apsel,
2003, 189). Apsel’s perspective focuses on the study of the mechanisms of genocide, the process
of how genocide against the targeted group can unfold and the way in which these patterns repeat
in different cases of genocide throughout history. Her perspective also additionally includes the
90
90
study of resistance against these violations by the targeted group and/or those that offered aid
and support against the odds.
As related to Apsel’s perspective of genocide education as the study of human
destructiveness, several of the study participants defined genocide education similarly and
articulated an expanded explanation of their specific view. For example, Ms. Jacobson described
genocide education as “educating about specifically targeted attempts by usually a more majority
power to wipe out an ethnic, religious, or indigenous group, either through direct…or through
indirect methods which are designed to create death of a people through forced marches, denial
of food, etc….” As Ms. Jacobson’s definition related genocide education to the study of the
mechanisms and techniques used to carry out genocide, Mr. Kerr focused his definition of
genocide education as the study of the process that led to the mechanisms and techniques used
for human destruction. He shared:
[Genocide] is a process that builds. You just all of a sudden don't have a genocide that
happens. There are stages that build up to it. And I think my point as a genocide
awareness educator is to get students to see those early signs…[and] what that could
potentially lead to.
In this way, Mr. Kerr shared that genocide education is the study of the process through which
genocide can occur. Similarly, Mr. Keshishian expanded on this notion as he defined genocide
education as the study of human behavior. For example, Mr. Keshishian stated:
Genocide education is pretty complex…You know, we talk about genocide as the
systematic destruction of an entire race or groups of people. But sometimes we forget to
acknowledge, you know, how we get there, right? So, for me, genocide education is kind
of this big picture story of understanding human behavior, understanding
91
91
dehumanization, scapegoating, stereotyping, and these things that can eventually lead to
you know, systematic destruction of people.
In this way, Mr. Keshishian builds on Mr. Kerr’s mention of studying the “early signs” of
genocide and refers to them as the human behaviors caused by sentiments of prejudice, hate and
fear among others, which signal the potential to create divisive and violent consequences.
In a more elaborated definition of genocide education as the study of destructive human
behaviors, Mr. Kunzler expressed:
Genocide education for me means that we have to acknowledge that this is something
that happens, that people have done it, that it is real…it’s not just because of one crazy
person in the past, or whatever, this is a real thing that, if we allow it, could happen, and
then here's why it happened in these circumstances, here's what people didn't do, and
here's what people did or didn’t do to acknowledge it, and here's why the situation
developed.
Mr. Kunzler’s expanded perspective of genocide education offers a more nuanced understanding
that genocide is caused by individuals who make choices and decisions. His definition also
provides the importance of teaching and learning about those who made decisions that would
lead to human destruction and those who resisted the efforts. Mr. Kunzler’s definition highlights
the importance of recognizing that genocide education can also offer the understanding of
moments when individuals protected or spoke up for humanity in an environment of human
destructiveness.
In addition to the perspective of genocide education as the study of human
destructiveness, its process, and human resistance, two of the study participants noted that it also
includes the study of the human impact. In this way, this perspective also recognizes the
92
92
importance of teaching and learning about the effects human destructiveness has on the
individuals targeted and/or involved either as witnesses or even perpetrators. As an example, Ms.
Atkinson identified questions that genocide education raises for students which included:
How did that [the experience as it relates to genocide] feel for those involved? How did
that impact the culture as a whole? Do we still see remnants of genocide? How do we see
how that impacted the folks directly involved and those surrounding them?
These questions Ms. Atkinson highlights model how genocide education can develop historical
empathy through historical inquiry (Endacott, 2014). According to Endacott (2014) historical
empathy offers an understanding for “how the people in the past thought, felt, made decisions,
acted, and faced consequences within a specific historical and social context (Endacott, 2014, p.
4). Thus, Ms. Atkinson’s perspective of genocide education enables students to develop
historical empathy as it relates to deeply understanding the human impact of destructive human
behaviors and their short- and long-term consequences.
Lastly, out of all the study participants, only one offered a definition that encompassed all
of the perspectives noted above and provided an additional point which included that genocide
education is the means toward genocide prevention. In a simple expression of her definition, Ms.
Corning expressed that for her “genocide education…means teaching my students about the
phenomenon of genocide, including its causes, its nature, its global impact and its prevention.”
The inclusion of genocide prevention as part of her definition, affirms the purpose of genocide
education beyond knowing about what happened in the past, but that it is important to ensure that
the processes of how genocide occurs and all that it involves is not repeated. This additional
point offers a deeper perspective of genocide education as a subject that is relevant for the
current day. While Ms. Corning was the only participant who articulated prevention as part of
93
93
the definition of genocide education, this idea aligns with a significant amount of research that
generally understands the purpose of the subject to ultimately prevent future genocides
(Mamigonian, 2023). Other participants do discuss genocide prevention as it relates to their
rationale for teaching genocide education or make implicit connections to this idea. These
examples will be discussed more deeply below.
Rationale for Teaching Genocide Education
The study participants also shared in consensus that genocide education is an important
subject to teach to students and thus a responsibility. This notion was either expressed explicitly
or implied by participants after analysis of data collection. In what follows, I will provide
examples of data collected from the study participants that support this rationale for genocide
education instruction. In one example, Ms. Zimmerman expressed that genocide education is
“imperative” to teach. She shared that this view was based on her personal sense of
understanding the traumatic impact of genocide and the importance of knowing about these
histories. She stated:
I'm Jewish. And so, while my family was long out of Europe before the Holocaust…it is
still part of sort of like the fabric of my understanding of the world, that there are just
these horrors beyond our comprehension, but they've happened so they have to be part of
our comprehension.
Ms. Zimmerman’s explanation for the importance of genocide education instruction claims that
learning about the dark realities of humanity is necessary for students to be aware of in order
recognize that humans are actually capable of the mass destruction caused by genocide. In this
way, it is implied from her viewpoint that learning about genocide is a way to break through
ignorance of these realities that can often be hidden from dominant narratives of history.
94
94
In another example, Mr. Keshishian, a descendant of Armenian survivors, offered a more
expanded perspective of the importance of genocide education instruction and the responsibility
it carries. He shared:
Given what's happening around the country where you know, the stories of minority
groups are being silenced or attempting to be silenced…I think it's important to make
sure that we teach things that are uncomfortable, because they happened...I think it helps
build empathy and cross-cultural understanding…we live in a very diverse society, but
sometimes we're isolated and we don't get to see other people's challenges and learn from
each other.
Mr. Keshishian’s perspective implies that teaching about genocides that have happened can serve
to build deeper human connections between students and society at large. In this way, his
perspective aligns with literature which states that genocide education allows for empathetic
forms of learning that have the potential to breakthrough barriers in society (Sarkissian, 2017). In
addition, his view is also consistent with intentions of genocide education in the 1970s which
promoted the idea that the study of the Holocaust would encourage students to recognize “the
relationship between the individual and society in a way that would be relevant to their own
lives” (Fallace, 2006, p. 84). In this way, by studying the impact of divisive human behaviors
that genocide education unfolds, educators empower students to recognize the power of building
human connections as a way to counter forms of isolation and targeted violence and injustices
between groups of people.
In her explanation on the importance of genocide education, Ms. Kussajikian, also a
descendant of Armenian survivors, shared:
95
95
Atrocities are still happening in the world…[students] need to know and [we need] to be
able [to do] as much as we can education wise. We may not completely prevent them, but
at least [we can] have the students understand how they begin.
Through this expression, Ms. Kussajikian emphasizes that genocide education is a responsibility
for educators to teach their students, as the reality is that genocide and other types of atrocities
still continue in the present-day. Her perspective aligns with literature which claims that the
study of past genocides can support discussion and understanding of present-day global issues
(Johnson & Pennington, 2018). She notes that genocide education is thus a means for students to
be informed when they encounter messages that signal early signs of divisive human behavior.
Adding on to her explanation, Ms. Kussajikian continued to express:
You have to teach students how hate starts in the community. To be able to avoid the
hate, they must be able to be tolerant of each other. And [educators need] to be able to
teach them about different cultural perspectives, so they can understand each other
instead of opposing each other. The point is that we understand each other because we're
all human beings and we have the same needs. Just because we're of different cultures,
social status, or whatever, we're all different. So, we have to find common ground.
Ms. Kussajikian’s points elaborate on those mentioned by Mr. Keshishian which emphasizes the
importance of building empathy and cross-cultural understanding between students. By building
these social-emotional capacities in students, the idea is that they will form relationships
grounded in respect and compassion. Ms. Kussajikian’s perspective relates to research which
finds the goals of genocide education to be centered around alleviating hatred and discrimination
between ethnic groups (Burnett et al., 2017). Her perspective also stresses the notion that
96
96
genocide education connects students to understanding universal human rights and democratic
values (Sarkissian, 2017).
Through an additional perspective on the importance of genocide education, two of the
study participants, explained that the study of the subject is beyond just learning the facts of what
happened in the past but that it serves the purpose to make connections to the world in the
present day. As an example, Ms. Atkinson explained that genocide education is “not just
knowing what happened before but that it relates to what's happening now…finding the
connection to how any group is mistreated or how we treat each other…and to be aware of
that… [and the] connectedness of it to current world circumstances.” Thus, through this claim
Ms. Atkinson recognizes that by teaching genocide education to students, they can be better able
to hold themselves accountable to their own actions. In this way, they are also better able to
understand how choices of individuals can have a greater impact and why these choices matter in
the bigger picture of global issues.
Literature has found that for those who have a personal connection to a given topic of
study, there is a greater feeling associated with the topic (Apsel 2003). As descendants of
Armenian survivors, Mr. Keshishian and Ms. Kussajikian share a particular affinity to the history
of the Armenian Genocide that is distinct from the other study participants. After data analysis,
the notion stated above, found from the literature, reflected that this affinity played a role in
shaping their perspective on the importance and relevance of teaching about the Armenian
Genocide, specifically to students. As it relates to how this affinity plays a role on Mr.
Keshishian’s rationale for teaching about genocide, more broadly, and the Armenian Genocide
specifically, he noted:
97
97
I think we [Armenians] have intergenerational trauma. So, it's something we live with,
even though it's an event that happened many years ago. It's something that still carries an
important role in our lives. So perhaps opportunities to heal and to learn, and to move
forward is another reason I think it's important that I teach about genocide.
In this way, Mr. Keshishian notes that due the legacy of trauma that has carried through
generations of Armenian Genocide survivor descendants, ensuring that his students are aware of
this history and that the memory of this past is not lost to history is an opportunity to find
validation and resistance to denialist narratives. Similarly, for Ms. Kussajikian, teaching about
the Armenian Genocide is not only an opportunity to share awareness about her personal
ancestral history with her students, who come from diverse backgrounds, but a chance for the
students in her classes who also share an affinity with the history of the Armenian Genocide to
be represented in her course curriculum. She expressed:
Most of the time we focus on different cultures that are the majority in our
school…students of Armenian background are a minority…75% of my students are of
Latino background and they probably might never hear about the Armenian Genocide
unless I teach them…
Ms. Kussajikian’s rationale for Armenian Genocide education is related to the perspective which
finds that teaching and learning about genocide must be relevant to students’ lives. Through this
relevance, students will be able to better empathize with the histories of other groups of people
different from their own and make stronger connections with people who are experiencing
similar hardships.
98
98
Summary
As it relates to part of the first research question of this study, which focuses on how
effective public secondary school educators, perceive genocide education, I concluded that the
study participants believe that genocide education is an important subject and thus perceive it as
a responsibility to teach their students. Sarkissian (2017) noted that through genocide education
students can understand the relevance of “deep connections between individuals, the decisions
we make, and the social conditions in which we live” (Sarkissian, 2017, p. 108). The study
participants in general regard genocide education similarly, as they collectively perceive
genocide education as having the potential for students to recognize the consequences of human
behaviors in the past and what can be learned and understood from these cases. It is, therefore,
the implied objective that students will apply these understandings in their own life, thereby
being better informed in their judgments and decisions.
Finding 2: A constructivist approach to genocide education instruction makes learning
about difficult histories meaningful.
A second aim of this study, as related to the second part of the first research question,
focused on understanding how effective public secondary school educators in greater Los
Angeles approach genocide education in their respective classrooms. The findings revealed from
data analysis collectively found that the study participants approach teaching and learning about
genocide through strategies rooted in constructivist pedagogy. This key finding is aligned with
literature which emphasizes that when educators apply a constructivist approach to teaching
difficult histories, learning about them becomes more meaningful for students (Sardone &
Devlin-Scherer, 2015). This finding also relates to Shulman’s emphasis on the importance of
99
99
general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of learning and
their characteristics as part of a teacher’s knowledge base for effective teaching.
Ray et al., (2013) noted that meaningfulness is encouraged and developed through the
way in which content is “organized and presented by teachers acting as guides or facilitators”
(Ray et al., 64). It was therefore important to identify the type of learning environment the study
participants created for students through which meaningful teaching and learning about genocide
could occur. Thus, from data analysis, I concluded that the study participants’ instructional
practices, grounded in constructivist pedagogy, aligned with a learner-centered classroom
environment. As a way to explain what this learning environment looks like, Ms. Jacobson
shared a well-known educator tip, “you don’t want to be the sage on the stage, you want to be the
guide on the side.” The implied meaning of this tip is that in a learner centered environment, the
educator assumes the role of a facilitator and presents students with resources and tools that
activate and engage them in the learning process. Simultaneously, Ms. Jacobson expressed that
“students really learn by doing,” as a way to mean that students derive knowledge by interacting
with these resources and their peers which builds new knowledge in addition to what they know
and supports their ability to make connections.
As provided in this section below, I will share specific examples of the strategies used by
the study participants that offer a closer understanding of the approach they take in constructing
an effective and meaningful environment where genocide education can take place. To conclude,
I will offer a summary of these findings and their relation to literature.
Constructivist Pedagogy and Differentiated Instruction
In a learner-centered classroom environment content must be accessible for all learners.
According to Ray et al., (2013) constructivist theories support secondary school teachers to “plan
100
100
lessons and assessments that support all learners” (Ray et al., 2013, p. 62). As it aligns to this
concept, six of the study participants noted that they ensure content is accessible for all learners
through differentiated instructional strategies. When describing her approach in her A.P. Human
Geography course, Ms. Cushman shared:
I use a lot of things in my toolbox that are kind of short, creative, quick check for
understandings. And then from there [I’ll] maybe go into another mini lecture…video
clips or a compelling question that we have a discussion on…I have obstacle sticks, and I
call on the students and they know they have to be alert and ready to go and so there's a
lot of questioning…unless we are working on a formal collaborative project and in that
case students have gotten the directions, I've modeled for them how to do it.
Thus, Ms. Cushman explains that in her classroom, content is represented in varied forms and
learning is assessed in multiple ways. From the description of her approach, it is evident that she
incorporates inquiry-based learning and collaborative learning strategies which focus on the
learner’s interests and their learning experience with peers (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015). In
this way, she creates a social and intellectual environment where learning is meaningful (Ray et
al., 2013).
In a second example, when describing his approach to instruction in World History, Mr.
Kerr shared:
I’m a big believer in cooperative learning. I think students learn by different modalities,
so if you just lecture, or if you’re just an auditory or a visual educator, you’re going to
miss out on some of the opportunities to get in some kinesthetic and tactile approaches.
So, I like to move the classroom around… I try to get them thinking outside of the box,
101
101
not just coming in and listening, I mean there are lecture days, but I want them to kind of
engage in history and be kind of hands-on.
Thus, in Mr. Kerr’s classroom content is also accessed through multiple types of learning styles.
Through this approach, he is able to meet the needs of all learners while motivating and guiding
their learning (Ray et al., 2013). These practices described by Mr. Kerr and Ms. Cushman are
also best related to Learning Style Theories of Education and the Universal Design for Learning
Framework, as previously addressed in my literature review.
Constructivist Pedagogy and Prior Knowledge
Constructivist theories find that learning is a process. Ray et al., (2013) noted that
students gain new knowledge by “combining new ideas with those acquired during previous
learning experiences” (Ray et al., 2013, p. 63). All the study participants described that when
teaching new concepts, skills, or topics, they use strategies to engage students in drawing
connections between the new content they are learning to prior knowledge and/or lived
experiences. For example, Ms. Corning shared:
I truly believe that we build upon our experiences and understandings. You know any
new form of information is built from that. So, I always begin my lessons on building
upon what the students know and front-loading information…because that's going to
open their understanding of the subject they're about to learn. I definitely do not believe
that the mind of my students is an empty vessel.
In this way, Ms. Corning explains that she gives students the opportunity to share what they
already know about a subject and builds on their prior knowledge to further expand their
perspective and/or break through any preconceived notions or misunderstandings. In this way, by
understanding what they already know, Ms. Corning is able to create students' connections with
102
102
new content they are about to learn. To expand on Ms. Corning’s approach, Ms. Atkinson
expressed:
I enjoy when students are all sort of in the same mindset in what we’re thinking about a
certain concept or a topic, but we all come at it from a different point of view. We all
come at it from our own history, our own culture, our own life experience, and you know,
previous knowledge. The students have a chance to use that in what they do in their work
so that they feel invested in what it is that they’re doing. They can find their own way
into it.
Through this view, Ms. Atkinson explains that students come to the classroom with their own
perspective about a topic based on either what they already know from personal experiences or
general exposure. By giving students the space to naturally draw these connections in the
classroom and ask questions about what they are learning, Ms. Atkinson expresses that this
activates students in the learning process.
In an example of how he applies the strategies referenced above by Ms. Corning and Ms.
Atkinson in his World History classroom, when introducing students to the topic of genocide,
Mr. Kerr explained that he first defines genocide for students and then follows with Gregory
Stanton’s 10 Stages of genocide model. Through this approach, Mr. Kerr explains that students
are better able to understand genocide as a process. In reference to this approach, he stated:
[I ask them] where have you seen these signs before? A lot of them will say, Nazi
Germany, or they'll say, you know this and that, and then we'll talk about if we see any
signs of that here [in the United States], you know, where in the world do you see
potential genocides and what does it take for genocide to happen…So we just kind of
103
103
start talking about what does genocide [actually] mean, going from the broader definition,
and then from that, I usually I give them some research that they look over.
Through his efforts, Mr. Kerr builds rich classroom discussion and applies what students know
about genocide or cases of genocide in order to draw connections to each stage. In this way, he
makes learning engaging and active while allowing students to bring their own prior knowledge
and interests to the discussion. Thus, Mr. Kerr’s strategy relates to the idea that students can
develop critical thinking by what Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2015) described as engaging
students in the process of “considering significant questions when framing the topic of genocide
to encourage such reflection on learned material” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, 11).
In a related example, Mr. Kunzler described the strategy he applied in his A.P. World
History classroom to encourage student connections between examples of genocides they study
across the course curriculum. He stated:
I try to do a lot of spiraling or leaving and going back…And then, after a certain amount
of time goes by, when something happens to connect them back to what we had talked
about, whether it was yesterday or last week, or even a couple months ago, I try to make
a connection and relate it to something that we had discussed.
Mr. Kunzler’s strategies best relate to an integrative approach to learning as highlighted in
Cyclical Learning Theories like Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum. In this learning theory, educators
use repetition throughout the course to extend students’ knowledge to more complex levels of
higher order thinking by drawing connections to topics previously learned in the course.
Constructivist Pedagogy and Relevant Education
According to Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2015) the application of a constructivist
approach to genocide education “leads students to a greater understanding of topics that interest
104
104
them and those they are developmentally ready to explore” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015,
15). All the study participants described that in their learner-centered classrooms, they allow
student interests to drive discussions and lessons. In this way, teaching and learning becomes
relevant and meaningful for the students as they recognize that they can connect new content,
skills, and/or concepts in and out of the classroom (Ray et al., 2013). Thus, this approach
encourages students to draw real-world connections to what they are learning (Van Straaten et
al., 2016).
As an example of relevant education, Mr. Keshishian described that in his U.S. History
course, while students were learning about the Armenian Genocide, a student was activated to
draw connections to the current genocidal violence against Uyghurs in China. In his description
of this moment, Mr. Keshishian shared:
We had a student who was really interested and concerned about what's happening with
the Uyghur ethnic group in China and so we were able to make real world connections to
some of the challenges that group is facing, in order to better understand the Armenian
Genocide, which was the topic we were learning. So those kinds of connections, real
world connections really help and just kind of having the discussions.
In this example, students were thinking deeply and critically about what they were learning, and
thus engaged in a process of inquiry. In this way, the student made a comparative connection
between the historic Armenian Genocide and the present-day Uyghur Genocide. By guiding
students to dive further into the discussion, Mr. Keshishian allowed for students to examine
ethical questions about mass atrocities as well as local and international responses to the events
(Van Straaten et al., 2016). This approach made learning about these histories more purposeful.
105
105
Thus, students found relevance between the past and the present and their own lives (Van
Straaten et. al., 2016).
In another effort to make learning in the classroom relevant for students, six of the study
participants shared that when engaging students in learning about genocide, they have often used
personal stories of survivors or witnesses that are either collected in written memoirs or novels
and/or have been audio or audio-visually recorded. As an example, Ms. Kussajikian shared that
in her World History course, when introducing her students to genocide history, she finds
opportunities to engage them with audiovisual testimony from USC Shoah Foundation's
educational website, IWitness. She explained, “I usually begin with some type of anecdotal story
that they [students] could relate to. For example, I tell them stories from genocide
survivors…what they went through, and what happened.” Through this approach, Ms.
Kussajikian enables students to make a personal connection to an individual who lived through
the experience, thereby humanizing the history for students.
In this way, by having students analyze personal testimony, they are able to develop their
skill for perspective taking, as it relates to the history and human impact of the genocide
experience. This approach makes learning about the past more authentic. As noted by Ray et. al
(2013), “this authenticity allows learners to make personal connections with the people and
events that populate current or past events” (Ray, Faure, Kelle, 2013, p. 64). Ms. Kussajikian’s
integration of technology in the classroom further provided students with a tool to enrich their
learning experience with content to develop their higher order thinking (Manfra & Stoddard,
2008; Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015). Ms. Kussajikian also explained that during these
lessons, she will also share her own personal life experiences with students and will ask them to
106
106
share their personal family histories or stories from their lived experiences that relate to the topic
as well.
Summary
My findings indicated that having an adequate sense of pedagogical knowledge is
necessary when teaching about difficult histories (Zembylas, 2017). As a result, it was critical to
explore the instructional context that study participants constructed for their students to make
teaching and learning about genocide meaningful. Thus, as it relates to the second part of the first
research question, I concluded that all participants approach genocide education with
instructional strategies grounded in constructivist pedagogy. Furthermore, in order for genocide
education instruction to be effective is dependent upon the context in which students are learning
these histories in the classroom. These findings are significant because research finds that when
students learn about genocide, they are also accessing difficult knowledge This difficult
knowledge refers to the social and historical traumas that students encounter when learning about
genocide as well as the way in which they learn about these histories in the classroom
(Zembylas, 2017). Thus, when teaching about genocide, educators must employ strategies that
are critical and strategic (Zembylas, 2017). The findings of this section, provide an
understanding that when applying a constructivist approach to genocide education instruction,
students are actively engaged, critically thinking, and making connections between what they are
learning to what they know and/or what is of interest to them and/or current events. These
opportunities encourage students’ higher order thinking and enable them to think beyond the
events of genocide but the deeper implications of what can be learned from these histories as it
relates to humanity (Manfra & Stoddard, 2008).
107
107
Finding 3: Formal and informal learning opportunities are essential for effective
instruction of Armenian Genocide education.
The second research question of this study aimed to understand public secondary school
educators’ experiences of efforts that supported their instruction of Armenian Genocide
education. It was thus revealed through data analysis, that the study participants claimed that
through both formal and informal efforts, they were greatly able to add to their categories of
content knowledge (subject matter knowledge), pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular
knowledge as it relates to Armenian Genocide education. The study participants shared that they
participated in professional learning opportunities, engaged in their own personal research,
and/or utilized resources shared by their students and their families, and/or colleagues in the
school community to access knowledge and resources to teach about the Armenian Genocide.
They expressed that these efforts were educational and useful because they were able to acquire
subject matter knowledge about this history, strategies that added to their pedagogical content
knowledge and resources that added to their curricular knowledge for how to teach the subject
across the curriculum (Shulman, 1987).
As an example, Ms. Zimmerman shared, “my professional development experiences were
really good, and additionally, I'm surrounded by Armenian friends and colleagues, and so there's
all of the accessibility of asking questions and talking to people.” Thus, these efforts provide
educators with the knowledge and skills to meet demands and expectations that matter to their
environment (Elmore, 2002). Another relevant finding that emerged through data analysis was
that six of the study participants expressed their interest to gain more knowledge beyond what
they had already learned from these collective efforts and desired a greater variety of resources
that could engage students in learning this history. In this section I will offer examples of the
108
108
knowledge participants gained through these informal and formal efforts, their overall
experiences of these efforts and how these efforts are related to literature.
Source of Knowledge–Informal Support
All 10 of the study participants shared that by the time they had started their teaching
career, they had some degree of prior subject matter knowledge of the Holocaust. This data
collected is consistent with literature which finds that the Holocaust is more commonly familiar
to teachers and students and is taught more often in schools (Johnson & Pennington, 2018). As
referenced by Shulman (1986), subject matter knowledge is critical for educators as it relates to
having the capacity to explain to students “accept truths in a domain” and to “explain why a
particular proposition is deemed warranted, why it is worth knowing” (Shulman, 1986, 9).
However, as it relates to the study participants’ level of subject matter knowledge about the
Armenian Genocide, Mr. Keshishian and Ms. Kussajikian, were the only participants that
expressed they had prior knowledge of this history before their teaching career. They did also
express that they had an openness to learn more. For example, Mr. Keshishian shared that even
though he had adequate knowledge of the Armenian Genocide, he leaned on local Armenian
community events as a way to add to his own personal knowledge of Armenian history and
issues. He shared that he has attended several events where historians in the field of Armenian
Genocide studies have given lectures on different aspects of the history of the period.
As revealed from data analysis, the remaining eight study participants’ subject matter
knowledge of the Armenian Genocide was limited or completely lacking. Three of the study
participants had shared that they had awareness of the Armenian Genocide as a result of family,
friends, or neighbors. For example, Ms. Zimmerman, shared that she had some prior knowledge
about the Armenian Genocide after having learned about it from her Armenian friends growing
109
109
up in the Los Angeles region. She felt that as an educator who works in a district with a
predominant population of ethnic Armenian students, it was her responsibility to learn more
about the subject matter of this history and how to appropriately teach it, in an effort to
especially connect with her Armenian students and their parents. She noted:
So for my Armenian students, I think it's a recognition that I see you, I see your history
and I see that there is still kind of a gaping wound because of the lack of recognition
[genocide denial]… But then I think for non-Armenian students, they need to understand
that as well, they need to understand…why this event that was over 100 years
ago…creates such a visceral reaction in Armenians... So, I do think it's important that
other students understand that. One, just to be compassionate, but also because just to be
a smart person in the world you should know about this, you know, so I think both groups
need to be heard and understand the story.
In this way, Ms. Zimmerman acknowledged that the importance of having subject matter
knowledge about the Armenian Genocide is beyond the fact that she teaches ethnic Armenian
students. In her explanation, it was critical that she and her students have knowledge and
awareness of this history in order to ensure that this significant part of Armenian history is
understood, rightfully recognized, and that students are able to have compassion for their peers
and the surrounding community.
About five participants shared that they had no prior knowledge of the Armenian
Genocide until they began teaching in their school district. It was then that they recognized the
significance of this history for their Armenian colleagues, students, and their families. Ms.
Corning, who also works in the same district as Ms. Zimmerman, shared that it was important for
her to get to know the cultural history of her Armenian students and the stories of their families,
110
110
beyond knowledge of the Armenian Genocide. She shared that having an understanding of
Armenian culture helps her to better relate to her students and their identity. Ms. Corning noted
that she often has conducted her own research to collect more information. Through this effort in
doing so and by teaching about Armenian culture and the Armenian Genocide to her middle
school students, she shared that this was her way of affirming to her students and their families
that she cared. Additionally, she wanted to be sure that all her students were aware of this
difficult history and expressed that she did not want to take the risk that they would not be
exposed to it after they took her course.
In another example, Mr. Kunzler shared that during his early years of teaching, in the
1990s, he remembered that the Armenian Genocide was not mentioned in the World History
textbook. In reference to how he became aware of this history, Mr. Kunzler remembered that at
his school an Armenian student organization on campus hosted a cultural event. It was at the
event that he recalled an introduction to Armenian culture and the Armenian Genocide and how
it affected the wider Armenian community in Los Angeles. As a result of this assembly, Mr.
Kunzler recalled having the realization that he needed to learn more about the Armenian
Genocide, not only because of a gap in his knowledge but also in an effort to learn more about
his students. In reference to how he built up his subject matter knowledge, Mr. Kunzler shared
that he began to have conversations with his Armenian students about this history and to do
research on his own. In reference to this time, he shared:
It's something that really interested me… And so, it did take a while…to do study on my
own. And you know…there's a lot I don't know… I'm very cognizant of my limitations. I
know that there's so much more that I want to find out, but it just led me on this
111
111
approach…to make sure that I show [students] how there's a larger connection here and
this really matters in so much of what we study.
Thus, Mr. Kunzler further emphasizes that from the informal support of his students he was able
to add to his knowledge base and continuous interest to learn more.
In addition to informal support received from students in the school community, other
participants shared that they received access to information and materials that would support
their efforts to teach about the Armenian Genocide from their school district and colleagues. This
knowledge relates to the importance of having Knowledge of Educational Contexts as identified
by Shulman as being related to understanding the working of one’s school district, including,
“the character of communities and cultures” (Shulman, 1987, p.9). In her experience of informal
support from her school community as it relates to Armenian Genocide education, Ms. Jacobson
shared that the English Curriculum Study Council of her school district was very open and
receptive to using new materials across the discipline. She shared that the Council was
“interested in getting some materials that were relevant to the students that we were teaching….”
She recalled that she was very impressed with her colleagues who had access to materials related
to the Armenian Genocide. She shared that there “were many teachers on that committee pulling
in books about the genocide to try to make sure that that we were expanding.” In this effort, Ms.
Jacobson not only added to her subject matter knowledge but also her curricular knowledge
through access to age-appropriate materials to use in her class.
Similarly, Ms. Cushman also shared that her school community goes above and beyond
to support educators in their effort to teach about the Armenian Genocide. In naming some
examples of these efforts, Ms. Cushman shared:
112
112
We have a pretty active Armenian student club on campus…They host a lot of different
activities and fundraisers…The school website always puts up links to different things as
it gets closer to the Remembrance Day. Our district has an art contest, and they address it
at the board meeting. They always have a presentation too.
Through these informal efforts hosted by the school community and district, the importance and
relevance of Armenian Genocide education is widely recognized and understood. In this way, the
school and learning environment makes gathering information about this history accessible to
educators and offers educators an opportunity to make connections to the importance of knowing
this history to students.
In an effort to support his colleagues, Mr. Kerr along with four other study participants
noted that they often have shared resources like primary sources or novels about the Armenian
Genocide. Through this informal effort, the study participants expressed that these collaborations
have enabled interdisciplinary learning to take place and students were able to learn about what
took place during the Armenian Genocide from multiple perspectives. As an example, Ms.
Kussajikian shared that in her class students made connections between what they were reading
in English Language Arts to what they were learning in World History. These examples of
teacher collaboration affirm that genocide education is a topic of study which transcends learning
about history beyond the History Social-Science discipline.
Knowledge Source-Formal Support
School districts often host professional learning opportunities for educators as a way to
build educators’ knowledge, capacity, and effectiveness (Elmore, 2002). As a result of these
opportunities, seven participants who attended these formal organized efforts shared that they
learned more about the history of the Armenian Genocide and how to teach it. They expressed
113
113
that they gained a variety of resources and teaching strategies that supported their instruction of
the Armenian Genocide in the classroom. These opportunities supported the study participants’
pedagogical knowledge as they gained new tools to make learning about this history more
comprehensible for their students to learn and understand (Shulman, 1986). Thus, educators then
employ these strategies to support meaningful learning about genocide without centering
learning on the trauma of the events.
In reference to school textbooks, four participants expressed that reference to the
Armenian Genocide in the textbook for their course was either minimal or completely absent. In
reference to his World History textbook, Mr. Kerr shared:
The textbook we have… really doesn't cover much on the Armenian Genocide… So, I
kind of thought, you know, I need to be more aware…about 10 to 20% of my students
here are Armenian depending on the class I teach, so you know they wanted to know, and
I figured I need to educate myself better to figure out how to teach this better.
This encouraged Mr. Kerr to seek out professional development. Mr. Kerr shared that he
attended a workshop hosted by the neighboring school district that was being facilitated by The
Genocide Education Project. When he described the effect of his experience, Mr. Kerr shared,
“[I] have a whole classroom now full of primary sources on the [Armenian] Genocide that I
didn't have before, so that was pretty powerful.” He also noted that he appreciated the workshop
because the speakers were not just educators, but they were Armenian survivor descendants.
Similarly, Ms. Cushman also expressed that as a result of having attended several
workshops related to Armenian Genocide education, she has added a great deal to her repertoire.
In reference to her experiences, she noted that the workshops she attended provided thorough
historical context about the Armenian Genocide and were critical because they offered educators
114
114
subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. She shared that learning more
about the historical background of the period surrounding the events of the Armenian Genocide
helps to educators’ connection to when and how they can teach this history in their course
curriculum. Ms. Cushman commented that one resource which has supported her the most has
been the 2004 book, Crimes against Humanity Civilization: The Genocide of the Armenians,
published by Facing History and Ourselves (Facing History and Ourselves,2014), as well as the
complementary videos and lessons that they make available on their website. The book also
provides strategies for how to teach about the Armenian Genocide across the curriculum to teach
about related themes that can be learned from genocide education.
To support their instruction beyond what is already available, three participants expressed
a need and desire for a variety of more resources that can support their efforts to teach about the
history of the Armenian Genocide. For example, in addition to what Ms. Cushman had learned
from professional learning opportunities, she shared that she was also interested in learning more
about the post-history of the Armenian Genocide, especially about the history of the Armenian
diaspora. For example, she noted that this knowledge was critical to know more about how
Armenian communities were able to be resilient in the aftermath and how the generational
trauma of genocide affected Armenian communities worldwide. She expressed that in her
experience there have just not been enough resources she can access as an educator to support
teaching about this history to students.
In another example that describes an absence of resources, Ms. Corning also expressed
that since she teaches World History and U.S. History in Spanish, she usually translates many of
the resources herself since they are only available in English. Having more resources readily
available to meet her needs would be helpful. Ms. Kussajikian expressed that more innovative
115
115
resources, such as graphic novels, would be helpful to use in the classroom to further engage her
students. This request aligns with literature which finds that integrating media when teaching
about genocide is meaningful for students (Manfra & Stoddard, 2008).
Of all the study participants, only three expressed that they had not attended professional
development workshops recently or at all. These participants noted that they either relied on
materials gained though informal support from individuals in their school community or their
own research. For example, Ms. Atkinson noted that due to personal time constraints she had not
been able to attend any professional learning opportunities. She shared that if it was not
mandatory or during the school day or if it did not fall on a weekend, it was unlikely that she
would have attended. Thus, in her case, she has relied on her own personal research, resources
from colleagues or from students and their families in her school community. Ms. Atkinson did
share that relying on her own research has been limited and thus expressed the need for more
resources. When sharing what seemed to be missing for her, she stated:
We're always looking for more resources…images of people would be huge because…
when you see a person you connect to them, you find your way in, even if their story is
completely different than yours. When you see them, they become real, they become
relatable. And so, for us the imagery is really about that, you know, finding a way for
connection.
From Ms. Atkinson’s experience it can be understood that educators do need more access points
for gaining knowledge and resources about the Armenian Genocide. Her experience is
enlightening for professional genocide education organizations to recognize the importance of
ensuring that their resources have a robust online presence.
116
116
While the findings of this section demonstrate that the study participants overall take
initiative to learn more about the Armenian Genocide in an effort to add to their knowledge base,
Mr. Dewey noted that he has found that many of his colleagues are resistant to change and don’t
want to take accountability for teaching history that they are not familiar with. Thus, he
suggested that as a way to overcome this barrier, organizations in the field of genocide education
might want to train teachers and get them to become trainers. In this way, he encouraged
organizations to build up the capacity and sustainability of their stakeholders.
Summary
Overall, findings in relation to the second research question provide understanding that
the study participants increased their content knowledge through formal and informal efforts
which have supported their instruction of Armenian Genocide education. These findings are
consistent with literature that finds both ways of acquiring knowledge beneficial for educator’s
professional development (Elmore, 2002; Holmgren & Sjöberg, 2022). Findings from
participants’ experiences revealed that informal efforts to support their instruction played a key
role on their pedagogical knowledge and confidence in relaying teaching about the Armenian
Genocide to their students (Holmgren & Sjöberg, 2022). Further, it encouraged some of the
study participants to find out more information about this history and to pursue research on their
own. In other cases, it encouraged participants to work collaboratively with their colleagues
across multiple course disciplines, which has benefited their students. Overall, these experiences
of participants have supported the conclusion that the study participants find both formal and
informal support to be essential to the effectiveness of their instruction of Armenian Genocide
education.
117
117
Finding 4: Curricular limitations offer creative opportunities to teach about the Armenian
Genocide across the curriculum.
In connection to the third research question of this study, which focused on understanding
the practices effective public secondary school educators employ in the classroom to teach about
the Armenian Genocide, findings revealed that curricular content knowledge was a major factor
that influenced the strategies they used. As it relates to this idea, it is important to remember that
as a topic of study, the Armenian Genocide is mandated as a curricular expectation to be taught
as part of the 10th Grade World History in California schools. In this way, the Armenian
Genocide has a presence in California History-Social Science World History content standards
and the 2016 History-Social Science Framework for 10th grade World History. Thus, for both
Ms. Kussajikian and Mr. Kerr, who teach World History, they expressed that this mandate
provides “more freedom” in the curriculum to go in-depth when teaching about the Armenian
Genocide. On the contrary, the remaining eight participants, expressed that they were generally
limited in their approach as a result of the curricular limitations that framed their course. As a
result, it was revealed through data analysis that all of the study participants who experienced
curricular limitations found strategic opportunities to introduce, discuss and engage students in a
lesson or activity related to some aspect of the Armenian Genocide.
Overall, the findings show that participants employed teaching practices related to
Armenian Genocide instruction as aligned with Newmann and Wehlage’s 1993 framework for
authentic instruction. According to Manfra & Stoddard (2008) the authentic instruction
framework includes: “(1) students’ construction of knowledge through the engagement of higher
order thinking skills, including interpretation, analysis and synthesis, (2) student engagement in
disciplined inquiry that leads to a depth of knowledge and engagement in substantive
118
118
conversations…and (3) student engagement in making connections to the world beyond school”
(Manfra & Stoddard, 2008, p. 261). This framework aligns with the general pedagogical
knowledge that educators must have as part of their knowledge base.
In what follows, I will provide specific examples of practices the study participants
described as having employed in their respective classrooms and will relate them to the authentic
instruction framework. Additionally, I will feature the most meaningful or challenging moments
the study participants experienced when teaching about the Armenian Genocide in their
classroom. To conclude, I will offer a summary of these findings and their relation to literature.
Teaching about Genocide in World History
In describing how they have introduced the Armenian Genocide in their courses, five out
of 10 participants (including two of the participants who teach A.P.) described that they teach
about the subject during their unit on World War I. The purpose of this strategy is because as
they expressed it aligns with the chronology of historical events in their course curriculum. In
reference to this approach, Mr. Kerr shared:
We normally cover it in February, because that's when World War I culminates…[I] also
cover it in April, because, you know, obviously, April 24…Red Sunday, we talk about
the infamous acts that the Pashas took to basically isolate or remove the Armenian
intellectuals, so that the genocide could proceed.
As it relates to Mr. Kerr’s approach, he expresses that he discusses the Armenian Genocide twice
with students. The first time, in February, he approaches the study of the subject as it relates to
the chronological nature of the course curriculum. The second time is in April during genocide
commemoration month and especially on Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day on April 24th.
119
119
Mr. Kerr described that when he first introduces the Armenian Genocide to students, he employs
the following strategy:
In particular to the Armenian Genocide, I really let them dive into the research first, and I
don't necessarily lecture about it. I let them find the facts for themselves, and I think that's
kind of a more powerful tool.
By using this approach, Mr. Kerr provides students the space to engage in learning about the
Armenian Genocide driven by their own inquiry. This opportunity provides room for students to
explore topics related to this history based on their interests, engage in meaningful conversations
about what they have found and ask more questions.
Mr. Kerr also described that to follow his initial approach he uses an activity with his
students that he learned from The Genocide Education Project. He shared that the activity was a
mock trial, where he set up the class like a real courtroom and would read an indictment that
shared a brief history of the crimes that took place during the Armenian Genocide. He then
shared that he divided his class in six groups that represented six different players during the
Armenian Genocide—the 3 Pashas [Enver, Jemal, Talaat], the Ottoman gendarmes, the Kurds,
the Armenians, the United States and Xenophobia. Once all the students have been divided, he
explained, “what they're doing is they're finding evidence and presenting it to the class through
the course of the trial… this is not about defending anybody, but about finding who's guilty.” Mr.
Kerr’s activity aligns with the idea that educators need instructional content that not only focuses
on victims of genocide but the perpetrators as well. In this way, by analyzing perpetrator
motivations for their crimes students will be able to more fully empathize with those who
suffered (Blutinger, 2009).
120
120
Mr. Kerr explained that the mock trial itself is usually about an hour and forty minutes.
During this time, he shared that “every group [is given] a chance to give an opening statement,
give their arguments and a closing statement, and then the jury deliberates. The jury will usually
come back on the next day with the verdict.” When explaining why he finds this activity is most
effective, he shared:
“I'm trying to teach them to think in a very factual way, of you know, documenting
evidence. So, they actually submit evidence which goes with a folder…and then the jury
members at the end get to look at the evidence as well.”
This strategy as described by Mr. Kerr relates to the authentic framework in that students are
able to build their skills for interpretation, analysis and synthesis while they engage in an activity
which inspires them to act as if they are in a real-world context beyond the classroom.
Mr. Kerr shared that in one instance when using this activity in the classroom a group of
students expressed denial of the Armenian Genocide in his class. In response, Mr. Kerr asked the
students to cite their sources. Students shared that their research was mainly done on the Internet
to several websites that specifically promote genocide denial. As a class Mr. Kerr had students
investigate these sources. He shared that students found that “there was a lot of bias in it…[this]
was kind of a great lesson, because they got to understand that everything on the Internet is not
accurate.” He shared that this was an example to students to check their sources carefully,
especially if they are not a primary source and to question who is telling the story. This exercise
relates to the idea that with adequate content knowledge, educators can support students'
knowledge and skills to break through misconceptions of information in a focused learning
environment where they are able to deconstruct messages and make informed judgements (Ray
et al., 2013).
121
121
Teaching about the Armenian Genocide in Middle School/Through the Lens of
Commemoration
All participants shared that they teach about the Armenian Genocide to students around
the time of Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, which is on April 24. These participants
either shared that this is generally the first time they introduce the topic to students or that they
circle back and make connections to what students previously learned about the Armenian
Genocide and relate it to the significance of commemoration.
While the Armenian Genocide is not a curricular expectation to be taught in her courses,
Ms. Corning, who has taught both World History (7th Grade) and U.S. History (8th grade) in the
Spanish language, expressed that she teaches about this history in the month of April as a way
for them to understand the significance of genocide commemoration. In reference to this
approach, Ms. Corning shared:
In both 7th and 8th grade, I actually teach it around the [Armenian Genocide]
commemoration on April 24. The reason why is because, even though I teach history, the
meaning of genocide is not part of any of my standards, not for 7th grade, not for 8th
grade, so I teach it as a stand-alone unit and I use the day of commemoration to be able to
achieve that.
Thus, as shared by Ms. Corning, she was able to teach the history of the Armenian Genocide
through the frame of genocide commemoration as a way for students to gain knowledge and to
deepen their understanding for the importance of commemorating this history in their school
community.
In another example, Ms. Zimmerman, who teaches A.P. Government expressed that
while the Armenian Genocide is not a part of the curriculum, she will often relate current events
122
122
in global politics to content that students need to know in her course. For example, Ms.
Zimmerman shared, “how a bill becomes a law has not changed. [So] every year we can look at
different bills that are being considered.” As an example, she described that she has discussed the
official U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Congress in 2019, with students, and the
processes that went in to making it official. Ms. Zimmerman shared that she revisits the history
of the Armenian Genocide near Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day on April 24 and takes
the opportunity at this time to provide an overview of this history to students and impact of
genocide denial.
Teaching about the Armenian Genocide Through the Lens of U.S. History
Through data analysis, the findings also revealed that several study participants
introduced the topic of genocide or the history of a particular genocide differently as a result of
their course curriculum. For example, Mr. Dewey, who teaches A.P. U.S. History to 11th
graders, shared that in his course, the curriculum does not mention the word genocide. He shared
that the word “Holocaust is used, expulsion is used, exclusion is used, subjugation is used,
encroachment is used, but not genocide.” Due to this limitation, Mr. Dewey expressed that he
does not define the term genocide for students. However, as it relates to teaching students about
the Holocaust, Mr. Dewey noted that while the A.P. U.S. History curricular standards make it a
requirement to teach students about the Holocaust, the history of the events are limited as they
must be taught through the perspective of the U.S. involvement. In reference to this point, Mr.
Dewey stated:
In A.P. U.S. History, all you have to do is talk about the American response to the
Holocaust. You're not teaching about the camps, extermination methods, or even the
philosophy behind it. You're simply talking about the American response or lack thereof.
123
123
As related to the limitations that Mr. Dewey describes through the perspective of teaching about
genocide in an A.P. U.S. History course, Mr. Keshishian, who teaches U.S. History to 11th
graders, shared that due to these limitations he also teaches about cases of genocide through the
lens of the U.S. role or involvement. Mr. Keshishian expressed that he uses this curricular
limitation as an opportunity to present an angle of history that students may otherwise not be
exposed to outside of the U.S. History course.
In his classroom, Mr. Keshishian noted that he structures his course with a chronological
approach. Mr. Keshishian shared that he introduces the Armenian Genocide during the World
War I unit of the course, as it relates to the role the U.S. History played in facilitating support to
Armenian refugees and orphans during the war and early post-war period. Mr. Keshishian
expressed that when he teaches about Armenian Genocide to his students, he often finds that
students have experienced challenges when making a personal connection to something that
happened in the past, especially something as traumatic as the Armenian Genocide. He shared
that the challenge is the “inability to connect with some of the suffering and some of the
difficulties of what happened.” In this way, Mr. Keshishian’s concerns are related to literature
that finds that due to reluctance or uncertainty of how to pedagogically navigate difficult
histories, teachers often avoid going in-depth on these subjects (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer,
2015; Zembylas, 2017). In order to help his students develop historical empathy, Mr. Keshishian
shared that he uses the film produced by Near East Relief Foundation, called They Shall Not
Perish. In reference to the use of this film, he noted:
[It’s] a great documentary…[through which we are able to] analyze the U.S.'s role in
helping save orphans [during and] after the [Armenian] Genocide. Many students aren't
aware of that. [After] we watch the documentary, we learn a little bit about the Near East
124
124
Relief, which is the organization that made this all possible. The fact that they still have a
website and they're still doing work around the world helping people is kind of mindblowing to a lot of the students. And they do some research…analyze their website and
learn about their different programs…So [I make] that real life kind of real-world
connection, just to have things be meaningful… because that element is what peaks their
interests. And if we can pique their interest, then they'll be able to really understand at a
deeper kind of more complex level.
Mr. Keshishian’s approach with using this secondary source documentary in the classroom gives
students an opportunity to engage with multiple sources to learn more about a topic. In this way,
students are engaging in research that allows them to build on what they have already learned
and draw connections by corroborating different sources. Additionally, using this film offers the
opportunity for students to engage in the practice of perspective-taking to help understand the
past.
Teaching about the Armenian Genocide in A.P. Human Geography
Out of the four participants who teach Advanced Placement (A.P.) courses, three
participants noted that the A.P. curriculum requirements and the preparation for the A.P. exam
limited how in-depth they could delve into the study of the Armenian Genocide. However, Ms.
Cushman expressed that in A.P. Human Geography course she finds opportunity to teach about
the Armenian Genocide during her political geography unit. She shared that during this unit she
has extensive conversations with students about the difference between ethnic cleansing and
genocide in order for students to understand types of ethnic conflict. She explained that the
curriculum of the unit also calls for discussion about different political, religious, and ethnic
conflicts around the world.
125
125
As a result, she shared that during this unit she focuses on the Caucasus region and
unpacks with students the historic and contemporary issues that have affected people and places
in this region over time. Thus, she incorporates Armenia and the topic of the Armenian Genocide
as a case study because of the connected history that encompasses many different concepts in
this unit of study. When she described how this topic relates to the curriculum in this unit, she
said:
Everything from ethnic cleansing and genocide…boundaries and borders…religion, and
the fact that there’s Muslims and Christians [in the region] living side by side. We talk
about geopolitics… we talk about the relationship between Russia and Turkey and the
relationship between Azerbaijan and Turkey…. So, I teach a lot of the concepts in that
unit through the lens of the Armenian Genocide.
Ms. Cushman’s approach is consistent with literature that describes using sampling as a strategy
when analyzing separate events or concepts and then identifying overarching similarities or
differences (Johnson, 2015). Additionally, this approach that Ms. Cushman used to teach
students about both past and present-day events is an example of how an educator can make
teaching and learning about history relevant to students (Manfra & Stoddard, 2006).
When she described how she specifically introduces the topic with students, she shared,
“I start with some images and maps from that region, and [then have a discussion on] what has
happened over there currently and then I get the students in groups.” Next, she shared that when
students are in groups, she will encourage them to generate questions about what they would like
to know about the region. When she commented on this approach, she said, “so I don't give them
too much…they have to come up with questions and then those questions guide their way into
it.” This strategy that Ms. Cushman uses is aligned with constructivist strategies that allow
126
126
students to drive their learning. Additionally, having students create their own questions makes
students’ learning active while also deepening students' knowledge about the topics in the unit
through their own historical inquiry (Manfra & Stoddard, 2006). These findings are consistent
with F.W. Newmann and G.G. Wehlage’s framework for authentic instruction, which defines
intellectual work in social studies to include higher order thinking skills, disciplined inquiry, and
connections to the world beyond school (Manfra & Stoddard, 2006).
Ms. Cushman also shared that in her course she discussed denial as it relates to the
Armenian Genocide. She brought this topic into discussion as it relates to geopolitics and current
day history that is relevant for understanding the modern issues affecting the Caucasus region.
When describing how she brings up this discussion with students, Ms. Cushman shared:
We talk about the fact that it's taken a long time to get many different countries to admit
it [is a genocide], but [that] a lot of countries do admit that there was a genocide now. We
also discuss international diplomacy and the fact that some countries have been afraid to
acknowledge it because they don't want to disrupt their relationship with Turkey, and
how that was an issue for the U.S. for a long time. We talk about the recent congressional
acknowledgements and how that was something that was fought for but still Turkey is
denying this and they refuse to even allow people to discuss it…in fact, I pull up some of
the Turkish pages from the Embassy, and we look and see their narrative, and it's like, oh,
wow, they really definitely do not want to admit that this happened despite the piles and
piles of evidence.
Ms. Cushman’s approach to emphasizing teaching about denial as it relates to the Armenian
Genocide offers students a deeper understanding of why teaching and learning about this history
is importance in the broader world picture. In recognizing the realities of what denialist claims
127
127
look like, students are able to be more informed and prepared to respond when they encounter
these messages.
Ms. Cushman shared that her school has a block schedule, and each class is about 90
minutes. Given this time period, she noted that the political geography unit can often take
between a week and a half or up to two weeks. This approach that Ms. Cushman utilized in her
classroom, allows students the opportunity to not only deeply understanding the impact of
genocide denial but also how to think critically when engaging with sources. This skill is
essential for students as they learn to navigate media and messages that they receive in the
current-day and formulate their own judgments.
Teaching about the Armenian Genocide–Cross-Curricular Collaboration
Out of eight participants, two expressed that they directly engaged in cross-collaborations
with another educator (s) in their school. Two of the study participants—Ms. Jacobson and Ms.
Atkinson—shared that they engaged in cross-curricular collaborative projects or lessons directly
with one or more educators in their school. In reference to why this practice is important, Mr.
Keshishian noted:
Opportunities like cross-curricular collaboration, I think are very good…[students] are
seeing, this is not just something you learn in history class and move on. But this is
present in every class...and they're able to analyze these topics with more depth and
complexity… and just build a greater understanding of cultural competency in the class.
Thus, Mr. Keshishian emphasizes that when students learn about the Armenian Genocide in
more than one course, they are able to gain a well-rounded perspective of the events as told
through different points of view, such in a factual way versus a personal narrative.
128
128
As it relates to Ms. Jacobson’s experience teaching about the Armenian Genocide in a
combined English Language Arts and World History course, she expressed that when it was time
to cover this history during the World War I unit, she would assign students readings from the
novel, The Hundred- Year Walk: An Armenian Odyssey by Dawn Anahid MacKeen (MacKeen,
2016). This novel is a nonfiction book that tells the life experience of an Armenian survivor and
his granddaughter’s quest to retrace his journey to survival. While reading the novel, Ms.
Jacobson shared that she would have students “create artwork that they thought represented the
tone of a chapter that we had read or create a poem that expresses a theme that existed.” In this
way, she shared that this strategy would not only get students to learn the history and the human
experience of the period but it would also have students learn and understand the literary terms.
In addition, Ms. Jacobson also applied the use of technology in this unit, she explained,
“We had students create a Google site… I shared all of those [the best works] with Ms.
MacKeen, so that she could see the work that her beautiful book had elicited.” Ms. Jacobson’s
strategy supports research which finds benefits from integrating technology and digital media as
an opportunity to develop students' multidisciplinary skills, deeper perspective about a topic and
critical thinking (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015). Ms. Jacobson shared that the overall unit on
the Armenian Genocide, including the novel took about eight weeks of class time.
Finally, Ms. Jacobson, also described her unique cross-curricular approach to genocide
education through the lens of the combined course she taught in collaboration with a World
History teacher in her school. To frame this approach, she first explained that this combined
course for 10th graders had a “double load of students, so that half of the students were showing
up on his roster and half on mine, but we are teaching simultaneously together in a big room of
65-70 students at a time.” She noted that the content of the course would be driven by the World
129
129
History standards, in chronological order of events. In reference to their approach to genocide
education, Ms. Jacobson expressed “we would teach [genocide] at the periods of time when we
would hit them in history…then we would plug in literature, music or poetry along the way.” She
shared that they had also approached teaching about genocide as its own unit of study. However,
due to the realities that genocide still continued to repeat in the present day, she explained that
students often felt disheartened. In reference to this she explained:
I didn’t ever necessarily come up with a good fix for that...I think probably a more
manageable way of teaching it is to really discuss this idea of when we other people, you
know, when we make people other from us, and don’t see ourselves as inclusive…it
becomes a lot easier to treat them with inhumanity. And just what are the ways that we
can make everyone feel included right? So, trying to do that was helpful. I think students
were always really emotionally affected.
Nonetheless, Ms. Jacobson shared that they decided to stop teaching about multiple experiences
of genocide consecutively as a unit of study, due to the emotional impact it had on students. This
is aligned to the literature which shares that teaching difficult histories can be traumatic and can
cause an impact on students (Zembylas, 2017).
In another example of cross-curricular collaborative approach to genocide education, Ms.
Atkinson who teaches in the Visual Arts discipline, shared that as part of the special arts program
offered in her school, she and her colleagues from multiple departments—Social-Science, English
Language Arts, Science and Math—worked together to design an annual integrated project
leading up to genocide awareness month in April. The project culminates on Armenian Genocide
commemoration day as an outdoor exhibit which showcases students’ creative works, in honor of
genocide survivors and for those who are unable to tell their story. Each educator plays a role to
130
130
contribute to the exhibit. When describing how this team of educators worked together, Ms.
Atkinson said “we have our prep period at the same time, so we can all talk together as teachers
across all these departments…we get to come together on a weekly basis and touch base and
come up with our plans''.
As it relates to Ms. Atkinson’s practices for incorporating the Armenian Genocide as part
of her Studio Arts II course, she expressed that her approach involved an integrated project
between the efforts of five teachers. She explained that this project culminates in April, near the
end of Genocide Awareness Month and Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day. Ms. Atkinson
described that students’ first entry point into the project is through their World History course,
where the teacher involved in the project will discuss the Armenian Genocide during their World
War I unit, in February. Then, Ms. Atkinson shared that simultaneously the English Language
Arts teacher involved would have the students read excerpts from Armenian Genocide survivor
stories. Students would then write haiku poems based on one of the stories that they read.
Then, in her own course, Ms. Atkinson shared that, “we do research into finding images
of these folks, either from their early days or more recent photos.” She then shared that she also
has students look at the “witness” collection of Armenian Genocide survivor portraits, that are
black and white, as inspiration for the next step of their project which involves the creation of a
portrait based on an image they have found. In this way, Ms. Atkinson brings the victims,
survivors, and their experiences into the classroom. This approach connects to research that finds
that both the viewing and the creation of art enriches students' understanding of difficult histories
through critical interpretation (Sardone & Devlin-Scherre, 2015). These skills also connect to
anchor standards across the Visual Arts curriculum.
131
131
Next, Ms. Atkinson explained that in order to develop a larger portrait of the smaller
image of the survivor they have chosen, students must learn how to scale the image. At this point
the involvement of the Math teacher is essential. In her explanation for how Math skills are
involved in the project, Ms. Atkinson shared:
When the students get the photo that they want to work from, we use a scale and
proportion grid for them to understand how to blow it up…They want to make sure that
they're as accurate as possible in representing them [the survivor], and so…they draw a
grid over the small version and proportionally blow it up to be a larger piece for their
drawing. So, they draw a grid on the lines, and they do that grid transfer.
Ms. Atkinson also explained that often when students do the portraiture drawings the
medium being used is chalk. She shared that the purpose of using chalk is symbolic in that:
If we don't discuss these things, they kind of fade from memory right, things that have
happened before. They are especially things that are horribly tragic. We like to try to
forget them. They wash away much like chalk can be wiped away. And so. because this
is an exterior exhibition, there is the fragility of the weather…these portraits could be
destroyed at any moment. And so, we use that chalk as that idea.
At this point in the project, the Chemistry teacher becomes involved in order to work with
students on how to use the chalk and draw on the ground using the chalk. In reference to the final
outcome of the project, she shared:
I either have them work individually or as a team of two people, and they do portraits, or
they do symbols from Armenian culture that go up into the exhibition along with
illustrations of the haikus. Then it culminates in us putting up a remembrance wall of
work on our [school’s] exterior, where families drive by in the morning to drop their
132
132
students off. So, it culminates in a public exhibition that we then invite the public to see,
and it's at a space where you can see it as a member of the public, not just the high school
students.
Ms. Atkinson shared that this project was most meaningful for the school community.
She noted that it was especially meaningful for the Armenian student population of the school
campus. She shared “they often are really excited to get to do this project, and, you know, be
seen and have their story told.” When describing her most memorable moment, Ms. Atkinson
shared
One year we had a student whose great grandmother was a survivor, and she did the
portrait of her…so she was able to connect to people from our community, and so that
sparked us, and thinking about more people in our community.
Ms. Atkinson shared that they recently have included additional examples of genocides in the
exhibition.
Teaching about the Armenian Genocide–Transitional Justice Education
As cited in this study’s literature review, Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2105) noted that the
final section of a unit on genocide should enable students to “memorialize the past and also see
examples of perpetrators being held accountable” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, 14). In this
way, they suggest that having students conduct an investigation of topics related to justice would
be valuable for student learning as it can “fight feelings of hopelessness and fulfill some
expectations of fairness in an unjust world” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015, 14). Through this
approach students are able to “examine how rights are protected, and see victims as
transformed…victims are seen as empowered” rather than pitied (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer,
2015. 14). Therefore, by presenting information on “how societies seek justice after emerging
133
133
from genocide may enable teachers and students to face tragic events with hope for the future”
(Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2015. 14).
Half of the study participants noted that they informed their students about the March for
Justice that occurs annually on April 24 in Los Angeles. The march starts from Pan Pacific Park
and reaches its final destination, the Turkish Consulate. While the Armenian community has
spearheaded decades of organized activism against denial, in varied forms, especially on April
24, it is only in recent years that the name of the annual protest in Los Angeles in front of the
Turkish has adopted this official name. As published on their website, the organizers of March
for Justice shared:
It is our belief that our voices are most loudly and effectively heard when they are
unified, and to that end, we proudly announce the continued cooperation of community
organizations to organize and execute the commemorative activities and demands for
justice for this year under the banner of the Armenian Genocide Committee (“AGC”)
consisting of the organizations and entities listed below.
Mr. Kerr expressed that for the past few years he has attended this march in support of the cause.
Out of five study participants, only two shared that several of their students had attended the
march.
Summary
According to my findings the participants of my study used their curricular knowledge to
their advantage and recognized that study of the Armenian Genocide transcends beyond the
Social Science discipline, primarily World History for 10th grade. Most participants found
opportunities to bring in an aspect of the Armenian Genocide into their course, despite curricular
expectations that do not explicitly address the topic in course standards or refer to resources
134
134
related to this history as materials to use as part of their instruction. All participants also were
able to draw real-world connections between the Armenian Genocide and its relation to the
importance of these events for the local Armenian community and abroad, the connections
between this history and other examples of genocide and/or global conflicts and significance of
this history as related to international justice and human rights.
Conclusion
Research finds that educators often resist teaching about difficult histories like genocide,
because they are “rooted in trauma, suffering, and violent oppression of groups of people”
(Zembylas, 2017, 189). Thus, when students learn about genocide, they encounter difficult
knowledge. Zembylas (2017) explained that difficult knowledge is difficult “not only because of
the traumatic content of knowledge” being learned, but also because students' encounter with this
content can be “emotional and conceptually unsettling” (Zembylas, 2017, 190). In order to
counter this resistance, it was thus essential to understand the way in which reputably effective
secondary school educators construct the pedagogical conditions in which learning about
genocide can be meaningful rather than traumatic.
Research finds that genocide education can support students in learning about concepts
like identity, ethical and moral values as well as character education (Manfra & Stoddard, 2006;
Vaughn, 2020). Overall, my research findings revealed that while most study participants define
genocide education as a study that builds awareness of past histories and consequences of
destructive human behavior, they also find it as an imperative to teach and a gateway that allows
students to make relevant connections between the past and the present as well as to think deeply
about their own values and how they treat others. Furthermore, the findings of this study
demonstrated that the study participants approached instruction of this subject by actively
135
135
engaging students in the classroom through lessons and activities that encourage deep learning
about this topic of study by supporting students to make connections to what they know, what
they are interested in, and/or their lived experiences. These strategies are related to their general
approach to classroom instruction, oriented in constructivist pedagogy, which creates a learning
environment where difficult knowledge can be accessed by students to promote meaningful
understanding and empower their sense of agency (Vaughn, 2020).
As it relates to Armenian Genocide education, a majority of participants shared that over
the course of their career their content knowledge for teaching this history, increased due to
formal and informal efforts of support. This finding relates to the idea that participants’ content
knowledge relates to their preparedness and effectiveness in teaching difficult histories
(Shulman, 1986). In general, the study participants expressed that due to the efforts of their
social network, members in their school community as well as professional learning
opportunities they were better able to recognize the interdisciplinary learning potential and
relevance for integrating the Armenian Genocide in their course curriculum. The participants
expressed that this knowledge supported their ability to reach and engage their students in
learning about this history as well as build a deep sense of community and understanding for the
continued significance and symbolic nature of genocide commemoration. The study participants
also expressed a desire and need for continued education that supports their own deeper
understanding for the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide and innovative materials that engage
their students through digital media and experiential opportunities to access this history.
The findings of this study also demonstrated that practices that the study participants
employed in the classroom when teaching about the Armenian Genocide related to the criteria
laid out in Newmann and Wehlage’s authentic instruction framework. While some participants
136
136
expressed that they need to be wary of their curricular limitations, most participants found
strategic opportunities to teach about the Armenian Genocide through multiple perspectives and
angles. The practices that participants described when teaching about this history engaged
students to develop their skills for historical inquiry, historical empathy, and historical thinking.
Lastly, beyond these capacities, the study participants’ strategies offered students opportunities
that promoted their digital media literacy, critical thinking, and active citizenship.
137
137
Chapter Five: Discussion
Research finds that the purpose of genocide education is to ultimately prevent future
genocides (Mamigonian, 2023). However, despite decades of efforts that have supported
genocide education instruction, the unfortunate reality is that genocides still occur globally today
(Mamigonian, 2023). While the findings of this study cannot resolve this global issue, they do
provide an opportunity to better understand the perception of genocide education instruction held
by public secondary school educators, specifically from the greater Los Angeles region, and their
approaches to effectively teach these difficult histories to students in their classroom context.
Furthermore, the findings of this study offer a closer understanding of the practices reputably
effective public secondary school educators have employed in their classrooms to facilitate
Armenian Genocide education instruction across the curriculum.
It is hoped that through this study, policymakers, school district administrators, educators
and professional genocide education organizations may be better informed when furthering their
own practices and priorities as related to Armenian Genocide education instruction in secondary
school. In an effort to support the purpose of this study, the guiding research questions were as
follows:
1. How do reputably effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles
region perceive and approach genocide education?
2. What are reputably effective public secondary school educators’ experiences of efforts
that support instruction of the Armenian Genocide in the greater Los Angeles region?
3. What practices do reputably effective public secondary school educators in the greater
Los Angeles region employ in their respective classrooms to teach about the Armenian
Genocide and why?
138
138
The data for this study was collected from semi-structured interviews with 10 reputably
effective public secondary school educators who teach across three different disciplines—SocialScience, English Language Arts and Visual Arts. Collectively the study participants had over
seven years of teaching experience and were regarded as reputably effective educators due to the
public recognition they received for their outstanding efforts to teach about the Armenian
Genocide to their students. They were nominated for this recognition by members of their school
community, including their students and/or their students’ parents, school administrators, and
other members of their school community. Additionally, each of the study participants had
worked in a distinguished school and school district.
I used purposeful sampling to identify the sample population of educators used for this
study. The study participants were thus an ideal fit as they each met the criteria for participants.
The criteria included: (1) an active or retired effective educator (2) who has taught in a public
secondary school (3) in the greater Los Angeles region, who (4) currently or has previously
taught about the Armenian Genocide in at least one or more courses in a humanities discipline
for at least three or more years. Each interview spanned between 45 and 75 minutes and focused
on gathering data pertaining to participants’ general perception and approach to genocide
education instruction, their classroom practices as related to Armenian Genocide education and
their experiences of efforts that supported their instruction of this history in their classroom.
Pseudonyms were used to identify the study participants in order to maintain their anonymity.
All interviews were video recorded and transcribed which supported the data analysis of this
study.
In the final chapter of this dissertation, I discuss the main findings from the study as they
relate to the three research questions and draw connections to the literature and conceptual
139
139
framework addressed previously in Chapter 2. To follow this discussion, I then highlight the
implications from the study, my suggested recommendations for future research, and share an
overview of the limitations and delimitations of this study.
Summary of Findings
The conceptual framework of this study determined that in order to teach effectively in the
classroom, an educator must have seven categories of knowledge in the domain of content
knowledge that include: (1) Content Knowledge (subject matter content knowledge), (2) General
Pedagogical Knowledge, (3) Curricular Knowledge, (4) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK),
(5) Knowledge of Learners and their Characteristics, (6) Knowledge of Educational Contexts, (7)
Knowledge of Educational Ends, Purpose, and Values and their philosophical and historical
grounds (Shulman, 1987). These same categories apply when delivering effective genocide
education instruction. In what follows I offer a discussion about the most compelling findings of
this study, guided by the research questions and reflective of the conceptual framework.
Teacher Knowledge–Subject Matter Content Knowledge, Knowledge of Educational
Context
As it relates to subject matter knowledge, a majority of participants expressed that they did
not know about the Armenian Genocide before they started teaching in their school district. Once
they became aware of their own limited knowledge, recognized the importance of this history in
the historical record and its relevance for their school community, they were activated to learn
more. The study participants expressed that they actively attended professional development
workshops offered by their school district, sought information on their own and/or received
informal support from individuals in their school community. With the new knowledge they
acquired they became better informed of the history of the Armenian Genocide and its
140
140
generational impact. They thus ensured that this history was taught in the classroom in a
meaningful manner as it connected to their respective course curriculum.
While research finds that educators often shy away from teaching a subject they do not
know about, especially when it comes to teaching difficult histories, what was most unique about
this finding was that the study participants felt a sense of agency and responsibility to learn more
about this history and how to teach it to their students as a result of their lack of knowledge. As
another unique point, two out of the five school districts that the study participants represented
were schools that offer an unassigned school day dedicated to Armenian Genocide
Remembrance Day on April 24. As a result of this unassigned day, the study participants were
further motivated and activated in their efforts to teach this history to students in their classroom,
drawing relevant connections to their course curricula to emphasize the importance of
commemoration of this past and why it matters today. This is a significant finding of my study as
there was no literature available that discussed the relationship and impact of having an
unassigned day dedicated to genocide commemoration and how that may influence educators’
rationale to teach about the Armenian Genocide to their students.
Teacher Knowledge–General Pedagogical Knowledge
As related to pedagogical knowledge, the study participants ensured that their approach to
genocide education in their classroom was meaningful for students. The way that participants
made this possible was by setting an instructional context where students would feel safe and
heard. This context was reflective of their general teaching philosophy and pedagogical approach
to classroom instruction which was constructivist in orientation and emphasized a learnercentered classroom environment. Thus, it was essential to understand this instructional context in
order to best interpret the findings as related to the research questions of this study. It is also
141
141
relevant to note that the greater Los Angeles region is home to a large Armenian-American
population, thus the study participants have taught students with Armenian heritage and work
alongside colleagues who are also of Armenian ethnic descent. This demographic information is
also important to recognize as it relates to the findings of this study.
The instructional practices aligned to this framework as used by participants in the
classroom are inquiry-based instructional approaches, development of historical empathy,
comparative genocide education and interdisciplinary connections. These strategies as expressed
by participants align with their definition of genocide education, which corroborates with the
literature available and what they noted to be its importance for students.
Perception of Genocide Education Instruction
As related to the perceptions of genocide education held by the study participants, the
findings were generally aligned to the literature available. The study participants collectively
defined genocide education as the study of destructive human behaviors and the short and longterm impact of these behaviors. The findings also found that the study participants teach about
genocide to their students in order for them to become aware of these events both in the past and
present and to understand the consequences of these events and their relevance in the present
day. It is through their efforts that the study participants hoped this education would develop
students’ knowledge to make informed judgements, skills to critically evaluate harmful bias
messages they may be exposed to on the internet or in other forms of media and reflection on the
impact of their own behaviors. They also expressed that genocide education is critical for future
genocide prevention (Johnson & Pennington, 2018).
Participants in the study also shared that learning about past- and present-day examples of
genocide is important to develop students’ ability to make connections between the parallels of
142
142
destructive human behavior and recognize the consequences of when these behaviors go
unchecked (Apsel, 2003). Their reasons were based on several factors, including their own prior
knowledge on the topic, their own understanding of the importance of this subject generally in
history, as well as the importance of this history to the members in their school community and
those in their local community in Los Angeles. Some participants expressed that when they first
learned of the Armenian Genocide, they were surprised that they did not have knowledge of this
history during their childhood or even early adulthood.
Classroom Practices and Armenian Genocide Education
As it relates to the approach the study participants take to introduce the subject of genocide
in their courses, the findings of this study reflected that participants do so based on the
limitations of their respective course curricula. Thus, while the genocide education mandate in
California is specific to teaching examples of genocide in 10th grade World History, educators
who taught other course subjects expressed that they found opportunities to introduce genocide
histories through related units of study. They did this based on the topic and/or skills related to
their curriculum. Educator’s ability to integrate genocide education across the curriculum,
beyond the historical perspective are reflective of educators’ overall content knowledge
(Shulman, 2013).
As related to the educators’ approach to genocide education instruction, what was most
compelling from the findings was the notion of cross-curricular collaboration between educators
from multiple disciplinary departments, who either worked together on an integrated project
and/or found opportunities to complement their respective course curricula with diverse
resources related to genocide education. For example, in the hybrid course model that combined
both World History and English Language Arts together, Ms. Jacobson, who taught English
143
143
Language Arts had her students read the novel, The Hundred- Year Walk: An Armenian Odyssey
(MacKeen, 2016) while her co-World History teacher introduced the historical context of the
Armenian Genocide. That way students gained both an understanding of this history from the
historical perspective as well as from through the personal story of a survivor and his greatgranddaughter.
Findings from participants also collectively revealed that a comparative approach to
genocide education instruction was essential to ensure students recognized that occurrences of
genocide are not isolated events in history and that they continue to take place in the present day.
This application of comparative genocide education aligns with the literature that stressed the
importance of students learning about multiple cases of genocide to recognize that this is a global
and reoccurring conflict (Johnson & Pennington, 2018).
Limitations to Classroom Instruction
As related to the limitations in the classroom when teaching about genocide, Mr.
Keshishian revealed that students in his classroom experienced challenges when making a
personal connection to genocide, especially something as traumatic as genocide. For example,
Mr. Andrew’s shared that students who came to his U.S. History class in 11th grade had limited
knowledge of the Armenian Genocide. As a result of this lack in prior knowledge, Mr. Andrew’s
shared that he needed to switch around his lesson by integrating useful tools in the classroom to
develop background information, such as film and the internet. This demonstrates Mr. Andrew’s
strong sense of general pedagogical knowledge and the knowledge of his learners. This
experience of the educator supports literature that finds that educators often experience affective
barriers when teaching difficult histories to students (Zembylas, 2017). However, given Mr.
144
144
Andrew’s knowledge he was able to make the necessary pedagogical adjustments to reach his
students.
When thinking about participants’ perception of efforts that support instruction on the
Armenian Genocide, specifically, key findings revealed that participants are generally
appreciative, enjoy learning more and gathering more pertinent and up-to-date primary and
secondary sources to support their instruction. Participants shared that they generally attend
professional development workshops related to Armenian Genocide education that are organized
by their school district. Most participants shared that in addition to attending professional
development workshops, they gained more knowledge and resources from informal support they
received from their school community.
Findings also revealed that the participants teach about the Armenian Genocide while
teaching about topics related to World War I, political or ethnic conflict and or in relation to
genocide awareness month. Examples of participants’ lessons and use of resources demonstrates
that teaching about the Armenian Genocide is interdisciplinary and as a result can be integrated
across the curriculum.
Implications for Policymakers, School District Leaders, Educators and
Genocide Education Organizations
Data collected from this study hold implications for policymakers, school district leaders,
educators, and genocide education organizations.
Policymakers
As it relates to education policymakers, the findings of this study offered closer
understanding that genocide education as perceived by reputably effective educators is
meaningful when connections can be made between past- and present-day examples of genocide.
145
145
Thus, as policymakers look to construct new legislation on genocide education, they must
consider that the study of this subject is pertinent upon the study of multiple examples of these
crimes against humanity that emphasize the importance of destructive human behaviors and the
consequences and the impact. Additionally, the findings of this study should encourage
policymakers to recognize that genocide education, at large, is universal. In this way,
policymakers, especially in California, should consider broadening the mandate for genocide
education at the secondary school level in order to integrate the study of this subject across
multiple disciplines. Finally, as it relates to policymakers, continued efforts to allocate funds that
support efforts to build educators capacity and confidence for teaching about genocide is
necessary.
School Community (School Districts & Educators)
Implications for educators, as found by this study, entail that in order for effective teaching
on genocide education to take place, an educator must create an instructional environment that
supports students’ opportunities for meaningful learning. Thus, practices in the classroom that
support these meaningful learning experiences must be structured in such a way that learning is
constructed through student experience, curiosity, and empathy. Through these practices,
students are better able to relate to the experiences learned as they relate to genocide and draw
deeper connections that support relevance for learning about past history of genocide in the
present day.
Beyond its educational value, teaching about the Armenian Genocide in Los Angeles
public schools also gives opportunity for students to learn more about the Armenian community
in the region. It is therefore necessary that educators have access to informal and professional
learning opportunities that provide guidelines on how to develop empathy in the classroom.
146
146
While this study identified that reputably effective educators rely on professional development
opportunities (often mandated) offered by their school district, the implications therefore for
school districts are to ensure that annually professional development opportunities are taking
place for educators to build on their content knowledge. These wide-ranging professional
learning opportunities can build educator’s confidence in teaching difficult histories to students
in their classroom.
Professional Genocide Education Organizations
For genocide education organizations, this study informs deeper understanding of
reputably effective educators’ perception of efforts that support instruction of the Armenian
Genocide education. It is critical that these findings are taken into consideration to inform
strategic outreach and the design of robust professional development workshops for educators to
support their needs and goals for teaching about the Armenian Genocide in their classrooms. In
this way, based on the findings of this study, genocide education organizations should consider
forming strategic collaborations that offer interdisciplinary approaches and engaging resources
for educators to integrate into the classroom as it relates to Armenian Genocide education.
147
147
Table 7
Research Implications
Policymakers and
Institutional Leaders
Educators School Districts
• Broaden legislation to
teach genocide
education in multiple
humanities course
disciplines.
• Recognize multiple
categories of
knowledge needed for
teaching and learning
about genocide
education
meaningfully.
• Ensure educators have
access to professional
learning opportunities.
• Fund and provide
robust professional
learning opportunities
to support educators to
teach about genocides
across the curriculum.
Recommendations and Implementations
This section offers recommendations and implementations for secondary school
educators, school districts and organizations, generally interested in genocide education and
Armenian Genocide education, specifically. These recommendations set forth below will help to
support educators in their efforts to better prepare for teaching about genocide, especially the
Armenian Genocide, in their classroom and to have confidence in their practice as it relates to
this history. The recommendations listed below also offer school districts suggestions on how to
better build capacity and confidence in educators’ approach to teaching about genocide and
provide organizations ideas to advance their professional development strategies for educators
and the resources they offer as it relates to Armenian Genocide education.
148
148
Recommendation 1
Several expert organizations in the field of Armenian Genocide education, should
collaborate and create an up-to-date supportive outline for educators which provides all aspects
of the history of the Armenian Genocide—pre, during, and post history—and complementary
guidelines for how to effectively integrate this history across the curriculum. This study’s
participants, especially those who are representative of non-Armenian ethnic backgrounds,
claimed to be unaware of the Armenian Genocide at the start of their teaching career. However,
as a result of encountering people in their local community, colleagues and/or students with
Armenian ethnic background and their own self-interest to learn more about this history, the
participants of this study took it upon themselves to self-educate. Participants shared that they
sought informal support from students and parents and/or attended professional development
workshops focused on teaching this history. Thus, to ensure that educators have the proper
historical background and guidelines to support their instruction of the Armenian Genocide in
their classroom, it is my recommendation that having a curricular outlines and supportive
instructional guidelines can better direct educators’ efforts for teaching thus history to students
meaningfully.
Recommendation 2
Genocide education organizations should provide professional learning opportunities for
secondary school educators that focus on how to create an appropriate instructional context for
teaching about difficult histories. As the findings of this study reflect, participants structure their
classroom with pedagogical practices rooted in constructivist pedagogy that support meaningful
learning experiences for students. These practices allow students to learn new knowledge
building on what they know and their personal experiences. In this way, educators offer students
149
149
an opportunity to find relevance when learning about difficult histories and their larger
implications. Some participants also emphasized the importance of building empathy in students
as a way to better build community in the classroom. Thus, as related to pedagogical practices
that support students’ learning of genocide, organizations should also layer in supportive
strategies that develop educators’ practices for the development of historical empathy in students
as it relates to building connections and understanding of the past.
Recommendation 3
Educators should engage in cross-curricular collaborations when teaching about
examples of genocide and/or specifically about the Armenian Genocide, in order for students to
gain understanding of this history through an interdisciplinary lens. As found in this study’s
findings, some participants engaged in cross-curricular collaboration when teaching about the
Armenian Genocide. For example, while World History educators focused on building students
subject matter knowledge, the English Language Arts educator engaged students in a close
reading of novels, i.e., survivor memoirs and/or historical fiction texts related to this history. In
this way, participants shared that this approach offered students an opportunity to learn about the
history of the Armenian Genocide through an examination of a wider variety of primary and
secondary sources that support deeper understanding of the human experience of genocide and
its impact.
150
150
Table 8
Recommendations for Implementation
Recommendation 1:
Professional
Institutions
● Create a curricular outline for to Armenian Genocide history
(pre, during, and post period).
Recommendation 2:
School Districts
● Seek out professional learning opportunities for educators
that are accessible
Recommendation 3:
Educators
● Engage in cross-curricular collaborations to teach about the
Armenian Genocide through an interdisciplinary lens.
Limitations and Delimitations
When interpreting the findings of this study, there are several limitations and delimitations
that are necessary to consider. While in most cases limitations and delimitations were purposeful,
there were other instances in which they were unintentional. In this section, I will explain both
the limitations and delimitations and their effect on this study.
Limitations
As it relates to the literature review of this study, empirical research on Armenian Genocide
education in secondary school education was especially limited in the 21st century. Thus, as a
result, several of the studies cited in this study referenced articles which were published 10 years
ago. This limitation validated that research connected to educators’ perceptions and strategies
with why and how educators employ teaching about the Armenian Genocide, if at all, is lacking
in the field. Thus, the literature presented in my study reflects research that focuses on genocide
education more broadly, comparative genocide education approaches and best practices in the
field as it relates to educators’ approach to Armenian Genocide education more specifically.
151
151
The next limitation of this study was the quality and quantity of the data collected. The
data collection for this study took place during the Spring quarter of 2022-2023 academic year.
This time period was a busy time for educators in their second semester of school which may
have affected the low response rate of recruited participants for this study. While over 30
participants were contacted to participate in the study, only 10 consented. While the data
collected from the study participants were rich, this study was limited to a population sample of
educators who only represented five school districts in the greater Los Angeles region and were
in great majority representative of high school educators.
While there were two ways the study participants could contribute to the data collection
process of this study—interviews or documents—the majority of data collected did stem from
one-on-one interviews. This comes as a result of a low number of documents received by the
study participants. Additionally, the absence of classroom observations which have the potential
to demonstrate the impact of the approach to Armenian Genocide education and the strategies
that the participating educators actually employed in the classroom with students is not available
in this study as a result of time constraint and limitation to one researcher. Thus, the study was
limited to relying on the credibility of the study participants.
Delimitations
This study has several delimitations. For example, the sample population was delimited
to reputably effective secondary school educators from the greater Los Angeles region. The
rationale for this delimitation was to ensure that the data collected came directly from educators
who were recognized and distinguished for their knowledge and experience as it relates to
Armenian Genocide education. In addition, the delimited location would also help to understand
how the local community demographic played a role on their perception and approach to
152
152
Armenian Genocide education. While these delimitations were purposeful it did exclude
educators who may have had alternative perceptions and approaches of Armenian Genocide
education. Thus, data collected from a wider population of educators could have diversified the
data collected.
As it also relates to the study participants, the teaching experiences of the population
sample was purposefully delimited to their experiences of teaching about genocide in one or two
course subjects they have taught in at least one humanities-related discipline and grade level.
This decision was made so as to avoid excessive overlap of data. Therefore, each participant
responded to questions from the interview protocol through the lens of this course(s).
The final delimitation of this study was my role as a novice researcher. Due to this
experience level, there may have been implications on my research design and protocols that I
did not foresee. For example, this may have been reflected in the way that I crafted my research
questions, interview protocol, and my decision to leave out documents from the analysis from
my findings. Furthermore, since I am not an experienced interviewer, I may have missed
opportunities to probe participants to further elaborate or discuss ideas or thoughts that they
presented.
Recommendations for Future Research
The limitations, delimitations, and findings of this study present opportunities for potential
future research. Below, I offer suggested points of interest that will continue to fill a gap in
literature specific to Armenian Genocide education and genocide education more broadly. I will
first describe the implications that are quantitative in nature then follow with implications that
are qualitative.
153
153
Firstly, since the study was limited to 10 interviews with educators that were reputably
effective in the Los Angeles region, it would be a supportive follow up study to take a wider
landscape survey of the teaching practices public secondary school educators in the greater Los
Angeles region employ in the classroom when teaching about the Armenian Genocide. A large
sample size that is representative of the population would help to assess how the Armenian
Genocide is addressed in the classroom more widely in the Los Angeles area, how educators
acquire knowledge of this history, and their rationales for teaching the Armenian Genocide.
Results from this survey would help to inform the Los Angeles Unified School District and
surrounding districts in the region more specifically about the types of professional development
opportunities and/or other services needed to better serve educators’ needs.
Secondly, I would suggest that an observational study of educators’ approach to Armenian
Genocide education be conducted. This type of study would not only provide an evaluation of an
educator’s instructional practice but also of students’ learning experience. For example, in at
least four interviews with participants from my study, it was expressed that Armenian Genocide
education was especially effective when efforts from educators across multiple departments
integrated instruction and resources connected to teaching this history in their courses. Thus,
they claimed that the collaborative effort enabled students to access this history more deeply
from multiple perspectives and sources, while it also encouraged them to make relevant
connections. Thus, an observational study of this approach to teaching about the Armenian
Genocide would make for a compelling study for future research. I would suggest scaling this
study to entail a team of four researchers who would collect data from two or three classrooms
(i.e., World History, English Language Arts, Visual Arts, etc…) in two distinctly different
schools within two distinctly different school districts.
154
154
Thirdly, findings from participants revealed satisfactory efforts by genocide educational
organizations in their efforts to lead professional learning opportunities for educators. As a
result, I would suggest a follow up observational study that evaluates educators’ experience,
before, during, and after, a professional development workshop training on Armenian Genocide
education. This type of study would offer a more in-depth look at the experiences of varied types
of educators who attend these workshops. The data collected would be useful to inform
organizations of their approach and its value for all educators who attend. Thus, this topic of
study would alert genocide education organizations about the limitations of their training as well
as opportunities made possible for educators as a result of their efforts. This study could also
potentially support strategic efforts for collaborative opportunities between organizations.
A fourth implication for future research relates to findings from participants that
emphasized the value of comparative genocide education in the classroom. In this way, a follow
up observational study of educators’ instructional practices as they relate to a comparative
approach to genocide education would more deeply enlighten the value of this approach and
could have larger implications for genocide education mandates at the legislative level.
Finally, a few participants noted experiences they have had with students related to
genocide denial. Due to the limitations of this study, educators’ approach with students around
this topic was not further explored. However, a future study that could specifically address
educators’ perceptions of genocide denial and how they approach this topic with students with
students in the classroom would be valuable for educators’ confidence in teaching about
genocide histories, especially the Armenian Genocide.
155
155
Conclusion
Since their orchestration in 1915, the heinous crimes committed against the Armenian
people were largely denied by the perpetrating Ottoman Turkish government. This legacy of
denial has been carried for over a century by subsequent governments of the Republic of Turkey,
till today. Despite substantial historical evidence that validates otherwise, it can be argued that
this extended period of denial has affected worldwide knowledge of the history of the Armenian
Genocide, has caused controversial repercussions and geopolitical risks to any country who
considers acknowledging the truth of this history. Even the United States, which led significant
efforts to support Armenian refugees and survivors during this period, did not officially
recognize the Armenian Genocide, as a genocide, federally, until 2019. Genocide education is
thus a powerful tool that can be used as a mechanism to counter this continued denial and
support for future genocide prevention.
To further explore the topic of my study, my research questions focused on gaining a
deeper understanding of the perceptions and approaches to genocide education more broadly,
collecting information to help understand educators’ perspectives of Armenian Genocide
education and efforts that support its instruction as well as discovering classroom practices that
educators apply in the classroom as related to this history. The purpose of this study was to fill a
gap in the literature available related to this field. Thus, offering knowledge about what
educators are doing in greater Los Angeles when it comes to teaching and learning about the
Armenian Genocide.
Per the methods of my qualitative study, I used purposeful sampling and interviewed 10 out
of a possible total of 30 reputably effective, public secondary school educators from the Los
Angeles region. These educators teach across multiple disciplines, including Social Science,
156
156
English Language Arts, and Visual Arts, and are reputably effective as they have been
recognized for their outstanding efforts teaching about the Armenian Genocide, by their students,
colleagues and/or parents in their school community. Educators from the Los Angeles region
were purposely selected to be interviewed as it is home to the second largest diaspora of ethnic
Armenians living outside of the Republic of Armenia. Thus, as a researcher I had curiosity
around whether this demographic fact has had an effect on the way educators approach teaching
this history to their students.
As related to the main findings of my study, there are four that are most compelling.
Participating educators of the study felt a deep sense of responsibility to teach about the
Armenian Genocide to their students. They also found relevance in bridging connections
between the Armenian Genocide and present-day examples of genocide. Most participants found
that teaching about the history of the Armenian Genocide is interdisciplinary as it can transcend
across various themes, topics, and skills across the curriculum. This lends itself naturally to
cross-curricular collaborations which, some participants shared, has led students to deepen their
understanding of this history from multiple perspectives. As related to findings found from
literature, participant experiences of teaching about the Armenian Genocide have allowed
opportunity for the development of historical empathy for the past as well as empathy between
students within the classroom and the local Armenian-American community. Finally, as also
aligned to the literature available, effective teaching in the classroom takes place as a result of
teachers having a deep sense of content knowledge as related to subject matter knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge, and their curricular knowledge. Based on what participants expressed
during their interviews, they each demonstrate suitable content knowledge that supports their
157
157
ability to create the classroom environment in which teaching and learning about the Armenian
Genocide can take place.
As related to the implications of this study, this study opens the door for continued research
in the field. This study also emphasizes that continued education for educators about the
Armenian Genocide and how to teach effectively is essential in greater Los Angeles.
Additionally, genocide education organizations should be encouraged to make strategic
collaborations that offer the opportunity to bridge their existing resources and offer quality
professional development that builds educators content knowledge, capacity, and confidence for
teaching about this history to students. As I reflect on the experience of conducting this study, I
look forward to my own future research related to this field of study that will inform future
transformational practices in educators’ approaches to teaching about the Armenian Genocide to
students and its relevance in the world today.
158
158
References
A Heroic Relief Effort: The Near East Relief Digital Museum preserves the memory of America’s
historic response to the Armenian Genocide. (n.d.). Near East Foundation.
https://neareastmuseum.com/
About human rights defenders. (n.d.). OHCHR. http://tinyurl.com/mrxb925y
Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2022. (2023, March 23). Anti-Defamation League .
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incidents-2022
California Senate unanimously passes genocide education act. (2014, August 27). Artsakh Press.
https://www.artsakhpress.am/eng/news/4430/california-senate-unanimously-passesgenocide-education-act.html
Department of Education. (1994, March 10). Official Site of the State of New Jersey .
https://www.nj.gov/education/holocaust/about/
First-Ever 50-State Survey on Holocaust Knowledge Of American Millennials And Gen Z
Reveals Shocking Results. (2020, September 16). Claims Conference.
https://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/
Genocide. (n.d.). United Nations: Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to
Protect. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
History Repeating. (n.d.). Virginia Tech. http://tinyurl.com/2dcsvdru
Human Rights Education and Training. (n.d.). OHCHR. http://tinyurl.com/2ffxz262
National Standards for the Preparation of Social Studies Teachers. (n.d.). National Council for
the Social Studies. https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/national-standardspreparation-social-studies-teachers
159
159
National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: Introduction. (n.d.). National Council for the
Social Studies. https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/national-curriculum-standardssocial-studies-introduction
Pedagogical Principles For Effective Holocaust Instruction. (n.d.). Echoes & Reflections.
https://echoesandreflections.org/pedagogical-principles/
The Ten Stages of Genocide by Dr. Gregory Stanton. (n.d.). Genocide Watch.
http://www.genocide-watch.com/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html
The Armenian Genocide Resolution Unanimously Passed By The Association of Genocide
Scholars of North America. (1997, June 3). International Association of Genocide
Scholars. http://tinyurl.com/bd2mm5p3
Statement by President Joe Biden on Armenian Remembrance Day. (2021, April 24). The White
House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2021/04/24/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-armenian-remembrance-day/
Statement on President Joseph Biden’s Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. (2021, April 24).
Armenian National Committee of America- Western Region. https://ancawr.org/pressrelease/statement-on-president-joseph-bidens-recognition-of-the-armenian-genocide/
What is Interdisciplinary Instruction? (n.d.). Maine Department of Education.
http://tinyurl.com/bdjkewfn
Akçam, T. (2018). Killing orders: Talat Pasha’s telegrams and the Armenian Genocide.
Springer International Publishing.
Apsel, J. (2003). Looking backward and forward: Genocide Studies and Teaching about the
Armenian Genocide. In R. Hovannisian (Ed.), Looking Backward, Moving Forward:
Confronting the Armenian Genocide (pp. 181–207). Transaction Publishers.
160
160
Bekerman, Z., & Zembylas, M. (2016). Identity negotiations in conflict-ridden societies:
historical and anthropological perspectives. Paedagogica Historica, 52(1-2), 201–218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2015.1133674
Bitensky, S. H. (2018). The plot to overthrow genocide: State laws mandating education about
the foulest crime of all. Marquette Law Review, 102(1), 51–.
Blutinger, J. C. (2009). Bearing witness: Teaching the Holocaust from a victim-centered
perspective. The History Teacher, 42(3), 269–279.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 103-112 ONLY).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Boghikian Kasparian, A. (2023, May 24). Armenian Genocide education in Michigan: From law
to curriculum to training. The Armenian Weekly.
https://armenianweekly.com/2023/05/24/armenian-genocide-education-in-michiganfrom-law-to-curriculum-to-training/
Bruner, J., Benkert, V., McArthur Harris, L., Hutchinson, M., & Lundin, A. E. (2017).
Developing a critical comparative genocide method. World History Connected, 14(2).
https://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi
Burleson, S., & Giordano, A. (2016). Spatiality of the stages of genocide: The Armenian case.
Genocide Studies and Prevention, 10(3), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-
9933.10.3.1410
Burnett, K., Chambers, L., Cohen, L. B., Hay, T., Jacobs, S. L., Markotic, L., Minslow, S.,
Mounsef, D., Muller, A., Powell, C., Sarkissian, R., Amarasingam, A., & Basso, A. R.
(2017). Understanding Atrocities : Remembering, Representing, and Teaching Genocide
161
161
(1st ed.). University of Calgary Press
California Department of Education & The Genocide Education Project (2011). Teaching the
Armenian Genocide in California: Statewide Survey.
Claims Conference. (2021). New survey by claims conference finds significant lack of Holocaust
knowledge in the United States. https://www.claimscon.org/study/
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119
Comber, B., Janks, H., Vasquez, V.. (2019). Key Aspects of Critical Literacy: An Excerpt.
NCTE. https://ncte.org/blog/2019/07/critical-literacy/
Contributor (2014, May 30). Calif.. assembly adopts measure mandating genocide education in
public schools. The Armenian Weekly. Retrieved August 22, 2022, from
https://armenianweekly.com/2014/05/30/calif-assembly-adopts-measure-mandatinggenocide-education-public-schools/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2012). Education, knowledge and the righting of wrongs. Other
Education: The Journal of Educational Alternatives, 1(1), 19-31.
Echoes & Reflections (2020). Echoes & Reflections U.S. College Survey.
[Unpublished raw data].
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement: The Imperative
for Professional Development in Education. Albert Shanker Institute.
Endacott, J. L. (2014). Negotiating the Process of Historical Empathy. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 42(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.826158
162
162
Epstein, T., & Peck, C. L. (2018). Introduction. In T. Epstein & C. L. Peck (Eds.), Teaching and
learning difficult histories in international contexts: A critical sociocultural approach
(pp. 2–13). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fallace, T. D. (2006). The origins of holocaust education in American public schools.
Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 20(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/dcj004
Flinders, D.J, Noddings, N., & Thornton, S. J. (1986). The Null Curriculum: Its theoretical basis
and practical implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 33–42.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1179551
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gross, M. H. (2017). Learning from survivors: mapping the past onto the present. Intercultural
Education (London, England), 28(6), 591–606.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1389043
H.Res.296 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Affirming the United States record on the Armenian
Genocide. (2019, October 29). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/houseresolution/296
H.R.943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Never Again Education Act. (2020, May 29).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/943
H.R.7555 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Armenian Genocide Education Act. (2022, April 21).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7555
Harris, K.R. & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. The
Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 233–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699402800301
163
163
Harshman, J. (2016). Critical Global Competence and the C3 in Social Studies Education. Social
Studies (Philadelphia, Pa : 1934), 107(5), 160–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2016.119091
Hedger, J. (2021, February 3). Addressing gaps in holocaust and genocide education. National
Association of State Boards of Education. https://stateboardinsight.nasbe.org/addressinggaps-in-holocaust-and-genocide-education/
Holmgren, R., & Sjöberg, D. (2022). The value of informal workplace learning for police
education teachers’ professional development. The Journal of Workplace Learning,
34(7), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-04-2021-0040
Holocaust/Genocide Education, New Jersey Stat. § 18a:35-28 (1994 & Rev. 2018).
http://tinyurl.com/2z4s4j7t
Hovannisian, R. G.( 2003). Looking backward, moving forward: Confronting the Armenian
Genocide. Routledge.
International Society for Technology in Education.(2022). ISTE Standards: Educators.
https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-teachers
Johnson, A. (2015). Chasing theme number nine: Five practical strategies for making global
connections. Social Studies Research and Practice, 10(2), 84–95.
Johnson, A. P., & Pennington, L. (2018). Teaching “other” genocides: Exploring the
intersection of global education and genocide studies. The Social Studies, 109(5), 227–
237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2018.1483312
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Ch. 10 (pp. 247-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kim, K. (2017). Armenian Genocide Pilot Evaluation Report: “I am an Eyewitness” IWitness
Activity. [Unpublished raw data].
164
164
Lindquist, D. H. (2011). Instructional Approaches in Teaching the Holocaust. American
Secondary Education, 39(3), 117–128.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Mamigonian, M. (2023, April). “Facts are stubborn things”: How denial turns facts into opinions
and erodes truth. Genocide Education for the 21st Century.
Manfra M.M., & Stoddard, J. D. (2008). Powerful and Authentic Digital Media and Strategies
https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.99.6.260-264
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McArthur Harris, L. M., Hutchinson, M. J., Benkert, V., Bruner, J., & Lundin, A. E. (2017).
Teaching, learning, and researching genocide comparatively. World History Connected,
14(2). Retrieved from
https://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/14.2/forum_harris.html
McArthur Harris, L., Reid, S. F., Benkert, V., & Bruner, J. (2019). Investigating comparative
genocide teaching in two high school classrooms. Theory & Research Education, 47(4),
497–525. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1635058
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design an implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morgenthau, H. (2017). Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. Project Gutenberg.
165
165
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55343 (Original work published 1918)
Morrison, A. (2022, March 9). Number of hate groups declined in 2021, but Proud Boys
chapters surging, says SPLC. PBS News Hour. http://tinyurl.com/3dcfknnd
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). 2013. The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)
Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
http://tinyurl.com/2p87v5tz
Pavlović, D. (2022). Digital tools in museum learning–a literature review
From 2000 to 2020. Facta Universitatis, Series: Teaching, Learning and Teacher
Education, 167-178.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-380).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Power, S. (2002). A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide. Basic Books.
Ray, B., Faure, C., & Kelle, F. (2013). Using social impact games (SIGS) to support
constructivist learning: creating a foundation for effective use in the secondary social studies
education.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
S.Res.150 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that it
is the policy of the United States to commemorate the Armenian Genocide through
official recognition and remembrance. (2019, December 12).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/150
166
166
Sardone, Nancy B. & Roberta Devlin-Scherer. (2015). Exploring sensitive subjects with
adolescents: Using media and technology to teach about genocide. American Secondary
Education, 43(2), 4–17.
Sarkissian, R. (2017). The Benefits and Challenges of Genocide Education: A Case Study of the
Armenian Genocide. In S. Murray (Ed.), Understanding Atrocities Remembering,
Representing and Teaching Genocide (pp. 107–123). University of Calgary Press.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/9781552388877-008
Schneider, S. (2014). Teaching the unthinkable: Counter-narratives, pedagogy, and genocide.
Theory in Action, 7(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.3798/tia.1937-0237.14002
Shing, C. L., Saat, R. M., & Loke, S. H. (2015). The Knowledge of Teaching – Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK). The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 3-(3),
16. https://mojes.um.edu.my/article/view/12781
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Smith, R.W., Markusen, E., & Lifton, R. J. (1995). Professional ethics and the denial of
Armenian Genocide. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 9(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/9.1.1
Spector, H. (2021). The Imperial Nationalism of Human Rights and Genocide Education Laws:
Cases from the United States. In World Yearbook of Education 2022 (p. 16). Routledge.
Strom, A. (2007). Teaching about the Armenian Genocide. In The Armenian Genocide (1st ed.,
pp. 239–244). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315131016-13
167
167
Thacker, E. S., Lee, J. K., & Friedman, A. M. (2017). Teaching with the C3 Framework:
Surveying teachers׳ beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 41(2), 89–
100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2016.08.001
Totten, S. (2001). Addressing the “null curriculum”: Teaching about genocides other than the
Holocaust. Social Education, 65(5), 309–313.
UNESCO. (2017). Education about the Holocaust and preventing genocide: A policy guide.,
pp.13-67. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248071
Van Straaten, D. Wilschut, A., & Oostdam, R. (2016). Making history relevant to students by
connecting past, present and future: A framework for research. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 48(4), 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089938
Vaughn, M. (2020). What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever? Theory
into Practice, 59(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702393
Waller, J. E. (2016). “A Crime Without a Name”: Defining Genocide and Mass Atrocity . In
Economic Aspects of Genocides, Other Mass Atrocities, and Their Preventions (pp. 28–
51). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199378296.003.0002
Zembylas, M. (2017). Teacher resistance towards difficult histories: The centrality of affect in
disrupting teacher learning. In T. Epstein & C. L. Peck (Eds.), Teaching and learning
difficult histories in international contexts: A critical sociocultural approach (pp. 189–
202). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zevin, J. (2015). Social Studies for the Twenty-First Century: Methods and Materials for
Teaching in Middle and Secondary Schools (4th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795867
168
168
Ziulkoski, K., Gross, I., Reid, O., Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2022). Connecting the past to
the present: A digital exhibition about one Jewish girl's life in eastern Europe. Social
Education, 86(2), 140-146.
169
169
Appendix A: USC Shoah Foundation (iwitness.usc.edu)
Brief Histories: The Armenian Genocide, 1915-1923
Setting the Stage
On October 29, 1914, the Ottoman Empire, led by the Young Turk government, entered the First
World War on the side of the Central Powers—the German and Austro-Hungarian empires.
Under the cover of war, the Armenian Christians, who were viewed as ethnic and religious
others by the state, were targeted by the government for total destruction. This was part of a plan
to form a Turkish state and expand Ottoman territories east, beyond the Armenian Highlands.
These crimes against the Armenian people are known as the Armenian Genocide.
Genocide
In 1915, leaders of the Young Turk government began to eliminate its Armenian population
through political orders of forced deportations and mass murder. To avoid any possible
resistance, more than 200 Armenian community leaders were arrested on April 24th in
Constantinople (Istanbul). Most were executed soon after.
In large groups, Armenians were forced out of their homes and pushed south toward the Syrian
desert. Along the way, men were separated and killed, while women and children were forced to
march under extreme harsh conditions. They were forcefully starved, without shelter and
protection from harassment and violence. As Armenians were removed from their towns, new
laws allowed for their homes, businesses and churches to be looted, confiscated and/or
destroyed. Most Armenians survived death as a result of forced conversion to Islam, abduction,
forced adoption, or by being sold or married into Turkish, Kurdish or Arab households. Others
were saved due to aid from American and European missionary and relief organizations, while
others were saved by neighbors who resisted political orders to harm Armenians.
End of the Ottoman Empire
By November 1918, Ottoman involvement in the First World War resulted in their defeat and the
victorious Allied powers partitioned and occupied the empire. Between 1919 and 1920, the
Ottomans held special military tribunals, which tried Young Turk leaders for crimes such as
intentional massacre, deportation, plunder of properties, torture and torment. The key leaders,
Mehmed Talât, Ismail Enver, Ahmed Cemal, Dr. Mehmed Nazim and Dr. Behaddin Şakir were
found guilty of first-degree mass murder and were given the death penalty in absentia. However,
this punishment was never followed through. Soon after, a Turkish nationalist movement led by
General Mustafa Kemal formed to force Allied troops out. During this period, Armenians
continued to be targets of genocidal policies. By 1923, General Mustafa Kemal and his forces
went on to form the modern-day Republic of Turkey.
170
170
An estimated 1.5 million Armenians, approximately two-thirds of the pre-war Armenian
population living in the Ottoman Empire, were murdered between 1915 and 1923. As of 2020,
despite overwhelming evidence, scholarly research, and testimony of survivors and foreign
witnesses that confirm the destruction of the Armenians as a genocide, the Turkish government
continues to refuse to acknowledge its past crimes, denying the genocide at home and abroad.
Armenian Genocide Testimony
Firsthand experiences and memory of the Armenian Genocide are preserved in USC Shoah
Foundation’s Visual History Archive through two collections — the Armenian Film Foundation
collection and the Richard G. Hovannisian Armenian Genocide Oral History collection. Both
collections give access to survivor testimonies and other eyewitness accounts, in addition to
survivor descendant and scholar testimonies recorded between the 1970s to the early 2000s.The
audiovisual testimonies from the Armenian Film Foundation were filmed for use in documentary
films that would bring international awareness and education about the Armenian Genocide. The
average length of these testimonies are about 20 minutes. The Richard G. Hovannisian Armenian
Genocide Oral History collection consists of audio testimony recorded by university students,
which offer a complete history of the life of Armenians, before, during and after the Armenian
Genocide. The average length of these testimonies are about 90 minutes.
Family of deportees on the road.
Armin T. Wegner Collection. Armenian National Institute.
Image Provided By: NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and
Genocide Studies. All Rights Reserved.
171
171
Appendix B: Adapted from The White House,
Statement by President Joe Biden on Armenian Remembrance Day. April 24, 2021.
Each year on this day, we remember the lives of all those who died in the Ottoman-era
Armenian genocide and recommit ourselves to preventing such an atrocity from ever again
occurring. Beginning on April 24, 1915, with the arrest of Armenian intellectuals and community
leaders in Constantinople by Ottoman authorities, one and a half million Armenians were
deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in a campaign of extermination. We honor the
victims of the Meds Yeghern so that the horrors of what happened are never lost to history. And
we remember so that we remain ever vigilant against the corrosive influence of hate in all its
forms.
Of those who survived, most were forced to find new homes and new lives around the
world, including in the United States. With strength and resilience, the Armenian people
survived and rebuilt their community. Over the decades Armenian immigrants have enriched the
United States in countless ways, but they have never forgotten the tragic history that brought so
many of their ancestors to our shores. We honor their story. We see that pain. We affirm the
history. We do this not to cast blame but to ensure that what happened is never repeated.
Today, as we mourn what was lost, let us also turn our eyes to the future—toward the
world that we wish to build for our children. A world unstained by the daily evils of bigotry and
intolerance, where human rights are respected, and where all people are able to pursue their lives
in dignity and security. Let us renew our shared resolve to prevent future atrocities from
occurring anywhere in the world. And let us pursue healing and reconciliation for all the people
of the world.
172
172
The American people honor all those Armenians who perished in the genocide that began
106 years ago today.
173
173
Appendix C: California State Legislation and Related Curricular History-Social Science
Standards and Framework
California State Mandate for Holocaust and Genocide Education
ARTICLE 3. Courses of Study, Grades 7 to 12 [51220 - 51230] ( Article 3 enacted by Stats.
1976, Ch. 1010. )
Education Code 51220.
The adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, shall offer courses in the following
areas of study:
(b) (1) Social sciences, drawing upon the disciplines of anthropology, economics, geography,
history, political science, psychology, and sociology, designed to fit the maturity of the pupils.
Instruction shall provide a foundation for understanding the history, resources, development,
and government of California and the United States of America; instruction in our American
legal system, the operation of the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems, and the rights
and duties of citizens under the criminal and civil law and the State and Federal Constitutions;
the development of the American economic system, including the role of the entrepreneur and
labor; the relations of persons to their human and natural environment; eastern and western
cultures and civilizations; human rights issues, with particular attention to the study of the
inhumanity of genocide, slavery, and the Holocaust; and contemporary issues.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, genocide may include the Armenian Genocide. The
“Armenian Genocide” means the torture, starvation, and murder of 1,500,000 Armenians,
which included death marches into the Syrian desert, by the rulers of the Ottoman Turkish
Empire and the exile of more than 500,000 innocent people during the period from 1915 to
1923, inclusive.
California History-Social Science Content Standard 10.5.5. (1998)
“Discuss human rights violations and genocide, including the Ottoman government’s actions
again Armenian citizens.”
History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools
(Adopted July 2016)
Chapter 15, Grade 10
World History, Culture, and Geography: The Modern World
“In 1915, as the Ottoman Empire declined, the Turkish government carried out a systematic
genocide against the Armenian population that had been living on its historic homeland in
what is now eastern Turkey. Turkish authorities first arrested hundreds of Armenian political
and intellectual leaders, sending them to their deaths; Armenian men were conscripted into
work camps where they were killed outright or died of exhaustion. The remaining Armenians
were ordered onto death marches into the Syrian desert, where they were subjected to rape,
torture, mutilation, starvation, holocausts in desert caves, kidnapping, and forced Turkification
174
174
and Islamization.
More than 1.5 million Armenians, more than half of the population was eliminated in this way;
virtually all their personal and community properties were seized by the government, and more
than 500,000 innocent people were forced into exile during the period from 1915 to 1923.
When the war ended in 1918, the Armenian population was reduced by 75 percent and their
historical lands were confiscated by the Turkish government.
Students may examine the reactions of other governments, including that of the United States,
and world opinion during and after the Armenian Genocide. Teachers can introduce the history
of the Near East Relief organization established by the former U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman
Empire, Henry Morgenthau. Near East Relief came to the aid of hundreds of thousands of
Armenian Genocide survivors through the establishment of orphanages, food and vocational
programs, and the like. Teachers can also use the example of the first international aid project
of the Red Cross in helping Armenian Genocide survivors, and the phrase, “Remember the
starving Armenians!” as a means to demonstrate to students the profound effect the Armenian
Genocide had on the American public.
The Red Cross’s aid to Armenian Genocide survivors also demonstrates the worldwide
humanitarian response to the crisis and the emerging role of the International Committee of the
Red Cross as an international nongovernmental humanitarian organization. They should
examine the effects of the genocide on the remaining Armenian people, who were deprived of
their historic homeland, and the ways in which it became a prototype of subsequent genocides.
To connect the effects of war, students can consider the following question: What were the
consequences of World War I for nations, ethnic groups, and people?” (p.343)
“Before and during the worldwide conflict, the Nazis implemented racial policies across the
portions of Europe they controlled. The question How was the Holocaust enacted? can guide
students’ exploration into the magnitude, terror, and loss of life caused by Nazi policies. These
policies drew upon racial and eugenicist ideologies. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Poles, Gypsies,
homosexuals, and political activists faced harassment, imprisonment, and death. Jews were the
particular targets of Nazi violence. Adolf Hitler said to his generals on the eve of the invasion
of Poland, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Numerous
German military officers who had been stationed in Turkey during World War I were aware of
the Ottoman regime’s plan to destroy the Armenians, and some of them even issued orders for
the deportation of Armenians. Without penalty, some later became leaders in the Nazi military
apparatus that carried out the Holocaust. Nazi policies and actions evolved over time with the
initial stripping of rights through the passage of the Nuremberg Laws, an escalation of
persecution through events such as Kristallnacht, the establishment of concentration camps,
and then genocide. Germans and their allies ultimately murdered six million Jews and millions
of others through starvation, forced labor, and by shooting and gassing victims. Sensitivity and
careful planning are needed to bring the history of this period to life for students in a
thoughtful and responsible way. The sheer scope, the action (or inaction) of civilians, and the
inhumanity of the Holocaust can be overwhelming to some students. By utilizing memoirs,
such as Elie Wiesel’s Night, teachers can provide students with a deeply personal
understanding of the Holocaust, as can the use of carefully selected primary-source materials.
175
175
Students can also review recorded testimonials of Holocaust survivors, and teachers can reach
out to academic and public institutions like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to
find ways to connect students to the Holocaust. Students may also examine instances of
resistance to the Holocaust by Jews and others. While on the one hand it is incredibly
challenging to teach the enormity and severity of the Jewish experience during the war,
teachers also often face challenges when trying to explain to students how “the final solution”
could be carried out by Germans. It took thousands of ordinary Germans to operate the
machinery of death; the German military, infrastructure, and even the economy were mobilized
to kill people.
It is important for teachers and students to examine how, in wartime, ordinary people might do
terrible things and they should trace how the German machinery of death grew as large as it
did and why Germans were complicit in it. Primary sources from the Nuremberg Trials and
wartime statistics can help students learn about the scale of the Holocaust. Immediately after
the war, genocide—the systematic killing of members of an ethnic or religious group—was
established as a crime under international law through the development of the United Nations.”
(p.353-354)
“In their study of the two world wars, students examined the origins and consequences of the
Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Students should understand that genocide is a
phenomenon that has continued throughout the twentieth and into the twenty-first century.
Students examine the root causes of the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. They
should be able to engage in discussions about how genocides can be prevented by the
international community. They should also be able to examine arguments and evidence for and
against intervention, the role of public support for the intervention, and the possible
consequences of such interventions. In covering this topic, teachers may integrate survivor,
rescuer, liberator, and witness oral testimony to students, but should be aware of how images
and accounts of genocide may be traumatic for teenagers. The United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum has published guidelines for teaching the Holocaust that can be applied to
other genocides as well.” (p.364-365)
176
176
Appendix D: National Council for the Social Studies National Standards for the
Preparation of Social Studies Teachers (NCSS, 2016)
Standard 1. Content Knowledge
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of social studies disciplines. Candidates are
knowledgeable of disciplinary concepts, facts, and tools; structures of inquiry; and forms
of representation.
Standard 2. Application of Content Through Planning
Candidates plan learning sequences that leverage social studies knowledge and literacies,
technology, and theory and research to support the civic competence of learners.
Standard 3. Design and Implementation of Instruction and Assessment
Candidates design and implement instruction and authentic assessments, informed by
data literacy and learner self-assessment, that promote civic competence.
Standard 4. Social Studies Learners and Learning
Candidates use knowledge of learners to plan and implement relevant and responsive
pedagogy, create collaborative and interdisciplinary learning environments, and prepare
learners to be informed advocates for an inclusive and equitable society.
Standard 5. Professional Responsibility and Informed Action
Candidates reflect and expand upon their social studies knowledge, inquiry skills, and
civic dispositions to advance social justice and promote human rights through informed
action in schools and/or communities. (NCSS, 2016)
177
177
Appendix E: Pedagogical Principles For Effective Holocaust Instruction
Adapted from the Echoes & Reflections website
https://echoesandreflections.org/pedagogical-principles/
1. Define terms
In addition to key terms like antisemitism, Holocaust, and genocide, review key terms
and phrases necessary to fully understand the content being studied.
2. Provide background on the history of antisemitism
Ensure students understand the role that antisemitism played in allowing the Holocaust to
occur.
3. Contextualize the history
Help students understand what happened before and after a specific event, who was
involved, where the event took place, etc; this helps to reinforce that the Holocaust
wasn’t inevitable but rather was the result of choices and decisions made by individuals,
institutions, and nations over years.
4. Teach the human story
While connecting people and events to the larger story, educators should:
● Translate statistics into personal stories; use survivor and witness testimony
whenever possible; emphasizing, however, that survivor voices are the exception.
● Highlight examples of how victims attempted to retain their humanity in the face
of dehumanization (efforts to maintain identity and continuity of life, expression
of values/beliefs, forms of resistance).
● Stress the “choiceless choices” of the victims with limited or no power to escape.
● Introduce victims’ prewar life/return to life to provide context for their choices,
dilemmas, and actions.
● Focus on small and large decisions made by individuals who had the ability and
the opportunity to choose between morally right and morally wrong decisions
prior to, during, and after the Holocaust, including bystanders, collaborators,
perpetrators, and rescuers.
5. Use primary source materials
Enrich students’ understanding of the Holocaust by providing an abundance of print and
digital resources from a variety of perspectives.
6. Make the Holocaust relevant
Connect what students are learning to contemporary events, while distinguishing between
the unique history of the Holocaust and what can be learned from this history.
7. Encourage inquiry-based learning and critical thinking
Support students’ sharing of ideas and asking questions of themselves and others.
178
178
8. Foster empathy
Challenge students to understand people and their attitudes and actions in a historical
context using sound approaches and strategies, refraining from the use of simulation
activities.
9. Ensure a supportive learning environment
Guide students “safely in and safely out” of this study; use age-appropriate materials and
always be mindful of the social and emotional needs of individual students.
179
179
Appendix F: Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide Model with Definitions.
(Adapted from Burleson & Giordano, 2016)
Stage Definition
1 Classification Members of a society are divided into groups referred to as us and them. This
division occurs because of differences in ethnicity, race, religion, nationality,
culture, or language and serves to drive the “us versus them” mentality needed
to progress further along in the stages of genocide.
2 Symbolization Derogatory names of symbols associated with the classified “them” in order
to play on the fears and insecurities of the dominant group.
3 Discrimination Political powers, laws, and customs used to control the targeted group and
strip them of basic rights, freedoms, and privileges.
4 Dehumanization The minority group shifts to pariah not worthy of life; dehumanization
removes the guilt and abhorrence of persecution and extermination by
equating the minority group as nothing more than vermin, animals, or disease.
5 Organization Generally, organization is top-down; policies are implemented by formal or
informal groups of militias.
6 Polarization Propaganda and hate groups intensify their attack on the minority groups in
order to further isolate them from societal norms.
7 Preparation Planning and implementation of the mass murder of select groups of people.
8 Persecution Minority groups are identified and targeted for abuse, maltreatment, searches
and seizures, and forced into camps or deportation.
9 Extermination The culmination of all stages resulting in the mass killing of the identified
other.
10 Denial The perpetrators insist no crimes were committed while actively destroying
evidence and assigning blame to the victims themselves.
180
180
Appendix G: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Perceptions And Approaches To Armenian Genocide Education Among
Reputably Effective Public Secondary School Educators In Greater Los Angeles
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Sedda Antekelian FACULTY ADVISOR: Ruth Chung,
PhD
As a reputably effective educator of Armenian Genocide education, you are invited to participate
in this study. Your participation is voluntary. This document explains detailed information about
this study. Please do not hesitate to ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE
This study aims to understand how reputably effective public secondary school educators
approach genocide education in their respective classrooms as well as their perceptions and
strategies for teaching about the Armenian Genocide. The research conducted by this study will
fill a gap in the literature available in the field of genocide education.
Further, the findings of this study will provide research-based recommendations for educators
interested in teaching about the Armenian Genocide at the secondary school level and will
inform implications for future curriculum design and professional learning opportunities in the
field of genocide education.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete the following:
● Provide informed consent to participate in the study via email.
● Participate in an online interview for at least 45 minutes.
● Submit relevant documents used in the classroom to teach about the Armenian Genocide
or that inform your teaching practices.
181
181
● Submit your resume reflecting your professional background (optional).
● Review a transcription of the interview.
Please see further details below.
Online Interview
● Respond to a series of questions pertaining to the purpose of the study. All questions do
not have to be answered. (A copy of all the questions will be sent prior to the interview.)
● Interview will be conducted over Zoom.
● Audio/video-recorded with your permission. You may decline to be recorded and still
continue with participation.
Post-Interview
● Share relevant documents such as but not limited to, student worksheets, articles or
informational texts that you use with your students in the classroom to teach about the
Armenian Genocide or that support your instructional strategies.
● Share a resume for the purpose of collecting information regarding your professional
background. This information will help to build an educator profile. (optional)
● Review a transcription of the interview to ensure that all data has been collected
accurately. Audio/video recording may also be shared upon request.
COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $25.00 Amazon gift card for your time. This gift is a token of gratitude.
CONFIDENTIALITY
● The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
182
182
● Your personal identification will remain anonymous in the published study. Any personal
information will remain confidential. All data collected with personal information will be
stored to Google Drive as well as on a password protected USB drive.
● The data collected will be kept by the principal investigator for a maximum of five years
and then destroyed/deleted. In the event that a future study is conducted as an extension
of this study (within five years), the data may be used again at that time.
● Aspects of the published study may be shared with scholars and researchers in the field of
genocide education for the purposes of further research. Still, personal information will
remain confidential.
183
183
Appendix H: Interview Protocol
Study Title: Perceptions And Approaches To Armenian Genocide Education Among Reputably
Effective Public Secondary School Educators In Greater Los Angeles
PI Name: Sedda Antekelian
Interview Protocol- Educators
I . Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I truly appreciate the time that you
have set aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned in our previous correspondence,
the interview portion of our call should take between 45 minutes to an hour, does that still
work for you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer
any questions you might have about participating in this interview. I am a doctoral
student at USC and am conducting a study to more deeply understand best perceived
practices for Armenian Genocide education in Greater Los Angeles. I am particularly
interested in understanding how reputably effective educators perceive Armenian
Genocide education and approach instruction of this difficult history in their classroom. I
am interviewing multiple educators who teach across a variety of disciplines to learn
more about this and am collecting relevant documents from them as it relates to this topic
and their work in the classroom.
Please be assured that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher. The information that
you will share with me today will be informational in nature to educators. This interview
is also confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone
outside of the research team in connection to the perspective you provide.
The data for this study will be compiled into a final report. While I may use some of what
you say as direct quotes, none of the data will be directly attributed to you, as I will use a
pseudonym to protect your confidentiality. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my
final paper if you are interested.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I shared with you, I will keep the data in a
password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 5 years.
Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? I am planning to
record this call on Zoom. The purpose of the recording is to best capture your thoughts
and perspectives and will not be shared with anyone outside the research team. May I
have your permission to record our conversation?
184
184
II. Setting the Stage
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you and your
experience with genocide education generally.
1. Please tell me about your background in education.
a. How did you become interested in the field of education?
b. How long have you worked in the field?
c. What roles or positions have you held?
2. What subject(s) do you currently teach?
a. Tell me about your current role in school.
3. Please tell me about your background or any special training you have had as it relates
to genocide education.
a. Is there anything else you would like to share about your background as it relates
to genocide education?
4. Please tell me about how you define genocide for students?
a. How did you develop this definition?
5. Which examples of genocide do you teach in your course?
a. At what point in your curriculum do you teach about these histories? i.e. time of
academic year, unit or lesson, etc…
6. What theory or pedagogical approach informs your instructional practice to genocide
education, if at all?
7. What kind of impact do you believe genocide education can make on students?
a. Do you see any limitations or possibilities when applying this approach in your
classroom?
III. Heart of the Interview
185
185
I’d like to start by asking you about your instructional practices as they relate to
Armenian Genocide education in particular.
8. Please tell me about how you see Armenian Genocide education fit in your curriculum?
a. Please describe any limitations and possibilities you have experienced, if at all.
9. Tell me about the factors that inform your instruction on the Armenian Genocide?
(Suggested topics to expand on include but are not limited to: CA State Mandate for
Armenian Genocide Education? Frameworks/Standards? Demographic population of the
school community? Administration?)
a. Do you feel any limitations or possibilities as a result of these factors?
10. How is Armenian Genocide education encouraged at your school, if at all?
a. Provide a specific example if possible.
b. Ideally, what would make for a school environment that promotes Armenian
Genocide education?
11. Tell me about how you prepare to teach about the Armenian Genocide in your course.
a. Please describe any professional learning opportunities you have attended, as they
relate to Armenian Genocide education, if any?
b. How did you hear about this professional learning opportunity?
c. What were some reasons you decided to attend?
d. What are your thoughts about the quality of this training? What do you think were
the strengths? Weaknesses?
12. Please describe any informal support you received in the last year related to Armenian
Genocide education, if any?
a. Who provided this support?
186
186
b. Think about a recent informal conversation in which you felt supported as a
teacher to deliver instruction on the Armenian genocide. Describe that
conversation.
13. Please describe an example of a lesson you have instructed on the Armenian Genocide.
a. Tell me about the sources you have used with students in the classroom as part of
your instruction, if any?
b. Provide an example of the primary and/or secondary sources you use if possible.
c. How did you come by these sources?
14. Describe one meaningful or challenging experience you have had when teaching about
the Armenian Genocide, if at all.
a. Share how you were able to overcome any difficulties, if at all.
15. What do you feel is missing from the current resources or professional learning
opportunities available that would help you be more effective in teaching about genocide,
specifically the Armenian Genocide, if at all?
a. What do you feel can make the difference to support your instructional practice?
IV. Closing Question:
What other insight would you like to share with educators who are interested in delivering
instruction on the Armenian Genocide that we might not have covered yet today, if any?
V. Closing Comments:
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and
willingness to share. Everything that you have shared will be so helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, is email ok? Again, thank you for
participating in my study. As a thank you, please accept this $25 Amazon gift card as a small
token of my appreciation.
VI. Post interview summary and reflection
[ADD shortly after each interview]
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study aimed to gain a closer understanding how reputably effective public secondary school educators in the greater Los Angeles region perceive and approach genocide education generally and the practices they employ in the classroom as it relates to Armenian Genocide education, specifically. This study also aimed to understand the sample population’s experiences of efforts that have supported their instruction of the Armenian Genocide, to learn of the strategies and resources that helped them to teach this history to students. The research design of this study, was guided by Lee S. Shulman’s framework for the Categories of the Teacher Knowledge Base, which served as the foundational frame to understand the essential knowledge and skills educators need to build their capacity and confidence to teach about genocide histories effectively and meaningfully in the classroom.
After 10 individual in-depth interviews with educators from the sample population, the study’s findings revealed that all the participants viewed genocide education as a responsibility to teach and a relevant subject for students to learn. While a majority of the participants had no prior knowledge about the Armenian Genocide, their knowledge was strengthened by formal and informal learning efforts. Due to their teaching experience and knowledge of the course curriculum, the participants applied instructional strategies aligned to constructivist pedagogy in the classroom to teach this difficult history meaningful for students. While the study participants expressed that they were limited by the barriers of their course curriculum, they were able find opportunities to teach about the Armenian Genocide and make relevant connections to this history during the academic year.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Changing course, creating opportunity: a study on the implementation of an early college model for African American ninth grade students
PDF
Supporting online English language teachers’ ability to implement advanced technical teaching proficiency: a gap analysis case study
PDF
Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study
PDF
School connectedness for Latinx English learners
PDF
Armenian-American parents' role in Armenian heritage language development
PDF
Exploring generative AI in business education: faculty perceptions and usage
PDF
Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students
PDF
Towards ideological clarity: an action research project on the role of a teacher in unearthing unconscious bias to embrace culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
From the African continent to Colombia: a Case study of African Leadership Academy and developing a new generation of purpose driven Afro-Colombian agents of change
PDF
Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources
PDF
Measuring student persistence at an alternative charter high school: internal school evaluation and external policy implications
PDF
Standing at the precipice: purposeful postsecondary pathways
PDF
Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study
PDF
The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit
PDF
Fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset through non-degree-granting programs: a case study
PDF
Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students
PDF
Lived experiences of African American expatriate teachers abroad and back: a teacher's experience that brings effect to the community
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Understanding student persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCs): an evaluation study
PDF
The role of self-efficacy in Armenian American women leaders in higher educational institutions in Southern California
Asset Metadata
Creator
Antekelian, Sedda
(author)
Core Title
Perceptions and approaches to Armenian genocide education among reputably effective public secondary school educators in greater Los Angeles
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Global Executive
Degree Conferral Date
2023-12
Publication Date
01/01/2024
Defense Date
12/31/2023
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Armenian genocide,Armenian genocide education,Genocide,genocide education,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Chung, Ruth (
committee chair
), Robison, Mark (
committee member
), Samkian, Artineh (
committee member
)
Creator Email
santekel@usc.edu,santekelian@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113800514
Unique identifier
UC113800514
Identifier
etd-Antekelian-12584.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Antekelian-12584
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Antekelian, Sedda
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240105-usctheses-batch-1118
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Armenian genocide
Armenian genocide education
genocide education