The first question for those teaching VCE Australian History under the new Study Design, apart from wondering what resources will be available, will be which two historical investigations to choose for Units 3 and 4. In the case of resources, a significant step will be made with the appearance of four textbooks, one for each of the four historical investigation studies, being produced by Cambridge University Press. However, this will still leave the question of which two historical investigations to choose.

In coming years other decisions will have to be made and Faculties will want to look at the whole secondary school curriculum. Questions to ask then could include:

• What should be taught in Levels 7 to 10 to provide background, avoid repetition and, most importantly, encourage students to choose Australian History for the VCE.
• What studies should be chosen in VCE Units 1 and 2 in Year 11? Here providing variety and a broad historical perspective should be just as important as providing any necessary background to the Units 3 and 4 of Australian History. Year 11 Units will also have to take into account preparation for other Year 12 VCE courses such as Revolutions and Ancient History.
• What will be of value and interest to your particular student cohort? 

In this article the focus is just going to be on the immediate question of choosing the two Australian History historical investigations to be followed in the two Areas of Study. There are six possible combinations.

My view is that providing an element of choice similar to Ancient History or Revolutions does not work in the same way with Australian History as it does not take into account that with Australia we are doing with one particular Nation rather than separate countries or sequences of events. There is a risk in this case that too much choice could lead to a fragmentation in understanding. Therefore in Australian History the nature of choice become more crucial.

Some of the questions to ask when choosing the two historical investigations are:

• Will students complete the course with some significant understanding of how Australia has become what it is today?
• How many of the key themes of each historical investigation can be combined to build on each other while avoiding overlap so that the key knowledge and skills of one Area of Study reinforce those of the other?
• How relevant will the themes that come out of each historical investigation be to the interest and needs of your students?
• Will students have an adequate understanding of a time perspective or will events just seem to be scattered?

In respect to a broad understanding of our history I would suggest as a minimum:

1. An awareness that, as Noel Pearson has pointed out, there are three layers that have contributed to Australia today: 65,000 years of Indigenous Society; some 160 years of British Society; 70 years of migration from around the world. See, for example the Editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on Australia Day this year.(1)
2. An understanding of the ways in which our democracy has developed to be so successful in both theory and practice and our relatively strong social welfare system.
3. Our changing positions in the international community and particularly our relationship to our region.

A chronological perspective
Each Area of Study has a different time frame for each historical investigation, and these seldom overlap. The time frames are summarised in the following table:

Two things become apparent from this. The first is that in the first three historical investigations there is a gap of thirty to fifty years between Area of Study 1 and Area of Study 2. Is it feasible to have a course that omits a significant 40 year period -most of the period from 1910 to 1945? If not, how can this be best covered?

On the other hand, War and Upheaval has no gap between the two Areas of Study but only covers the twentieth century and makes no reference to Federation and some of the significant changes that followed.

Permutations One
Any one of the first three historical investigations could be combined with War and Upheaval. Taking Custodianship to Anthropocene as an example a course could look like:

1. Area of Study 1: Custodianship to Anthropocene (60,000 BCE -1901)
2. Area of Study 1: War and Upheaval (1909-1950)
3. Area of Study 2: War and Upheaval (1950-1992)
4. Area of Study 2: Custodianship to Anthropocene (1950-2010)

I would suggest that between the two first studies there be an extended discussion of Federation moving beyond just the treatment of Indigenous Australians that is covered in Area of Study 1.

A similar pattern would arise if either Creating a Nation or Power and Resistance were combined with War and Upheaval. In this case it would be important to at least mention some of the key concepts of Custodianship to Anthropocene.

Permutations Two
There are three other possibilities, combining:

1. Custodianship to Anthropocene with Creating a nation
2. Custodianship to Anthropocene with Power and resistance
3. Creating a nation with Power and resistance 

One of Australia’s most prominent Indigenous leaders, Noel Pearson, has eloquently described our national heritage as comprising three parts, “our ancient heritage, our British inheritance, and our multicultural triumph”.

In an extended essay in 2014, Mr Pearson declared Australia was “on the cusp of bringing these parts of our national story together”, a union that he suggested would come through constitutional recognition of Indigenous people.

(1) https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/respect-our-past-present-and-future-in-national-celebration-20210124-p56whr.html#:~:text=One%20of%20Australia's%20most%20prominent,%2C%20and%20our%20multicultural%20triumph%E2%80%9D. Accessed 26/05/2021