Can learning about the past shape how students view other countries today? Can history education deepen hostility, or can students remember historical injustice while still supporting cooperation in the present?

KDI School invited students and faculty to explore these questions through a seminar titled “Teaching the Past, Informing the Present? School History Education and Attitudes toward Foreign Countries.” The seminar was held on May 21, 2026 at KDI School. The speaker was Soyoung Lee (Yale University), who presented a study coauthored with Tomian Park (University of Oxford).

The seminar reflected KDI School’s role as a space where public policy, international relations, education, and evidence-based research meet. By bringing in a scholar working on political attitudes and history education, KDI School provided participants with an opportunity to think about how classroom learning can influence public opinion and diplomacy.

Professor Lee began with a familiar assumption. Many people believe that history education can deepen nationalism and hostility. When students learn about war, colonial rule, or past grievances, they may develop negative attitudes toward the countries involved. The study asked whether this belief is actually supported by evidence.

The research focused on South Korea. This is a useful case because Korean history textbooks often contain critical narratives about Japan. At the same time, narratives about the United States vary across textbooks. Some present the United States more positively, especially in relation to democracy and economic aid. Others take a more critical view, including discussions of civilian casualties and economic influence. Using data from 17 schools in Seoul, the researchers compared students before and after history education. They examined three outcomes: knowledge of historical facts, evaluation of past actors, and attitudes toward present day countries.

The findings were striking. History education clearly shaped what students knew about the past. It also changed how they evaluated historical actors. Students learned the facts emphasized in their textbooks. They also became more critical or more favorable depending on the narratives they studied.

Yet these changes did not automatically lead to hostility toward present day countries. Students could hold critical views about Japan’s past actions while still supporting friendlier relations with Japan today. They could also learn different narratives about the United States without forming sharply different attitudes toward the current United States.

The Q&A session showed the strength of KDI School’s academic community. Participants raised thoughtful questions about attribution, hidden emotions, textbook selection, and the difference between historical facts and interpretation. Professor Seungjun Kim asked whether students truly separate past and present actors. Professor Lee explained that many students still believed Japan had not apologized enough. However, many also supported better relations with Japan. This suggests that historical grievances may remain, but they does not always dominate present day attitudes.

Another question focused on the difference between facts and interpretation. Professor Lee explained that factual knowledge means knowing whether an event happened. Interpretation means judging what that event means. For example, knowing about a civilian massacre is different from evaluating whether a foreign power had a positive or negative influence on Korean democracy.

The seminar offered an important takeaway for KDI School students. As future policy professionals, they are trained to examine complex social problems with evidence, theory, and careful analysis. This seminar showed how public policy questions often cross disciplinary boundaries. Education policy can affect political attitudes. Historical memory can shape diplomacy. Domestic politics can influence international cooperation.