33
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025
ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp. 33-47
Heritage and heritage education: an issue for educational debate?
La patrimonialización y la educación patrimonial ¿un asunto para el
debate educativo?
Patricia Castañeda Paz
Alquería Cavelier Foundation. Bogotá. Colombia
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0024-0694.
patryze@yahoo.es.
Lissette Jiménez Sánchez
Universidad de Matanzas. Cuba
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3912-7901.
lissettejimenez.1963@gmail.com.
Fecha de Recepción Fecha de Aprobación
(5/abril/2024) (12/junio/2024)
DOI:
34
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Abstract
Objective: Explain the relationships between heritage processes and heritage
education as a matter for educational debate
Methods. The research is assumed from a mixed approach with qualitative
predominance. The system of methods included the theoretical use of the historical-
logical, the analytical-synthetic and the inductive-deductive. The empirical methods
used were document analysis, and the common synthesis matrix as a technique.
Results. The study reveals the insufficient approach to the relationships between the
processes of heritagization and heritage education from a theoretical perspective,
as well as the need to value the latter as one of the ways for the sociocultural
sustainability of heritage from the formation of an awareness and an educational
practice. wealth in educators and wealth managers, focused on the use of social
technologies and educational innovation.
Conclusions. The relationships between the processes of heritagization and heritage
education demonstrate the need to value the latter as one of the ways for the
sociocultural sustainability of heritage from the formation of an awareness and a
heritage educational practice in educators and heritage managers, focused on the
use of social technologies and educational innovation.
Keywords: heritage; heritagization; heritage education; innovation
Resumen
Objetivo: Explicar las relaciones entre los procesos de patrimonialización y
educación patrimonial como asunto para el debate educativo
Métodos. La investigación se asume desde un enfoque mixto con predominio
cualitativo. El sistema de métodos incluyó la utilización desde lo teórico del histórico-
lógico, el analítico- sintético y el inductivo-deductivo. Los métodos empíricos
utilizados fueron el análisis de documentos, y como técnica la matriz de síntesis
común.
35
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Resultados. El estudio revela el insuficiente abordaje de las relaciones entre los
procesos de patrimonialización y educación patrimonial desde lo teórico, así como
la necesidad de valorizar esta última como una de las vías para la sostenibilidad
sociocultural del patrimonio desde la conformación de una conciencia y una práctica
educativa patrimonial en los educadores y gestores patrimoniales, centrada en la
utilización de las tecnologías sociales y la innovación educativa.
Conclusiones. Las relaciones entre los procesos de patrimonialización y educación
patrimonial demuestran la necesidad de valorizar esta última como una de las vías
para la sostenibilidad sociocultural del patrimonio desde la conformación de una
conciencia y una práctica educativa patrimonial en los educadores y gestores
patrimoniales, centrada en la utilización de las tecnologías sociales y la innovación
educativa.
Palabras clave: patrimonio; patrimonialización; educación patrimonial; innovación
Introduction
Heritagization as a process and result is a recent term. Authors such as Bustos
(2004), Arrieta, Hernández and Andreu (2016), Corbera (2016), Silva y Fernández
(2017), Zusman and Pérez (2018) Pinassi (2018), Porcal (2019), Mendoza (2018),
Pérez (2020), Gallegos and Lina (2021) and Suden (2022), have contributed to its
conceptualization understood as a complex social, cultural, economic and political
process, which shapes identities, manages heritage assets, and is expressed at
different scales from the local to the global. and emphasizes the role of the subject
in this process.
For their part, Almagro (2020) and Castejón (2021) agree that heritage and
education constitute an emerging binomial in the cultural policy sector, due to their
contribution to the appropriation of inherent values among citizens to patrimonial
assets.
36
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Heritage education as a field of interaction between education and heritage, aims to
strengthen the links between people and their cultural heritage to ensure access to
culture and cultural identity of citizens.
It is highlighted by Muñoz (2014), Fontal (2017), Rodríguez (2017), Jiménez (2023),
Jiménez, Peñate, & Jiménez (2023) and Jiménez, Peñate, Soto, Hernández and
Santos (2022), who emphasize its necessity from everyday educational practices,
schooled and unschooled, although not always from a theoretical construction that
deepens the importance of these practices as a way and resource for the
sustainability of heritage processes.
Understanding the interrelationships between heritagization and heritage education,
in principle, incorporates the multiple connections that articulate them as social
processes. However, in heritagization as a process, the theoretical approach to
these relationships is insufficient, as is the need to value the latter as one of the ways
for the sociocultural sustainability of heritage from the formation of a heritage
awareness and educational practice. in educators and wealth managers, focused on
the use of social technologies and educational innovation.
Correspondingly, this research aims to: Explain the relationships between the
processes of heritagization and heritage education as a key issue in the educational
debate, considering the need to value the latter as one of the ways for the
sociocultural sustainability of heritage.
Materials and methods
The research is assumed from a mixed approach with predominance in its design of
the documentary-type qualitative approach with descriptive scope, since it focuses
on revealing the relationships between the processes of heritagization and heritage
education. The system of methods included the theoretical use of the historical-
logical, the analytical-synthetic and the inductive-deductive. These methods allowed
us to reveal the logic in the development of essential determinations around heritage,
the approaches to heritagization as a process and the complexities that are inherent
37
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
to it, as well as its dynamic and innovative character.Likewise, heritage education
was delved into, in schooled and unschooled contexts and its place in heritagization.
The theoretical approaches derived from the application of these methods and the
use of document analysis as an empirical method, and the common synthesis matrix
as an investigative technique allowed us to reach conceptual consensus on the
relationship between the processes of heritagization and heritage education,
systematize and guarantee the necessary objectivity in the analysis of the
information collected and the contributions of the consulted authors recognized in
the sciences of education and heritage. Likewise, the resulting information was
contrasted with the experience of the authors of this research.
Results and discussion
Heritagization is a voluntary process of incorporating socially constructed values in
a specific space-time, which identifies and analyzes the actions of its main actors
and their territorial symbolic implications. Authors such as Bustos (2004), Arrieta et
al. (2016), Corbera (2016), Silva y Fernández (2017), Zusman and Pérez (2018),
Pinassi (2018), Porcal (2019), Mendoza (2018), Pérez (2020) , Gallegos and Lina
(2021) and Suden (2022), agree in its essence as a complex and dynamic process
that involves the social construction of territorial values, the configuration of national
identity, and the management of cultural and natural assets in a territory. given.
The results of the use of the common synthesis matrix identify the following as
coincident elements in relation to heritagization between these authors:
• Its condition is a relational and anti-essentialist process, where actors with symbolic
authority define which elements acquire the status of heritage, based on current
interests.
• It participates in the economic and symbolic reintegration of cities into neoliberal
capitalism but is not reduced to an instrumental nature.
• It functions as a device for configuring the idea of nation, promoting a founding
myth that hides space-time discontinuities.
38
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
• It can occur through institutional processes promoted by States, or at a global level
by organizations such as UNESCO.
• It involves the construction of a "heritage consciousness" of a representational and
communicational nature.
• It leads to the fusion of various cultural and natural assets present in a territory,
through the heritage characterization of the territory and the territorial
characterization of the heritage.
Without highlighting opposing ideas, for this article it is interesting, as part of the
systematization carried out, to highlight some of the aspects emphasized by the
authors that incorporate certain aspects that enrich a conception of heritagization as
a process:
Bustos (2004). It refers to its historical character, the ecological and sociocultural
values it implies in relation to the culture of a territory and refers to the term “ heritage
awareness”.
Arrieta et al. (2016). The agents that participate in heritage development stand out:
the public administration, cultural heritage specialists and professionals, economic
agents, associations, groups or local scholars and citizens in general.
Corbera (2016). It is of interest that it highlights the relationship between history and
heritage. The selective historical heritage discourse expresses a historical
explanation that highlights what is essential, enriches it and shows the authenticity
of the heritage.
Silva and Fernández (2017). They allude to the dynamic between heritagization and
no-heritagization as processes of exaltation and loss of values.
Zusman and Pérez (2018). They introduce their multiple process conditions.
Pinassi (2018). It refers to the conflicts linked to heritage and uses the term “heritage
lived space”, which emphasizes the experience and affectivity of the subjects, the
importance, first, of the past, but also focused on the future.
39
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Porcal (2019). It describes how a valuable landscape goes from being "potentially
heritageizable" to a "recognized heritage landscape", which consolidates its status
as a process.
Mendoza (2018). It refers to network heritagization, not in technological terms, but
to the interaction of multiple actors who connect or disconnect, in a constant
reconfiguration.
Suden (2022). Introduces the definition of heritage cultural landscape
These references ratify the dynamic and complex condition of heritagization as a
process and result, immersed in social, political, economic and cultural
contradictions, where heritage assets are identified and declared and even lose this
condition. This is accompanied by permanent learning to achieve heritage
awareness and the involvement in its sustainability of the social actors of the
communities that hold that legacy.
The education inserted in heritage as a process has its origin in the 1972 UNESCO
Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It privileges
the interaction with heritage assets and is a timely tool in the dissemination of
heritage and the identity values that support it to strengthen cultural identity and
actions consistent with its continuity. For this reason, education, in its broad sense,
constitutes one of the ways to raise heritage awareness and is among the priorities
associated with this process, as it defends its sustainability.
Authors such as Almagro (2020) and Castejón (2021) agree that heritage and
education constitute an emerging binomial in the cultural policy sector, due to their
contribution to the appropriation among citizens of the values inherent to heritage
assets. Important contributions are offered by Muñoz (2014) and Fontal ( 2003,
2008, 2017) who defend intentional educational actions that promote knowledge,
values and identity, as well as them sustain.
For his part, González (2014) specifies the education heritage relationship in three
dimensions: Education about heritage (emphasizing dissemination), Education for
40
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
heritage (highlighting its sustainability over time, respect, and care), and Education
from heritage (linking learning with living experiences of cultural heritage, family,
local, national, and global).
In these authors and others consulted in the systematization carried out in her
doctoral thesis by Jiménez (2023), the main contributions stand out due to the
diversity of actors involved, the spaces and heritage assets, as well as the proposals
for formal and informal educational scenarios. Heritage education is recognized to
strengthen the heritage awareness of the main actors in their interaction with
heritage, its history, values and identity, focused on raising their commitment as
social transformers.
Based on this precedent, Jiménez (2023, p. 19) defines heritage education as:
The educational and social praxis that allows the development of pedagogical and
educational actions with interdisciplinary approaches, which forms values in new
generations. As a scientific discipline, its objective is to articulate the teaching-
learning processes, heritage and institutions; as an instrument of cultural literacy and
driving force in the defense of local cultures. It is a continuous process of educational
work focused on cultural heritage, carried out by experts on the subject to educate
the public. It allows you to make a sociocultural assessment of the environment,
strengthen your relationship with history, art, ways of life, increase your social
commitment and conserve heritage.
What has been explained so far considers heritagization as a process and result,
where heritage assets are identified and declared. This is accompanied by
permanent learning to achieve heritage awareness and the involvement in its
conservation and sustainability of the social actors of the communities that are
depositaries of that legacy. Therefore, in its broad sense, education is inherent to
heritage development, focused on a better understanding, conservation and
management of cultural and natural heritage.
41
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
In this sense, it is confirmed that heritagization as a process not only refers to the
identification of heritage assets and the declaration of their values, but also includes
the need for educational actions for the involvement of social actors in their
conservation. Heritage processes require programs, campaigns and educational
actions to raise awareness at all levels of society, from the earliest ages to
administrators, managers and political decision-makers.
Heritage and education, dynamic and holistic processes, come together due to their
highly innovative essence over time. Updated analysis perspectives and the main
advances in the study of both, provide approaches and conceptions that favor their
interrelationships and mutual influences from social technologies and active
methodologies with an innovative vision.
There are various contemporary technologies where the social is the protagonist:
intellectual, cultural, political, wisdom and social. Jiménez et al. (2022) highlight the
importance of the latter in wealth management in the last two decades. They are
technologies based on society, whose purpose is to achieve innovations in this area.
In the case of this paper, social technologies express participatory methods,
negotiation techniques, conflict management, social learning, cooperation and
innovation.
Innovation is inherent to progress. Innovating is essentially transforming. At the
educational level, the seventies of the last century incorporated innovation as a
challenge for educational models in the search for answers to the demands of
society expressed in the training needs of students. Currently, the leading role of
technologies seems to be that innovation weights the use of know-how and not
academic postulates of a pedagogical nature, which is an unfinished criterion of the
matter. Technological advances and innovation entail new challenges for
educational processes, particularly the ways and means in which teaching and
learning are carried out. In this scenario, educational innovation becomes a key
piece, involving not only content and methodologies, but a restructuring and
deculturalization of educational systems.
42
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Educational innovation is a complex and unfinished process, since the school itself
and the main actors in the educational process make up a living and changing
system. Educational innovation because of scientific research is essential as a social
process with multiple impacts: in the formation of the human capacity to transform,
create and recreate the world, the production of material and symbolic modifications
in connection with tradition and in general the training of innovative subjects with a
critical sense. Thus, the development of innovative educational practices applies
depending on specific educational contexts; the diverse actors involved in it, the
general or reduced field of knowledge in question and the specific cultural patterns
that support it
In heritage education, innovation incrementally contributes to favor decision-making
and citizen participation in the educational community, self-management of
knowledge, and cultural literacy. It is about incorporating:
- Anthropological aspects, the cultural heritage of communities, their social
representations, common interests, and problems, from an interdisciplinary
approach and a sociocultural vision beyond the development of material means and
technological attractions, contributing to improving curricular designs and school
programs.
- Ubiquitous learning, where not only access to learning and information through
Information and Communication Technologies is valued but also the "in situ" use of
cultural and natural heritage to facilitate the development of knowledge, skills,
values, and social interaction of individuals.
- Heritage becomes a source of knowledge and for enhancing procedural contents
through the application of an inquiry and research methodology that generates
meaningful, functional, and comprehensive learning through problem-solving related
to students' concerns through direct contact with heritage assets in a face-to-face or
virtual manner (reconstructions and recreations of virtual or augmented reality), but
contextualized temporally, spatially, functionally, and socially.
43
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
The use of social technologies and active methodologies with an innovative vision in
heritage education requires taking into account:
- The context. It contributes to the contextual resolution of problems, from a
transformative practical vision and a meaningful learning that is situated in real
contexts or as close to them as possible.
- Teamwork. Cooperation, shared responsibility, and individuality in the group are
key aspects.
- Functionality of learning. The proposed learning provides the construction of
knowledge with meaning and the need to put into operation higher-order thinking
skills.
- Discovery learning. It allows for an active role, a protagonism of those who build
their own learning process.
The application of social technologies and active methodologies with an innovative
incremental vision in heritage education favors transformations in the roles of the
actors; introducing changes in their levels of involvement. The sustainability of
heritage processes determines the inclusion of a view towards heritage education
supported by social technologies and active methodologies with an innovative
incremental vision.
Conclusions
The sustainability of heritage processes determines the inclusion of a view towards
heritage education supported by social technologies and active methodologies with
an innovative vision. These processes: heritage, heritage education, and innovation
have in common the social actors who participate in them and contribute to making
these actors active and transformative subjects in the social fabric of the 21st
century.
44
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
References
Almagro, J. (2020). School and museum: a link to optimize the educational value of
cultural heritage. Journal of American History, Heritage, Archeology and
Anthropology, (3), (176-184). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
Arrieta Urtizberea, I., Hernández León, E. & Andreu Tomàs, A. (2016). Patrimonio
local en un mundo global: procesos de patrimonialización cultural en
contextos locales de Andalucía y el País Vasco. Arquivos, 8(14).
https://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/index.php/Memoria/article/view/7545.
Bustos Cara, R. (2004). Appraisal of territorial value. Tourism, productive system
and local development. Aportes y transferencias,2, 11-24.
http://nulan.mdp.edu.ar/id/eprint/287/1/Apo2004a8v2pp11-24.pdf.
Castejón Ibáñez, M. (2021). Arte, museos y maestros: una perspectiva desde la
formación del profesorado de educación primaria. ARTSEDUCA Revista
electrónica de educación en las Artes, 29(29), 127-140.
https://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/handle/10234/193801.
Corbera Millán, M. (2016). El paisaje, su patrimonialización y el beneficio
económico. Investigaciones Geográficas, (65), 9–24.
https://doi.org/10.14198/INGEO2016.65.01.
Fontal Merillas, O. (2003). La educación patrimonial: teoría y práctica para el aula,
el museo e Internet. Ediciones TREA.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322991859_La_educacion_patrim
onial_teoria_y_practica_para_el_aula_el_museo_e_Internet.
Fontal Merillas, O. (2008). La importancia de la dimensión humana en la didáctica
del patrimonio. En La comunicación global del patrimonio cultural (pp.79-
110).Ediciones TREA.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322991960_La_importancia_de_la
_dimension_humana_en_la_didactica_del_patrimonio.
45
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Fontal Merillas, O., Ibáñez‐Etxeberria, A., Martínez Rodríguez, M. & Rivero Gracia,
P. (2017). El patrimonio como contenido en la etapa de Primaria: del
currículum a la formación de maestros. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria
de Formación del Profesorado, 20(2), 79‐95.
https://www.academia.edu/36820616/Heritage_as_Content_in_Primary_Ed
ucation_From_the_Curriculum_to_Teacher_Education.
Gallegos Tejeda, P., & Lina Manjarrez, P. (2021). Modelo de patrimonialización del
paisaje agroecológico urbano en América Latina. PatryTer, 4(8), 194–214.
https://doi.org/10.26512/patryter.v4i8.31299.
González, O. (2014). Education for identity, an approach from the basic secondary
school curriculum. Electronic magazine Pedagogy and Society, Cuba, (41).
Jiménez Pérez, G. A., Peñate Villasante, A. G., Soto Portillo, D., Hernández de
León, M., & Santos Pérez, O. (2022). Valores del patrimonio inmueble del
centro histórico urbano de Matanzas como contenido para la educación
patrimonial. Revista de Arquitectura e Ingeniería, 16(2).
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193971847005.
Jiménez Pérez, G. A. (2023). La educación patrimonial desde un enfoque de
ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en espacios urbanos. CIMEXUS, XVIII(1),
27-45. https://cimexus.umich.mx/index.php/cimexus/article/view/473/441.
Jiménez Pérez, G. A. & Peñate Villasante, A. (2023) La educación patrimonial en
espacios públicos mediante la labor del gestor sociocultural.
Transformación, 19(3), 357-370.
https://transformation.reduc.edu.cu/index.php/transformacion/article/view/13
8.
Jiménez Pérez, G., Peñate Villasante, A., & Jiménez Sánchez, L. (2023).
Experiencias de interpretación y educación patrimonial en la formación del
gestor sociocultural.Opuntia Brava, 15(3), 111-120.
https://opuntiabrava.ult.edu.cu/index.php/opuntiabrava/article/view/1869.
46
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Mendoza Mejía, J (2018). Reflections on the heritage processes of intangible
cultural heritage. PatryTer, 1(2), 72-83.
https://doi.org/10.26512/patryter.v1i2.7177.
Muñoz Guzmán, C. (2014). El paisaje cultural cafetero: una encrucijada entre la
sostenibilidad y un futuro amenazado.[Tesis de maestría]. Universidad
Tecnológica de Pereira.
https://repositorio.utp.edu.co/server/api/core/bitstreams/82bf8cee-5551-
4c11-ba7a-1d393df30dad/content.
Pinassi, C. A. (2018). Conflictos en torno al patrimonio cultural de Ingeniero White
(Bahía Blanca, Argentina). Cuadernos De antropología Social, (48).
https://doi.org/10.34096/cas.i48.4100.
Pérez Winter, C. (2020). Heritage processes in the re-actualization of nation:
National Commission of Museums, Monuments and Historic Assets in
Argentina. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 75, 61-81.
https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/168479.
Porcal-Gonzalo, M. C. (2019). Búsqueda de especificidades en el carácter de los
paisajes del viñedo e identificación de sus procesos de patrimonialización.
La Rioja Alavesa como laboratorio. Cuadernos Geográficos, 58(2), 215–239.
https://doi.org/10.30827/cuadgeo.v58i2.7390.
Rodríguez-Herrera, D. (2017). Hacer espacios en patrimonialización. Prácticas
cotidianas en la formación del Paisaje Cultural Cafetero de Colombia-
Patrimonio Mundial. [Tesis de doctorado]. Universidad Tecnológica de
Pereira.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371982909_Hacer_espacios_en_
patrimonializacion_Practicas_cotidianas_en_la_formacion_del_Paisaje_Cult
ural_Cafetero_de_Colombia-Patrimonio_Mundial.
Silva Pérez, R. & Fernández Salinas, V. (2017). El nou paradigma del patrimoni i la
seva consideració amb els paisatges: Conceptes, mètodes i prospectives.
47
Vol.1, No.1, octubre 2024 – marzo 2025 ISSN L 3072-9645
https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/punto_educativo/index pp.33-47
Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 63(1), 129–151.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/dag.344.
Suden, C.A. (2022).Paisaje cultural patrimonializado: conceptos y aportes sobre la
base de áreas observadas en el área metropolitana de Mendoza, Argentina.
Pasos. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 20(2), 435-452.
https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2022.20.031.
Zusman, P. & Pérez Winter, C. (2018). Las áreas rurales y el patrimonio histórico-
cultural.En Castro, H. y Arzeno, M. (Eds.). Lo rural en redefinición.
Aproximaciones y estrategias desde la Geografía,( 231-252). Byblos.