Teaching the thematic study thematically: a small research project (pt 2)

Welcome back for The Results. Just a reminder – the C group were taught Chronologically and the T group were taught Thematically.

Speed of teaching

There was no significant difference. The T group were slightly behind, but I attribute this to having mostly afternoon lessons – we definitely got less done. It also FELT like I had a lot more cover lessons with them, so I was quite surprised when I worked back through my registers and found this wasn’t especially the case.

Student confidence about their retention

I gave them this questionnaire during half term. I asked these 6 questions and gave them a 1-4 scale.

On a scale of 1-4 (1 is low)…

  1. how much did you enjoy the Medicine Unit?
  2. how well did you feel you understood the Medicine Through Time unit?
  3. how confident did you feel about the exam in February?
  4. how easy was it to revise from your classnotes for the exam?
  5. if you heard there was going to be a Medicine exam at the end of the summer term, how confident would you feel about it?
  6. I’m not giving you another Medicine exam at the end of the summer term, I promise. Don’t worry.

(Q6 ran from 1 – ‘thank goodness’ – to 4 – ‘Oh no, I’d love another mock)

Eight students from each class completed the survey. Here are the averages for each class.

thematic class survey results

As you can see, they were roughly the same in terms of enjoyment, understanding and how easy they found it to revise from their exercise books. The biggest difference is how confident they felt going into their mocks after February half term – the thematic students were, on average, more confident. They remain more confident now, if another mock was imminent (and they’re a bit less relieved to hear there won’t be one, although that appears to maybe be skewed by one joker), but the confidence drop is bigger.

The mock data

I measured their data by comparing mock grade against FFT20 target. The final column is their distance from target. I would prefer LoPs but it’s not how we analyse data in my current setting.

So – average difference from target grade is –

C -2.2

T -1.25

It looks good, on first look. T have made more progress to target than C. The quality of their responses was better, not particularly in terms of knowledge, but in the way that they were able to analyse change over time. They had a slightly better understanding of the three different strands – it’s very common for students to confuse treatment and prevention, for example.

Let’s unpick it a bit though.

C T
High Prior Attainer + -2.7 -1.7
High Prior Attainer -3.3 -1
Mid Prior Attainer -1.4 -2.3

I only officially have one Low PA across both groups, in the T group, who came out at one grade below target. My gut feeling is that several of my MPAs are right on the very border, but that’s a blog for another day.

So, this data tells me that it worked best for H+ and H students. It doesn’t seem to have worked well for MPAs (but it did for the LPA!) There was no discernible difference when considering PP or SEN.

Long-term retention

These classes moved into Y11 last September and sat their Y11 mocks at the start of December. I used the 2018 summer paper and markscheme, but I kept the grade boundaries the same as I’d used in Y10. This is because grade boundaries fluctuate and I think students need to measure their progress against their own prior attainment, not against a national curve. I peg at 50% for a grade 4 and move up/down in increments of 10%, with the exception of grade 9 which sits at 95%.

A couple of changes had taken place in the classes. Two moved away. One developed a significant issue with exams. One had missed most of y10 but made massive progress in her knowledge before sitting the mocks. I have weeded these anomalies out of my data.

I didn’t tell the students what was on the mock – not even a hint about the topics. I gave them a revision planner in September with a weekly topic and activity, and each class had a 5 question multiple choice quiz on the topic the following week. I gave out the knowledge organisers to both classes to use for revision.

Here’s the mock breakdown. The have added some rows which are progress from Y10 mock. I scored this as a 0 for negative progress, a 1 for staying the same and a 2 for an increased grade – so I’d be hoping for an average as close to 2 as possible.

C T
Overall progress to target -1 -1
HPA+ -1.67 -0.67
HPA -1.2 -1.1
MPA -0.8 -1.5
Overall progress from Y10 1.22 1.27
HPA+ 1.67 1.83
HPA 1.4 0.9
MPA 1.36 1.75

My LPA retained the same grade from Y10.

I haven’t spent much time thinking about this data yet, mainly because I’m admiring how much progress my students have made from March last year, when they sat the original mock. I am gifted with a bunch of hard-working, motivated students. I’m going to miss them a lot.

Enough of that fluffy stuff, though. The results this year broadly bear out what I found last year when it’s broken down into prior attainment groups. You could perhaps say that my T group MPAs retained more knowledge into Y11, but it doesn’t seem to have done the HPAs much good who, on average, went down slightly.

Even though my gut feeling is that the T group have a stronger grasp on the chronology, the only thing I can say for certain is that I haven’t done a great job of proving my hypothesis about impact on student attainment. Sigh. But at least I had some fun thinking about teaching it.

Now I just have to sit tight and wait for the summer results.

Next steps

I’ve taught my current year 10 group thematically this year, with the addition of thematically-organised knowledge organisers and weekly quizzes. I also broke it into three strands – ideas about cause, treatment and prevention. I’ve got just the one group this year, though, so it will be difficult to measure them against anything.

If you’ve got any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear from you.

 

Advertisements
Posted in History, Planning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Teaching the thematic study thematically: a small research project (pt 1)

This blog post is very overdue. I spoke at ResearchEd Rugby last June and started writing it then, but – busy. So busy. However, I have more data now that Y11 have sat their mocks and it has prompted me to share.

Back when the new GCSE was launched, I spoke at a Historical Association event and wrote a short Cunning Plan for Teaching History, banging the drum for teaching the new thematic study thematically, as opposed to chronologically. I’ve always taught a development study – first Medicine, then Crime, and back to Medicine again. I taught Crime thematically for several years, mainly because I was getting a bit stale, and I found that it was quicker and students were better able to recognise change and continuity across time. They also had a better understanding of the chronology after repeating it three times. I thought it was the better way to do it, but I couldn’t be sure, so I thought I would run a trial on my two year 10 classes this year.

During my trial, I was specifically looking for these things –

  • Difference in speed – the new GCSE has teachers howling about squeezing in the content and I wanted to see whether it was faster to teach it thematically. I thought it was.
  • Difference in retention – I posited that students would remember the content better by doing the course thematically, because they would be revising one strand while the second one was being taught.
  • Difference in application during an exam situation – as related to the above.
  • Difference in long-term retention – though this is going to be difficult to judge at this stage. I should have completed my study after the Y11 mocks next year.
  • If the method worked for all – does it work for all abilities, is it OK for kinaesthetic learners…just kidding…

I also had a concern that many schools that had previously been following the SHP syllabus would jump into the same development study for the new GCSE, to save time and reuse resources, and miss the subtle differences, therefore leading to overteaching and a study that went on for far too long and was crammed with too much stuff. Furthermore, the GCSE questions on this paper require students to recognise the broad sweep rather than relate the fingertip detail. So, my hope was that by putting forward some research (albeit with a very small sample size) I’d be able to win more people round to this way of thinking.

The set up

I went chronological for my first time through. Even though I wrote the textbook, I hadn’t taught Medicine for over ten years and I needed the refresher. This was helpful for my study, though, because I had already taught the content through once. It’s super-important to know your content well because you’ll be making the links across the strands as you work through the course.

In the second year of teaching, I picked up two year 10 classes. They were of roughly equal size, with a very similar number of SEN issues and PP codes. One group is, on paper, a little brighter, but the ability range is much broader. We’ll call them groups C and T.

I used my own book, of course. We’re in the fortunate position of still having a budget that covers more than stationery: students are issued with their own copy that they can take home, which they exchange for the next book they need at the end of the course.

I had a deadline: mocks were the first week back after half term, so I had to have the course completely finished by then. This course is 30% of the GCSE, including Western Front, which means that Pearson think it should be teachable in 36 lessons. At 5 lessons a fortnight, I had up to 50 lessons, best case scenario.

This worked out in the end as 38 lessons plus 4 hours of cover for the C group, and 40 lessons plus 6 hours of cover for the T group. The T group had the disadvantage of having most of their lessons timetabled during period 5, so in terms of useful time, I think it was probably even.

I was so convinced that the thematic way was best that I became concerned that I would be unfairly disadvantaging the C group with the chronological teaching, so I tried to load the dice in their favour a bit using the new in vogue teaching method – the knowledge organiser. The C group had knowledge organisers for each of the units and I set them learning HW and quizzes each week. Conversely, I gave the T group vocab books (which I didn’t make use of, sadly) and no quizzing. On the whole, the T group probably received less homework as a result of this, though I did give them some wider reading that I did not give to the C group. Kev Bartle pointed out at ResearchEd that I had muddied my own study by doing this, and this may sadly be true, but, well. I acted as my conscience dictated. As you’ll hopefully see from the results, I got some interesting data out of it.

Other than that, both groups had the same lessons. I didn’t plan different activities or cover the content in different ways, other than by the order I did it in. This naturally meant that the assessments and practice essays they did differed, but in terms of planning workload, it was no more onerous than it would have been to adapt the same lesson for the class context.

Results will follow in part 2. And then, after the summer results, part 3.

Posted in History, Planning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Mental Health Awareness

So, my lovely mum was sectioned last week. This is a blog about her and me. It is written for catharsis and comradeship.

Mum has suffered periods of intense anxiety and depression for her whole life. The first time I can remember going through it with her was when I was 12. As an adult, we have been through it together around five times, including this time – so it’s not often. Her slide usually begins with sleeping problems caused by anxiety and progresses to a refusal to eat, drink, take any medication or answer the door/phone, due to the potential for any of these things to cause a problem (‘I can’t have milk in my tea because those baby cows don’t get properly weaned’). Thanks to medication or, sometimes, seemingly just the sheer strength of her will, she has managed to come out of it each time, after a period of weeks or months, whereupon we don’t discuss it, because she always wants to think of that as the last time it will happen.

I live in hope but prepare for the worst. This time she started to show signs in the middle of March. I raised my concerns and was rebuffed – she doesn’t want to admit she is ill. I live nearly 3 hours’ drive away, which makes it hard to be insistent. I tried again two weeks later and she eventually agreed to make a doctor’s appointment, in two weeks’ time. Her friends rallied round. Unfortunately, by that point she wasn’t really sleeping or eating, so it was already too late. The doctor prescribed her something she refused to take and gave her a follow up appointment three weeks later. By the time I was able to visit her to make sure she went to that appointment, she was about 15lbs down and away with the fairies. We went to the doctor, who prescribed low-dose anti-depressants to help with the sleeping, and I brought her back to stay.

I hoped that food, company, exercise, rest and meds would help her to return to an even keel, but it just didn’t happen that way this time. We had a couple of good days but that was followed by a complete crash. She refused food and medication unless we resorted to extreme cajoling. We couldn’t have the TV on or talk on our phones while she was in earshot. I had to sneak away to do work or she would become anxious about my workload and the burden she imagined she was being (being banned from TV and phone is actually quite a good way to get me to do work, so her presence was paradoxically helpful). When my husband and I had to physically restrain her to stop her from running out of the house, we involved the professionals. And after a few visits from the community mental health team, they called for an Assessment under the Mental Health Act.

This is not the first time I have been through this, but it is the first time it has resulted in a section. In my view, she was no worse this time than the time I requested hospitalisation: what has changed is the attitude of the services. I am heartened by how seriously they took my concerns and how carefully they listened, and then by how hard they worked to make it happen. Assessment under the Mental Health Act is difficult to arrange. The person being assessed must have a bed waiting for them to go to if needed – my county only has 13 mental health beds. Two doctors must attend with a social worker. But the team managed to find her a bed in her hometown and they found the doctors and they arranged a transport for the same day. So, away she went. We visited this past weekend and I am feeling cautiously positive, though it is early days. The hospital is lovely. She’s responding the texts and phone calls.

I feel like I should say that I have been ripped open with this, because it’s the reaction people seem to be expecting, but all I can feel at the moment is relief that her problems are finally being taken seriously. I also feel vindicated. When the community mental health team told me they thought she needed an Assessment and asked me how I felt about it, I said that my frame of reference for ‘normal’ had clearly become very skewed, because I didn’t think it was any worse than when she was refused hospitalisation in 2005. So I’m getting on with things, focusing hard on the mantra that I did everything I could, though it wasn’t enough. Did I do everything I could? I think so.

I wanted to share my experience in a way that might be helpful to others going through similar issues. There’s a rumble that people only share their perfect lives online: to some extent that’s true. I don’t share this stuff online because I don’t really want to talk about it with people I don’t know – it’s partly about protecting my own mental health. However, in the interest of mental health awareness, I thought I should highlight that ‘this stuff’ is happening all over the place and you don’t have to manage it alone.

I also wanted to say to people who are worried they might be starting to slide: go to the doctor. Talk to your family. You’re not being a burden. They want to hear from you. Do it now. They can help. We live in a world with an improving understanding of how to deal with mental health problems: take advantage of it.

Finally, a note here to school leaders: sometimes we need time off. I’m Mum’s only relative resident in the UK, so it has to be me. My school has been so understanding and supportive through this time.  At my last school, the absence policy would not have allowed for me to have any time for this – ‘attending medical appointments with a relative’ was specifically named as not-a-good-reason-for-time-off. That type of policy seems to be more and more common in schools as people attempt to run them like businesses, ignoring the fact that they are services, which partly operate on the goodwill of teachers, who give thousands of extra hours. I can never book a day off to be with Mum for her birthday and I’ve missed at least seven Mothers Days staffing student residential weekends: that’s fine. But there has to be some quid pro quo. You have the ability to make it easier for teachers to ask for time off in exceptional circumstances.

I consider myself very lucky that I have had good mental health for my life, to date, but I don’t take it for granted. I prioritise self-care. I talk. I blog. I holiday, a lot. I read. I exercise. I maintain my relationships. I don’t work on Saturdays, as far as possible. I create places of safety where I always, no matter how I am feeling, play the confident character. I try to lend credence to how others see me, rather than relying solely on my view of myself. I seek situations where I can be successful, and I celebrate that success and store it up for future moments of impostor syndrome. I actively avoid dwelling on negatives – which is why you will rarely, if ever, find me talking about bad times on Twitter.

What do you do to safeguard your mental health?

Posted in Reflections | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Supporting students with revision

Thinking about when I have needed to revise for exams in the past, I am aware of various behaviours I exhibit that get in the way of any actual revision. I agonise over which parts I should be revising first. I take time to get everything in the right order, even if that means spending 10 minutes looking for my favourite pencil. If there are gaps I swoop off to fill them, then get distracted reading about something new and probably unconnected. I spend too long reading and not enough time testing.  I waste time deciding the best method to distill my notes: flashcards or mind maps?

In an attempt to help my students overcome these and other potential tools of procrastination, I’ve started to provide them with revision planners. Year 11 had one in September that broke their year 10 content down into weekly chunks, each with an accompanying task. We backed this up with a weekly quiz on the content students should have revised in the previous week, keeping scores and providing a leaderboard. If followed, this enabled them to revise all the content before the mocks and then a second time by February half term. I then provided a fresh planner to structure their revision of the year 11 content, which was helpful when we set a paper 2 mock the week before Easter.

y11planner

In large part, the point of these planners is to help students get out of their own way, but they have the added benefit of showing that revision needs to be an ongoing process, no matter how far off the exams seem to be. With that in mind, I have now written one for year 10 to help them recap their unit 1 knowledge before the end of the school year. This is less detailed than my year 11 version, with just one task suggested for all the content, to encourage a methodical, consistent approach. I have included it for download at the end of this post.

y10planner

The planners are given to students in hard copy, placed on their Google Classrooms for download and sent home to parents. They sit alongside any homework we set. We refer to them regularly in class but don’t check up: the burden of revision needs to be on the student, not the teacher. They take a little time to write but, as with so many things like this, once made, they’re reusable.

In case anybody hasn’t realised, nobody has sat the new GCSE yet so I can’t speak about impact. However, these are modelled on a planner I made for year 12 some years ago: that was the first year students performed better on my unit than they did on my HoD’s, so I am feeling quite positive about their efficacy.

Other things I am doing for year 11:

I’ve been meeting with underachieving students on a one-to-one basis in the intervention slot each week. We work through the PLCs, talk about where they’re feeling confident and where they need to do some more work, discuss how, when and where they will revise etc. I read some research about tackling the disadvantage gap that said these conversations can have an impact, so I’ve been trying to have them with all my students this year.

I’m offering a 25 minute revision slot before school, once a week. All our students, Y7-13, stay at school for an extra 30 minutes Mon-Thurs (hence our earlier finish for the summer) so they will willingly come at the end of the day but that doesn’t mean they will willingly work. Putting revision on during a time when their attendance isn’t compulsory ensures I get only those who are really motivated and want the extra help.

I’ll offer a 30 minute grade 8-9 revision slot in our assigned after-school intervention session in the coming term. We never have to barter with other subjects for these students.

We’ve created a question-a-day calendar for year 11 to cover the next 8 weeks. It covers all the question types from all three papers, multiple times. Again, these will go home and be shared online. I might assign them on the Google Classroom so they can be submitted online for easy marking and feedback.

Y10 Revision planner

Posted in History, Planning, revision | Tagged | Leave a comment

#youreallyshouldteach…Interpretations of Abolition

With the new A-level came a new coursework topic. I now offer my year 12s the option of writing their essay about the Transatlantic Slave Trade, which is particularly pertinent to the school’s context. Much reading ensued. Most of the students are writing about the reasons for abolition, so we have researched interpretations together.

I’ve been teaching a short sequence of lessons on abolition to year 8 for several years now, as part of their study of changes in Britain 1750-1900. It allows for a recap on the Transatlantic Slave Trade unit that I teach in year 7. We use my old favourite Peace and War textbook, which has an excellent four page sequence on different reasons for abolition. The extra reading for the A-level put this into context and I have now started teaching my students about the history of the history, as well as the history. I find it to be a very accessible way of introducing the idea that history changes over time.

The two historians we look at are Reginald Coupland and Eric Williams. Coupland was a professor of Empire history, born in 1884, who promoted the moral and religious motivations of the abolitionists as the main reason for the success of their movement. A biographer of William Wilberforce, Coupland held up the abolitionist movement as an example of Britain leading the world in a moral crusade. He seems to have been nostalgic for the Empire, sitting in an office funded by Cecil Rhodes’s money and buying up abolitionist literature. In my fertile imagination, he finds himself disappointed that something considered so glorious when he was a child has become so rapidly discredited and is looking for silver linings (I’m really projecting here: I haven’t done enough reading to be able to say that, really). Coupland represents the whiggish interpretation of history, that humankind is on a journey to being more civilised.

On the other side, Williams was born in Trinidad in 1911. He studied history at Oxford, where he experienced quite a lot of prejudice. He went on the become the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, overseeing its transition from colony to independence. In 1944, he published his work Capitalism and Slavery, in which he claimed that the moral crusade was incidental to the real reason for abolition, which was that the monopoly held by the Caribbean plantations was no longer in the best interests of the British public. Cheaper sugar was available from other (slave-worked) colonies, such as Cuba; abolishing the slave trade and, eventually, slavery was a way of breaking the monopoly held by a bunch of rich men with strong political representation. Williams doesn’t entirely discount the impact of the anti-slavery campaigns, but he places them among other factors, including slave rebellions, that are lesser to the idea that slavery was abolished because it was holding capitalism back.

There are plenty of other points of view, of course. In Hull they’ll tell you it was all down to Wilberforce. Hochschild makes a good case for the tireless campaigning by the Quakers and individuals such as Clarkson in Bury the Chains. I’ve got Fryer’s Staying Power for a Marxist take on it and Olusoga’s Black and British, but I need to wrestle those back off my year 13s before I can summarise what they think.

For year 8, however, these two provide the perfect start. Not too much and not too complicated. Once the background to each interpretation has been explained, students find it quite straightforward to match the historian to his tale. Just two pictures of the historians on the board elicited the first inference: “He’s white, so he wants his people to look good. He’s black, and he doesn’t care about making them look good.” You mean, their backgrounds have something to do with the story they’re telling? Quite. So, let’s go from there.

Some further reading:

1900-2007: The Legacies of Slavery and Anti-Slavery, Richard Huzzey

British historians and Capitalism and Slavery, O.H.Folarin – on JSTOR – you have to register but it’s free to read. It’s a 1970s review of the topic so it provides a nice interpretation in itself as well as outlining the main arguments.

Update: here’s a simple worksheet that I used to help my students select evidence to support each point of view. Students had previously completed a large information-gathering chart looking at reasons for abolition, using the Hodder Peace and War textbook.

Abolitionist historians

Posted in History, Planning | Tagged | Leave a comment

WLFS takeaways

As usual, I have spent some time today reflecting on what I can change about my practice following the WLFS conference.

I can plan some short thematics for KS3

Elizabeth Carr’s reminder of Michael Riley’s development study, Toilets through Time, had made me think about where I can put shorter development studies into my KS3 programme of study, potentially replacing some of the chunkier ones. I love development studies at KS3 (that’s my workshop for SHP this summer) but they take a long time and it is easy to lose the thread on one hour of lessons a week. A shorter, snappier version would achieve the same chronology recap and focus on change and continuity and, cleverly considered, could underpin our study of Medicine at GCSE.

I can do multiple choice quizzing to help build student confidence at A-level

Paula Lobo shared how she provides four statements analysing a source, from which the students have to pick the correct one. At the end, she works the correct statements into model answers. This modelling has helped her students to do what comes naturally to those of us who have been doing it for years. I’ve been puzzling over how to better help my students summarise the message of an interpretation for their A-level paper, and I think this will work really well.

I can pair knowledge quizzes with source analyses

Also from Paula – providing a knowledge quiz first forces students to see the link between contextual knowledge and unpicking historical sources. My colleague has been focusing on student skills in this area lately so I am going to pass this on to him to look at. What I really liked about Paula’s quizzes is that the questions were so massively long: they gave an enormous information to go along with the answer students gave. Sneaky, like extra veggies in a bolognese.

I can improve my year 12 mini-NEA project

At the start of the year I wrote that my year 12s would be writing short NEAs on each Henry this year. They have completed their Henry VII essays (more on that at a later date). I was chatting about it with Sally Wilson who said she thought she could do the same, but would ask them to also include sources, to give them even more prep for the NEA. I am going to do the same with the Henry VIII essay.

I can better prepare my students for their NEA by setting clever summer work

After Jim Carroll’s session, I decided that by setting a research task into the context of authors of some key interpretations about their NEA topic over the summer, I can clarify the process they need to go through when they are choosing their own interpretations. We offer two topics to one class at sixth form so this may take some careful planning, but I’ve got time.

I could be reading more

To be fair, this isn’t news, but still.

Christine Counsell’s consideration of our responsibility as a profession chimed true. I spend Sunday mornings reading blogs and catching up; I’m going to make sure I include more history teaching blogs in that, and at least one Teaching History article. I’m going to shame-facedly admit that my last three issues are sitting pristine next to my armchair, having only been subjected to a cursory flick, scan of the Cunning Plans and read of Mummy Mummy. I can do better than this.

Posted in Reflections, wlfs | 1 Comment

WLFS History conference: workshop 3

Jim Carroll on interpretations at y13. His work is based on the NEA, which requires students to do independent research of at least 5 academic historians’ arguments, explaining why they reached different interps and their relative persuasiveness. Jim’s questions focus on Nazi popularity and Oliver Cromwell; students will choose one, depending on the rest of their A-level.

Guidance from the exam board recommended a 6 hour short course to teach the content required for context (optional). There wasn’t a recommendation to teach the contextual background of the interpretations at this point. There was then a recommendation to follow a skills-based course to support students in their historical research and writing.

Jim doesn’t agree that disciplinary knowledge and skills are the same thing, and language matters here because it shapes how we view certain concepts.

Substantive knowledge covers knowledge of the sub-domain, eg specific dates, along with substantive concepts like state and empire. Meanwhile, disciplinary knowledge includes how info is structured into historical knowledge, along with the method of historical enquiry.

Reducing history to content Vs skills might lead to:

  • A lack of emphasis of the importance of substantive content.
  • Idea that substantive knowledge is free floating, disconnected.
  • Failure to appreciate that substantive knowledge is important for further study.

To exemplify this, we look at a reading from Kershaw. We discuss what knowledge he has drawn on to be able to explain why historians have interpreted the Nazi regime as they have: political context of the post-war era; the process of writing history, eg the opening up of archives/availability of new evidence; the effect of collective memory, which is uniquely pronounced in the study of the Nazis, where there was a kind of collective amnesia. Then what makes the Nazis unique: it is politically charged – there’s intrinsic moral outrage and a tacit idea that writing this history should be part of the way we seek to prevent it from repeating.

Other problems:

  • Historical and generic might become conflated
  • It might help SLT to jettison history, eg “Other subjects do note taking and essay writing so why should we keep History?”

(Reminds me of a sixth former who wanted to start A-level history in February of y12 because he studied other essay based subjects and would therefore not be disadvantaged by missing the first six months of the course. Imagine my face.)

  • Students might think that practising skills will lead to improvement.
  • Students think they can rely on trotting out trite pre-prepared phrases, eg “He is biased”

Two more that I missed.

Rather than stick with the exam board guidance, Jim decided instead to engage with previous history teacher curriculum theorisation, history education researchers and academic scholarship, especially overviews of Nazi historiography.

Once students have spent some time looking at some scholarship on the Nazis,

Interesting point that students struggle to understand the idea that historians set their own questions, which will inevitably shape the direction of their research.

Historians make choices that go on to affect how they interpret a point of history. Once they returned from the summer holidays, they had a good idea of 3 historians to focus on, which was followed up by a series of lessons on the time period in which the interpretations were written.

Students are given some background into the events of 1945-now that provides background to their interpretations, in the form of 5 chunks, and complete a diagram to show how interpretations of the topic might have changed over time.

We look at some examples from prior students, considering how they have looked at both the context of the historian and the methodological choices the historian has made.

Don’t feel like I have blogged this session satisfactorily…too busy thinking about it! Thanks Jim.

Posted in wlfs | Leave a comment