"Power, priests and princes" - a great new resource for schools!

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/teacher-resource-pack-power-priests-and-princes-cliffords-tower-and-york-minster/teachers-pack-york-minster-cliffords-tower.pdf

Follow this link to find newly published material from the 2012-13 cohort of York University PGCE students.  Working with staff from English Heritage and York Minster, the students developed resources and lesson plans for learning about power in medieval England using Clifford's Tower and York Minster as a focus. Taking an approach of working from the feature in a building, to story the behind it, and connecting that to a wider theme of power, the result is an online resource free to all schools which would help with those 'arcs of time' for the new KS3 curriculum.  For those local to York, there is the added benefit of local history in there too.  We are hugely grateful to English Heritage and York Minster learning teams for helping to make this project possible.

Historical Scholarship in the classroom – a PGCE student’s experience

Marie Whiles sees the potential of using works of historical scholarship in the classroom at KS3.  She describes her own experimentation and encourages others to give it a go.  She maintains that teachers require excellent knowledge of a topic themselves to be able to do this successfully, but that historical scholarship is not inherently inaccessible to students in our classrooms.

Historical Scholarship in the classroom – a PGCE students’ experience

Throughout university sessions, we spent a couple of afternoons addressing the place of historical scholarship within the classroom, and devising activities to make this level of academic study accessible to KS3 school pupils. Whilst my group and I worked through the activities and managed to devise some appropriate ones of our own to use within lessons, I remained mildly sceptical about the reality of implementing this within the classroom.

My reservations came through a reluctance to somewhat water-down the academic work to bring it to an appropriate level for the pupils intended. I had initially believed historical scholarship to be something to be enjoyed at sixth form when you are encouraged to learn and research outside of the usual classroom and curriculum restraints, to help develop their own scholarship and understanding of academic research.

However, during my placement, I saw an opportunity to test whether historical scholarship could be made accessible for KS3 students within the study of the Holocaust. The school teach this topic through challenging a series of generalisations which surround the Holocaust, including the idea that ‘those who did not take part in the Holocaust risked death’. This generalisation leant itself so naturally to the Browning – Goldhagen debate surrounding participation, that I could not ignore this opportunity to test how far academia of this calibre could be accessed.

The lesson began with two quotes on the board. One from Browning; “Germans were good men, put in horrendous situations, too afraid of the consequences to speak out”, and the other from Goldhagen; “All Germans were born anti-Semitic”. Pupils were asked to decide which quote they felt best represented the German population based on their previous learning regarding Hitler’s rise to power and other elements of the Holocaust. They were then asked for any initial responses; and as would be expected from any audience, pupils expressed shock about the Goldhagen quote in particular, and tended to be more sympathetic to the Browning quote; although many began to draw out ideas regarding the general assumptions of both and began challenging whether ‘all’ Germans could be categorised into either viewpoint.

Pupils were then introduced to this as an academic debate with some contextual information given regarding the two historians and their conflicting conclusions. Pupils read and dissected the case study of Police Battalion 101 to understand the context of the lesson, and what each historian had studied to reach their dramatically different conclusions. As the nature of the case study is quite shocking, allowing time for pupils to read this and engage with it for themselves, really enhanced the tone of the lesson, which was key to its success.

Following this, pupils worked in pairs with one taking elements of Browning’s debates, and the other taking elements of Goldhagen’s research. This task involved reading through the various aspects outlining: what research each had conducted, the time period they had studied, evidence they had collected, and conclusions they had drawn from this. They then had to summarise their historian’s research and conclusions in their own words in a couple of sentences. This was re-capped as a class with the brief outlines of each historian’s research outlined in their words on the board for use in the main task.

Throughout the rest of the lesson, pupils were working with this academic debate as a framework. They were given first-hand accounts from people who were involved in the Holocaust, each of whom outlined some of their reasons for taking part in these actions. Pupils were asked to decide which historian each first-hand account provided evidence for, and give examples of why they had reached these conclusions.

At the end of the lesson pupils were required to draw together their findings with a conclusion relating back to the generalisation for the lesson. They were asked to decide which historians’ findings had been most supported by the further evidence they were using, and to reach a conclusion discussing the reasons people took part in the Holocaust.

Further to this, throughout this topic these pupils have been recording video diaries relating to the learning in the lesson for home work. These have acted as another means of assessing the learning from within the lesson, but have also acted as a tool for pupils to elaborate their ideas and conclusions, and discuss them through a different means to writing them down, allowing for further analysis. Within this particular video diary pupils were asked to consider: the debate we had studied, the first hand accounts, and their overall response to participation in the Holocaust. Through these diaries, pupils expressed not only links made within the lesson relating to the academic research and first-hand accounts, but also brought in their prior knowledge regarding Hitler’s generally oppressive and indoctrinated rule within Germany, introducing this as another potential element which would have affected the level of participation.

I have taught this lesson to two year 9 classes of very differing ability and general work ethic. On both occasions pupils were given the same materials, and both classes accessed the learning as required. I was pleasantly surprised by how well both groups were able to connect and utilise academic research of this calibre. Whilst pupils obviously did not study this to the depth one would within a university setting – where this would usually be found – at no point were they given a simplified version. All were expected to discuss the historiographical context of the debate, the wider context of Germany at the time, and to relate other case studies to this theory.

Other teachers within the history department at the school have since used this lesson plan and resources within their own classes with similar success within groups of all abilities. As a rather unintentional investigation into the appropriateness of historical scholarship within the KS3 classroom, I would deem this a success, and know that for myself and other rather sceptical members of this particular history department, our eyes have been opened to the potential of using this level of academic work at this stage of school study.

On a wider scale, I now wonder whether historical scholarship as a concept within the classroom worries us as teachers, because we ourselves do not feel equipped or confident in our knowledge and understanding of a particular time period or element of the curriculum, and the historiography surrounding it. I know that within this instance, the lesson was successful in its planning, partly due to my confident knowledge of this debate having researched, and written on it during my studies at university. I would find it harder to plan and implement a lesson using historical scholarship on an aspect of history I had not studied at that level. That is, however, my shortcoming as a teacher and an area I intend to develop as I continue in my training and professional practice, and not due to the inaccessibility of historical scholarship as a teaching and learning tool.

Another important element in allowing for the use of historical scholarship within the classroom, is to have a wide ranging and generally interesting curriculum. Whilst all the changes that have been made to the school curriculum are still a general area of contention, this time of change can, and indeed should, be viewed as an opportunity to embrace these ideas and widen the horizons of what is delivered to our pupils. In this instance, this lesson fit so naturally into this topic, and the staff have recently embraced this to become a permanent feature in the scheme of work for future years. Schemes of work therefore need scope to explore these elements of the study of history. The skills utilised and progressed within this one lesson were wide ranging, as pupils were addressing not only knowledge-based but also conceptual skills and applications which are paramount to becoming a ‘good’ historian.

There is a wide ranging debate regarding to what extent school pupils of history should be labelled, or viewed, as historians with many claiming the level at which they engage in the study and application of history does not warrant the status of historian. This lesson alone proves that there is as least potential for this to be dispelled through the introduction of this level of academia within the classroom. With the continuing focus on progression and academic achievement within schools, this provides history teachers with a means to develop these factors from the onset of secondary school.

Historical scholarship should not be restricted to the world of A level and university. Limiting it to these age groups often attaches a negative connotations relating to an increasing workload, and the ever apparent shift from KS4 learning to that of KS5. Instead, an application and engagement with historical scholarship at a younger age can begin to develop these skills and understanding from an earlier stage of their study, which in turn will enhance not only their performance during KS3 and 4, but will leave pupils much better prepared when entering KS5 and further levels of academic study.

Marie Whiles is a PGCE History trainee in the University of York PGCE Partnership 2013-14

Reflections upon historical thinking in schools

I believe that “Historical Thinking” is in large part about developing an increasingly complex understanding of the processes and nature of history; a continual process of redevelopment and refinement. Because of this it is not only, or even principally, something fixed or rote to be learnt; it is a mode of thinking to be developed throughout a child’s time in education and hopefully beyond.

In this reflective journal entry I will discuss what I believe to be the key elements of “historical thinking”, acknowledging the now somewhat old framework of “New History”, and the way that it can be supported through using Bloom’s Taxonomy. I will then discuss how children can start to develop their knowledge and understanding of these concepts.

Historical thinking is firstly about understanding the two-fold nature of the subject, as a body of knowledge and as a form of knowledge, and also about learning how to “do history”. To me, history is more about the latter of these.  I would closely link it to wider possible educational aims, such as being able to think and challenge ideas, concepts and structures in a logical and thoughtful manner. However, I acknowledge that in order to develop historical thinking, children must have something, some evidence, if that is the correct word to use, to use their process-based knowledge against; both primary and secondary sources from history, and also a backdrop against which to place them. Not only this, the body of history that pupils learn about must include some knowledge of the order in which events have occurred in the past, and which events out of those, we as a society see as important, what is termed chronology. It is important, to maintain the development of historical thinking, that the body of knowledge that is taught is always contestable and subject to debate (historical interpretation), that the body of knowledge chosen to be studied has been selected (essentially, understanding historical significance). Children must also understanding the often chaotic (but at times stable) nature of the past, as can be expressed, when teaching children, through the overarching framework of “change and continuity”, and relate what is occurring at one stage in the past to another to show the pace and forms of change, through the framework of “compare and contrast”. In addition, history must be understood in terms of things continually impacting upon one another, the concept of “cause and consequence” is useful here. All of these aspects of historical thinking are brought together within pieces of historical thinking; historical enquiry.

These key elements of historical thinking are highly complicated, especially when interlinked. If children can learn historical thinking from an early age, as Bruner would suggest with the concept of the “Spiral Curriculum”, then the elements of historical thinking that are studied must be taught to pupils at their level of cognitive ability. Thinking about this, some of the above concepts may be easier for children with lower cognitive ability; comparing and contrasting seems to be easier than, for example, grasping historical significance. These concepts can be supported by Bloom’s Taxonomy, giving an even greater sense of critical understanding. Using this, a child may be able to describe how an event is important, rather than evaluating the differences and similarities (the comparing and contrasting skill) between two events. This is all complicated stuff, and I would suggest that in order to learn it pupils must want to learn it. This means that teachers have to employ a wide range of strategies, from different sources (pictorial, video, physical historical artefacts and text) to having some activities where pupils can employ different learning styles, from writing to moving around. Pupils should participate in activities which involve working in different size groups (individual, in pairs and larger groups) such as role-play or creating a wiki. Pupils will not learn in a systematic way at all times, partly due to the chaotic nature of history. When studying some events in history children may find it easier to evaluate rather than describe, or find discussing causes and consequences more challenging than significance. As long as all the various history specific and more general Bloom’s concepts are continually involved in a pupil’s history education in a way which meets the cognitive level of the children, and which children positively engage with, historical thinking will hopefully occur.

At the end of the first phase of his PGCE, Tom Wedge-Roberts reflects upon teaching and learning historical thinking.  Tom is a York University PGCE student, 2013-14

The highs, lows and highs of the PGCE mini-block placement

It is not an understatement to say that my first block placement of the PGCE course has been one of the most enjoyable and fulfilling times of my life. It has also been one of the most challenging.

I had only taught one full lesson before the main block started (along with a handful of starters, plenaries and main activities), so the start of the block placement heralded a huge turning point in my progress towards becoming a teacher. It was somewhat unsettling to know that my responsibility-levels had just been turned up a notch as I became fully integrated with an efficient and hard-working Humanities Department at my school. Many of the humanities staff were in the midst of a mammoth session of marking, as my placement school operates under a system of 6 "Learning Cycles" whereby students are assessed in class at 6 separate intervals throughout the year. This creates a large amount of marking for staff, but allows them to track the progress of students very well. Despite the fact that the department, and indeed my mentor (the Head of History), was very busy, I was almost immediately working and planning my next couple of lessons to be taught that very week. I delivered a lesson to a Year 8 class on the activities of the women's suffrage movement, and another Year 8 lesson on the Peasant's Revolt. Unfortunately, the first of these lessons (the suffragists/suffragettes lesson) did not go as well as I had hoped, which knocked my confidence somewhat, especially since my lesson from the week before to Year 8 on the abolition of the slave trade had been labelled as "OUTSTANDING" by my mentor. However, after a short period of moping around and feeling sorry for myself, I realised that making mistakes in the previous lesson had helped me in the long run. I recognised the areas where I could improve or mistakes I could avoid, and further discussions with my mentor and other teachers helped me formulate new approaches to the way I delivered lessons. The next lesson, on the Peasant's Revolt, was much more successful, and by the end of the first week my confidence had grown and I was extremely excited about the forthcoming weeks and the lessons I was going to be teaching.

The notion of "learning from one's mistakes" has stuck with me throughout the 4 weeks. I feel by acknowledging areas where I need to improve, I can move away from what one might label "bad habits" and develop a consistent and effective approach to my teaching. One area where I certainly need to improve is my time management. In some lessons this has not been a problem, but it is something I have become increasingly aware of and I can often find myself looking up at the clock and realising I only have 10 minutes for pupils to move onto a task I intended to last 15 or 20 minutes! Discussions with my mentor, and other teaching staff, have really helped me recognise some of the traps one can fall into as a teacher, and I have sought advice from all of them on many different issues, from how to draw out answers from very quiet pupils (something I have experienced with one of my Year 9 groups) to effective ways of using source material in classes.

On the whole, my placement school has been a dream to work in. The staff are incredibly friendly and the pupils are extremely well behaved. In fact, behaviour has barely been an issue in any of the classes I have taught. The most I have had to deal with is minor levels of disruption such as pupils chatting during activities or the odd bit of shouting out. There has only been one instance where I have had to deal in any sort of "extreme" sense with a student who misbehaved, which occurred in my second week. In a Year 8 lesson on the work of women in World War One, I warned a boy about shouting out (twice) and then gave him a final warning on the third occasion. Unfortunately, he shouted out about 10 minutes after his final warning and I sent him out of the class for 5 minutes. I then moved the pupils on to the next task, and waited until they were all writing before I briefly went outside to have a calm word with the boy to tell him why he'd been sent out. He was very apologetic, and worked very hard for the rest of the lesson, with no more shouting out. Whilst I was pleased to have been able to put a behaviour management strategy into effect, I was slightly worried my mentor would say I was perhaps too strict with the boy at the end of the lesson, but fortunately he praised the way I'd handled the situation in our next mentor meeting, which was another great confidence boost.

Indeed the whole experience over the 4 weeks has been a fantastic introduction to full-time teaching for me. I now feel much more self-assured about my own capabilities as a teacher, and the initial nerves I felt on the eve of Week One have almost completely disappeared. It is still fairly nerve-wracking at times though, particularly when one loses track of what one's supposed to be doing with a class, as I experienced in Week Four in a Year 8 class on the Battle of Hastings when my mind went totally blank for about a minute! I don't think I've ever felt more self-conscious or isolated in my life, but luckily I don't think the pupils noticed, or if they did, it wasn't obvious! Having the tremendous support of my mentor and the rest of the Humanities Department has also been a marvellously beneficial. They have answered all my questions, helped me find or develop resources, and been refreshingly honest when something hasn't gone right or if they see a particular need for improvement in a certain area. I have learned so much in this placement, and I am so grateful to have been able to learn from a brilliant set of teachers and work with some truly delightful young people. As much as anything else, to have your mentor label your lesson as "OUTSTANDING" or to hear a pupil say "I love it when we do this kind of activity" (in my Year 9 lesson on The Treaty of Versailles) is one of the best feelings in the world.

An incredible 4 weeks.

Richard Austin is a PGCE history student at the University of York