Why Gerry now likes

evidential

work

Phil Smith
Phil Smith is Head of History at Coney Green High School,
Manchester (11-16 comprehensive).

Phil Smith resurrects the lovable Gerry who was first introduced to Teaching History readers
by Ben Walsh. Gerry now pops up in another history classroom, and, sadly, has had a few
terrible teachers since Ben was looking after him. Phil brings Gerry back to the path of
righteousness. Through an analysis of Gerrys difficulties he tackles a very common problem.
Because evidential understanding is so often linked with source work, and especially source
work of a narrow exam kind, many teachers have got into the habit of teaching it as though
that were its purpose. This is alienating for many pupils. Instead, Phil builds on a growing
development at Key Stage 3, popularised by Michael Riley, where evidential work is rigorous
and focused but always integrated into an exciting enquiry. He also addresses long-term
planning, arguing that steady build-up across 11 to 16 should actually address and overcome
Gerrys difficulties rather than leaving him as helpless at 16 as he was at 11. Phil links the
fun activities that Gerry enjoys with tight, language work, ensuring that the latter leads Gerry
into independent thinking rather than dependence on crutches.

Readers of Teaching History have met Gerry before.1

Last time, when he was being taught by Ben Walsh, he
was discovering that using a computer to write was a
way of learning how to write without one. Amazingly,
Gerry secured a D in his GCSE instead of the expected
G. The word-processor had interested him in the shape
of a text. Gerry likes shapes. Using a computer to play
with the shape of information showed Gerry what the
practice of history does to information in order to turn
it into history.
For many pupils, like Gerry, evidential work in history is
yet another area that they find particularly difficult and
sometimes boring. After all, for many pupils, evidential
work has been a series of Sources A-F exercises with
some questions tagged on at the end. These have no real
relevance or interest to Gerry or to others in his class.
Gerrys teacher has been so busy replicating the GCSE
exam experience with lots of exam practice that he has
forgotten what evidential work is all about in the first
place. Far from helping Gerry, this is in danger of making
him do even worse in the exam. It is no longer history;
it is just some unfathomable parlour game with funny
rules. In addition to this, Gerry, when answering these
kinds of questions, keeps on coming up with tried and
tested phrases such as those in Figure 1.
The phrases in Figure 1 need close analysis. They start to
give us a clearer idea about some of the problems facing
Gerry and his friends. The aim of this article is, first, to

TEACHING

explore the problems that face Gerry and, second, to

think through methods and strategies that will help
him to move from this rut of low-level historical
thinking towards a more sophisticated and enjoyable
way of working with historical evidence.

A deeper analysis of the difficulty

The problem is deep-seated for Gerry and for his friends.
The teachers that he has had have given him historical
ideas and phrases that he does not really know how to
use and so he uses them incorrectly. This is a little like
giving someone a gun without explaining how to use
it. Disaster is bound to follow. What I mean by this is
that when Gerry was being taught the means to work
with historical sources he was told, for example, about
primary and secondary sources. He took this to mean
that those written at the time must be better than those
written later. Therefore, for him at least, whenever these
types of sources reoccurred the solution was easy. Even
where Gerrys teachers explicitly said that this was not
the case, Gerry still drew the conclusion that Source A is
better than Source B because Source A is a primary source
and Source B is a secondary source and was written by
someone who was not even there (or alive) at the time.
The same applies when we see Gerry using words like
biased and reliable and useful used in historical answers.
The words become become quick fixes. The teacher
might surround their use will all sorts of subtlety but Gerry

H I S T O R Y 102

The Historical Association

will be reductive. Gerry wants

answers. This is what Gerry is
like.

Figure 1: Gerrys bad habits. Gerry displays a practised helplessness in

the face of historical enquiry. Gerry uses these phrases as an excuse to
avoid the effort of deeper thinking.

Gerrys bad habits

When Gerry says, Source A is

not very useful because it is
biased or Source B is not useful
Gerry thinks he will get it right if he falls back on trite phrases like:
because it is a secondary source
written by someone who was

This is biased
not even alive at the time it is

This is unreliable
an example of Gerry having the
words but not the skills nor the

This is a secondary source so it is less useful

insight to use them properly and

This is a primary source so it is more useful

with care. When you couple this
with the important fact that
and, when hes completely desperate,
Gerry does not even like reading
all those sources because by the

I dont know because I wasnt there.

time he has got to Source B he
has forgotten Source A, you can
historical claim. As Christine Counsell has argued, a
see why source work is Gerrys least favourite part of
department needs to decide what all pupils at the end of
history lessons.
Year 7 should be able to do.2 Using her suggested structure,
by the end of Year 9 pupils evidential understanding
The aim for all history teachers, in evidential work as in
might include the ability to evaluate sources according
any other pedagogical issue, is to begin at the point at
to the context, purpose, audience and form of the source,
which pupils start to have difficulties. It is in these places
to evaluate a source collection using different criteria,
that we must start to try and construct solutions, frameworks
and to integrate evidential understanding with wider
and alternative strategies to help them improve. Above all,
work on organising arguments conceptually and
we must develop a greater insight into how evidential
thematically. Pupils will have developed, moreover, a
work can be fun, intriguing and rewarding.
disposition to think evidentially, and to know when
and why this is appropriate.

Getting Gerry to see the point:

the long-term solutions
Gerry needs to experience evidential work early, often and
as part of bigger, worthwhile activities and genuine puzzles.
The first problem that Gerry faces is that he sees evidential
work as something different from the other work in his
history lessons. He enjoys the stories, the role plays, the
sorting activities that help him to argue about the
arrangement of facts and ideas, the occasional essay (thanks
to Ben Walshs expert teaching), the work he does on
the computer and so on, but evidential work is
somehow different and not as interesting as all the other
types of learning and activities that take place. The
challenge for the teacher is to use the methods and
strategies that Gerry and other pupils enjoy and to see to
what extent these can be employed in evidential work.
One major problem for history departments is that
evidential work can be an afterthought in a scheme of
work, especially at Key Stage 3. Some textbooks treat it as
an afterthought, too. The first step, therefore, is to analyse
the schemes of work that we are using. During the
course of Year 7, for example, perhaps Gerry should learn
all the many different ways in which he can substantiate
a point. He will need to know and to practise the many
ways in which to go about expressing his ideas. He will
need to learn and to practise making different types of

TEACHING

Moreover, simply letting Gerry experience such elements

of evidential work will not ensure that he gets it. We
also need to think carefully and critically about the way
we go about creating learning experiences. The fact that
Gerry may sees this type of work as boring or different
from the other experiences he has during the course of
his history lessons tells us that maybe we are not blending
and integrating evidential work well enough into the
enquiries and investigations that we carry out in the
history classroom. Again, this is a question of ensuring
that the schemes of work and the enquiries that are
created are interesting and flexible enough to
incorporate real and purposeful evidential work, rather
than exercises invented for the sake of it.

Approaches to the teaching

of evidential understanding

Gerry
wants
answers.

1. comprehension
One of the major problems that Gerry faces is that he
just does not understand many of the sources that are
put in front of him. Adapting source material to
overcome reading problems is one solution but one
must be careful not to lose all sense of meaning and
interest in a source by watering it down too much.
Indeed, I would argue for allowing lower-attaining
pupils to read some sources that have not been changed

H I S T O R Y 102

The Historical Association

This is
what
Gerry is
like.

Let Gerry
rewrite the

Figure 2: Helping pupils to be independent by encouraging them to be systematic

What is being
said or shown?

When was it
produced?

Who produced/
wrote/created it?

Where was it
produced?

source to

Why might he/

she/they have
done this?

Examples to
support these
points

secure
more
balance or
to change
the style.
a.

1. WHAT?
This is a poster showing
Hitler holding the Nazi flag

b.

There are thousands of Nazi

supporters behind him.

c.

There is a great light in the

sky.

a.
b.

a.

This was during the

time
Hitler
was
becoming more popular
and also ran the country
from 1933.

3. WHERE?
probably in Germany
since this is where he
wants to be popular

a.

a.

2. WHEN?
This was written in the
1930s.

4. WHO?
It does not say but maybe a
supporter of Hitler.

TEACHING

5. WHY?
It was probably done to make Hitler and
the Nazis appear popular.

b.

This is because he is seen with lots of

Germans behind him and they are
supporting him.

c.

He also looks as if he has been sent from

the heavens since there is a German eagle
up there.

d.

It was designed to show people he is the

best person to run the country and make it
great.

10

H I S T O R Y 102

The Historical Association

Figure 3: Using reconstruction to move from comprehension and engagement into critical evaluation

Stage 1:
You (or your more exhibitionist pupils and most able communicators) should read the source
powerfully, in role. (There is no point in doing this unless the performance is going to be electric, with
all eyes held on the reader because it is so dramatic to listen to).

Stage 2:
Teacher or pupil questions the source reader in role, tackling many of the issues raised in Figure 2.
Keep in role!

Stage 3:
Repeat with contrasting sources, involving more pupils if possible.

Stage 4:
Now proceed quickly to an activity like that in Figure 2. All pupils are now more likely to see the
point of the activity. Weaker readers will have more material in their heads and at their fingertips and
so have more chance of sustaining interest and focus during reading and evaluating.

or altered significantly. This allows them to see the style

of the language and the difficulties that therefore arise.
It shows Gerry part of the puzzle that faces the modern
historian. Indeed, if Gerry complains that They talk weird,
sir or I just dont understand what they are on about
this can be a useful starting point.

for praising the skill of William rather than the bad luck of
Harold. Planning for prior knowledge to feed evidential
understanding is crucial. Often, pupils cannot comprehend
a source because the departments workscheme planning
has not created secure enough access to difficult material
through sound knowledge.

Give Gerry a photocopy of a source on the Battle of

Hastings. Get Gerry to highlight in one colour all those
words that he does not understand and with another
colour all those things that suggest that William was
skilful, and yet another colour all those things that suggest
that Harold made mistakes. Even better, why not have
sources like this already up on a computer network at
school and get Gerrys class to do this annotating of source
material using a word processor? This could be taken a
stage further. Let Gerry rewrite the source to secure more
balance or to change the style. Because of the National
Literacy Strategy in primary schools, pupils are used to
rewriting texts in different styles and to discussing their
stylistic features.3 Thus two types of prior knowledge
are drawn upon Gerrys literacy teaching in Years 5 and
6 and Gerrys contextual knowledge in Year 7 history.

An alternative approach involves emphasising clearly that

history lessons are like language lessons. You do not need
to know what every word means to get the idea of what
is being said. Try encouraging pupils to translate the source
into everyday language. Discuss the relative strengths of
different translations in conveying the original meaning.

The latter is particularly important, and can only be achieved

through careful planning carried out during the writing
of the history scheme of work. In this particular case, Gerry
needs enough contextual knowledge to realise that there
were other factors why William won the Battle of Hastings.
Only then is he likely to notice or to hunt for the signs
that a Norman writer might have had some other motive

TEACHING

2. audience, purpose and reliability

In this very difficult area, it does not always have to be
teacher talk that can drive the point home. Instead,
evidential work can be fun and active rather than a series
of dry sources with difficult language. One way of showing
pupils that they need to pose a range of questions about
evidence is to use charts and flow diagrams. After having
read a piece of source material on Nazi Germany, such as a
poster showing Hitler as a glorious leader, pupils can use
charts like the one in Figure 2 to help with analysis.
Bringing the past to life is one an aim we all share. So
why do we sometimes stop doing this just because we
are developing specific skills with sources? Pupils
find it difficult to remember the details from various
written sources, especially when there are up to eight
or nine of them. Gerry becomes demotivated and

11

H I S T O R Y 102

The Historical Association

He cannot
remember
anything. It
just doesnt
add up to
anything in
his head.

Figure 4: Telling and suggesting made easy for Gerry

This source tells me...

This source suggests...

This source does not

mention

a. that Hitler wanted to

take more land in
eastern Europe.

a. that Hitler was against

the Treaty of Versailles
due to it taking land away
from Germany after the
First World War.

a. that many Germans felt

that the Treaty of
Versailles had been too
harsh.

b. that Hitler built up his

military in preparation
for a possible war.

b. that many of the Allies

were fearful of another
war happening less than
twenty years after a First
World War.

b. that the likes of Britain

and France were
prepared to let him do
thisthis was called
appeasement.

bored when either the teacher or he reads each source

and then tries to answer endless questions on
reliability and utility. This is because he cannot
remember anything. It just doesnt add up to anything
in his head.

Gerry
cannot see
shades of
usefulness
depending
on purpose.

Gerry needs to visualise things before he starts to

understand the events he is studying. For example, if
we were carrying out a source enquiry on life for
children in a local nineteenth century mill, why not
get certain pupils to come out to the front of the class
and to act out the particular source they are reading.
They should be encouraged to add emphasis to
particular words and phrases. For example, if they are
against children working in mills then they should
shout very slowly and emphatically during those bits
in the source which convey anger and if they are
shocked then they should convey this with
appropriate emotion. By the time pupils have heard
four or five various accounts on life in mills then
pupils can start to interrogate the source using the
strategies outlined earlier. Keep the pupils in role as
source-authors and ask them where they were at the
time, when they spoke about events, who they are
and so on. This form of dramatic reconstruction of
the sources in front of the class helps pupils to see that
discussion about about the reliability and usefulness
of sources can be interesting and fun.

3. usefulness of sources
There are two major problems here. First, Gerry
cannot see shades of usefulness depending on
purpose. Either something is totally useful or totally
useless. Second, Gerry is having big problems with
terms such as secondary and primary. Who can
blame him? Having tried to be helpful to Gerry,
some teacher has provided him with a crutch which
can be used in times of difficulty when studying
history. When in doubt, trot out phrases like

TEACHING

secondary and primary and that should do it. This

leads to superficial and formulaic responses. Gerry
will use it to cover lack of understanding with
pseudo-evidential skills. My view is in line with
Heidi LeCocq where she argues that such terms
notably the term biased can mask lack of
understanding rather than developing it. 4 The
teacher has confused the use of technical language
with understanding.
Instead, if we want pupils to develop real
appreciation of the usefulness of sources, they must
start to see that why the inevitable and multiple
biases of a source make it useful. My view, like
LeCocq, is that we should leave out such mental
crutch words and phrases as biased/secondary/
primary and focus on the real issue. The real issue is
the degree of certainty that one can attach to
historical claims arising from the source. This takes us
into the real literacy potential of this work with
sources, as opposed to a surface preoccupation with
key words or technical terms. This is the significance
of the work of teachers such as Claire Riley or Thelma
Wiltshire who have each explored how words like
tells, suggests and infers have led their pupils
into more sophisticated thinking. These approaches
help pupils to assume that a source will always be
useful for something.5 It simply prevents negativity
and helplessness from arising in the first place.
Gerry likes these approaches, too. Gerry and his classmates
particularly like the chart in Figure 4. It is important to
emphasise, however, that this is only of value once
pupils have some real contextual knowledge of a
particular topic. Only then can they answer such
questions like How useful is source A in explaining
why there was a Second World War? By doing this,
pupils can quickly see that a particular source does not
cover all the main reasons studied in class. They can
therefore judge the extent to which a source can be
useful for a particular enquiry.

12

H I S T O R Y 102

The Historical Association

4. giving Gerry the tools to answer

evidential questions
The ideas illustrated in Figure 4 start to give Gerry the
language of possibility. Or, rather, the language work
involved starts to force him to think about the degree
of possibility or the layer of certainty. Adverbs such as
probably, definitely or perhaps and the use of
modal verbs used in might suggest, could suggest
or would suggest, start to make him realise that it is
the relative strength of the claim that is at issue. This
is particularly true when Gerry is looking at why
sources have been produced or why certain people
acted and spoke in the way they did. Writing frames
can be helpful here, but ones of a special type, with a
direct focus on the evidential issue, as opposed to the
kinds of frames that model the structures of thematic
analysis, in, say, a causation or change essay. A frame can
be used to model the language of the tentative and
the speculative claim. An example is shown in Figure
5. The teacher would need to discuss and model these
stylistic features if pupils are to learn from them. The
frame is not there just to get pupils to write something,
but to teach them something about writing. What we
are slowly trying to develop in Gerry is an ability to
see these structures and language choices for himself.

With all these strategies, the trick is to lessen the

problem for him, whilst making sure that he does
actually overcome that problem. There is no point in
using a frame or a chart to do the organisation or the
style for him. The idea is that it should be used to
model the choices available to him. Otherwise, its use
is mechanistic and the problem remains. When this
happens, as Jayne Prior and Peter John have argued,
pupils have used the technique to bypass thinking.6
Gerry will always bypass thinking and learning if this
is his easiest option. We must make the challenging
alternative more attractive.
REFERENCES
1.
Walsh, B. (1998) Why Gerry likes history now: the power of the word
processor Teaching History 93.
2.
Counsell, C. (2000) Didnt we do that in Year 7? Planning for progress
in evidential understanding Teaching History 99.
3.
DfEE (2000) Grammar for Writing, Department for Education and
Employment. www.dfee.gov.uk
4.
LeCocq, H. (2000) Beyond bias: making source evaluation meaningful
to Year 7 Teaching History 99 .
5.
Riley, C. (1999) Evidential understanding, period knowledge and the
development of literacy: a practical approach to layers of inference for
Key Stage 3 Teaching History 97; Wiltshire, T. (2000) Telling and
suggesting in the Conwy valley Teaching History 100; Carlisle,
Cunningham, Jeanes, Green (2000) Letters, Teaching History, 101.
6.
Prior, J. and John, P.D. (2000) From anecdote to argument; using the
wordprocessor to connect knowledge and opinion through revelatory
writing Teaching History, 101

Figure 5: Writing frames for modelling responses to evidential questions or for an essay with an
explicit evidential puzzle.

Possible frames for introducing reflective discussion

on tentative and speculative language
Remember that if pupils are to learn learn both about text and about the nature of
historical claims frames should be discussed and altered, and never simply filled inand
treated as unproblematic.
Question
Question
A Norman soldier wrote Source A about
A Norman soldier wrote source A about
the Battle of Hastings. How useful is this
the Battle of Hastings. How reliable is this
source for telling us about the Normans
as evidence for what really happened?
in the 11th century?
Source A was
written by a N
orman. It was
written in orde
r to...The write
r would have
known that th
e source would
be read by...
The source is
therefore part
icularly useful
for...

Source A tells
us lo
Battle, for exam ts of things about the
ple...
Some of thes
e points cert
ainly did
happen such
as... We ca
n
tell this
because....

It might also te
ll us that...

We cannot be
sure, however
, about...
because....
After all, this
source might
have been
written to...

It could sugges
t that...
Finally, is it po
ssible to infer fr
om this source
that...

TEACHING

13

H I S T O R Y 102

The Historical Association

The teacher
has confused
the use of
technical
language
with
understanding.