AN INTRODUCTORY UNIT ON 'EVIDENCE" ines the second-order conceptual focus for an introductory search into how children learn history has established that le and deep-seated preconceptions about how we know what ‘we know’ about the past. Some ofthese ideas are less powerful than others. The aim els are often used in school. Teachers have become so model of the National ight of what is already known bout genuine progression, Cognitive progression is not a series of logical steps where each strand of 9 knowledge and understanding moves up in unison. Real leaming is much messier. Some aspects of a student's thinking may be relatively advanced, whereas in ther exchange different responses to this material. The next stage is not necessarily a slp upwards’ but may be ‘skeways:, The am should be f extend the cognitive should become progressively easier to re-establish and enhance understandit F words we should be Seeking increased domain competence not laddé ession through a series of non-emprical stages. FA models are useful different ways to the NCAT levels. One oft Iso much greater than other musings you may encounter (for example in Teaching research, What CHATAFundamental to all worthwhile historical knowledge is @ concopt of evidence, terms students need to move from thinking about historical sources as ly occupied forthe foreseeable futur. ‘We have to start somewhere. An introductory unit should scope of the enauly, part that evidence is ‘acquired’ only in response to questions. No question equals no evidence. Questions generate hypotheses which are then assessed against evidential criteria, From the outset students should be fencouraged to use the language of conjecture, Leaming activities should deliberately ‘aim to stimulate the formulation of questions and hypotheses. There should also be lear that rejecting an ‘apparently reasonable hypothesis in the light of new evidence is a success. They offen regard this as being ‘wrong’, Students should be praised for ‘© Devising and amending hypotheses; le one sub-hypothesi ions are good - because ‘This unit proceeds on the ba HATA progression ol for dence before commencing leaching Ts ed froma basis that an understanding of Evidence in Context powerful eas about Historical evidence.UNIT 1: "THE MYSTERY OF THE SKELETONS IN THE FIELDS" Resources: Dawson, What is History (2003), pp. 12-15; Laminated clue-cards (6 sets). Addtional background reading in the academic itereture is also availabe, ‘The Investigation Be propared to take the ime it takes. Students will not learn if you do not give them space to discuss and feedback Please note that the order of supplying clues is only a suggestion. You may be able 3 is worth a whole lesson, Students generate quest Icopied from the board. Some of them may be answer ing. You need to get them to see why the farmer impotiant ospoct of ‘evidence’. The legitimate inf stage inthe investigation is given on Dawson, p.12. ‘The outcome for ths lesson i fr students to have formulated thelr frst hypothesis: together? Hyp: A graveyard. Clue C: The next stage isto destroy the hypothesis with evidence. (Being wrong is {t.can be useful to play a game (or set a homework) ~ what isthe diference im, Churches leave a strong evidence-trace, both physical and Conclusion must be thatthe skeletons were not just buried normally. There is, is allows you to do two things. Show that such random guesswork is not jcal hypothesising. Where doos it say Hastings? What is your evidence?’ Thensketching out what happened in 1066 will help. Remember they willnot yet have studied Hastings, and some may not know anything about the Viking invasion and Norman Congest ation of the second hypothesis is more sophisticated than the frst. Eitan ned tobe encouraged to ormuao «breed hypahess, ‘executed’. So you will usually have a least three sub-hypotheses bolow the main Summary and reviow of 38 in books is now very useful. A concise paragraph to be copied from the board wil help everyone. The worksheet (Summary 1) is also very useful and can be set as a homework. Clue F: The way to introduce this (by now it is probably the start of a new lesson) is fates the general hypothesis (there is indeed evidence of axe and iue D does nothing either to support or undermine the floating ddown the river theory of how the bones got to Ricca [tis really important to get the ‘down. Use diagrams, Take verbal answers. Use AfL the end have a concise summary to be copied. This should ‘but the general principles that have been established about they are tested. The net stage can only be tacked rom the tart of lesson. is he the students chance to el In addition to incidental the story ofthe "Boy who ‘with our mum/dad (yuk) and so never be born).start ofa popotamnus. Summarse achieved so far. Emphas by reading outa good homework) what we have the batle connection is now well supported but the they need to have. How the les inland, Clue B ‘could get up the boats’ (remembering to pay-and-cisplay of battles. And Clue 8 gives the chronology. is more likely that the bones floated inford Bridge were running back Riccall? The clincher here is that Riccall is NOT even on the jon to data must now be summarised. What other evidence might we ‘do we sill want to know? What kind of evidence about such battles Introduce Clue 6 from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), Again you may not be able ta do anything more inthis lesson than read and enact the events. The ‘stab up the bum episode fs always popular in role-play (again depending on individualigroup years later, probably more. Connect this idea to your class discussions on fe, Ask Who wrate the Anglo-Saxon chronicles?” 1at having taken place. Also, much surprise you wil find some students are stil happy to assert that the bone: down the river, ? sssons are guided 10 goed takes on anew dinension Supply w but beware of eounter-productve coaching - you dor feeponsoe shat only reflect your understanding. The students have tobe alowed not ing it falsely nicious delusion. Do make use of Conelusively the Viking origin ofthe skeletons. In one sense ths is ‘case closed! and the imystery’is solved: ‘There is a deeper| however. Students need to be showin that Clue H does: jis of thesupported nor refuted the eating’ bones thesis). Good students willbe able to use the Nature, Origin and Purpose of Clue G in sophisticated ways. “They may be able to tive of heroic bum-stabbing might be included; but also point out th nothing in any ofthe clues to support it CONCLUSION ‘This Unit provides a good ilustration of how when you develop an toxtbook you usually need. Dawson's inguiry is good, but Remember that absence of evidence is not the samo as evidence of absence. ‘Therefore the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the only source for Stamford Bridge battle dotalls. What historians refer to as version Cis the only one to contain the bum- ‘stabbing episode. It is not in the other versions. This episode has been shown to be a later addition (more than fity years afterwards). | only discovered this for myself a fow weeks ago (in October 2008) I now include this in my teaching — but only right at the end of the Unit, there is evidential support claims in a source can be swallowed whole. We are on much surer ground when we reminded repeatedly that evidence is not a fixed qu but depends on the question being asked. ‘and understanding tical elements of the battles of for which the 'Noiman Conquest’ placed within a broader framework of ‘Settlers and Invaders’PRrocression Movets: LEE & SHEMILT © 2005 EVIDENCE: How do students see what we give them as evidence"? 4, Pletures of the past the present; students treat potential evidence a: 0688 tothe past. Questions about the basis of statements about the fas fixed and known by some authority; students treat potential 18 to fest against evidence, students match beyond an appeal to books, 8 seen as being connected with the past, provide formation that is elther correct or incorrect 3, Testimony ‘The past is reported tous by people living atthe time, ith as te how we know about the past are regarded as sensi or badly. Questions ‘plement the simple dchetomy between tuthselng and les. Reports a ct eyewitnesses: the more 4. Selasore and Paste The past can be probed even if no individual report accurately what happened. We can put together a vers you've got it up, you've got {questions about whether the reporter is ina position to know. nce depends on wi 6. Evidence in context Evidence can only be used successfully ‘meant as, and hi {question everything at once. Contexts vary with place and time (a sense of period is important)‘The iiystery of the Stusletons in the Fisids The ‘clues' so far: We discovered that there were: ‘= 47 skeletons found on the banks ofthe River Ouse in Yorkshire, near the town of Rial + They were found by a farmer in a field in 1956. + The police were called and they decided that these were not modem bones but very old + Archaeologists inspected the bones. Although they could not identify the sex ofall the bones, they decided that there were atleast 28 men, 2 women and 5 children + They also looked in local records and discovered that more bones had been found nearby in the 18508 and 1880s. + Some time later, in the 1980s, a further 23 skeletons were iscovered. Our first hypothesis was that this might be an old graveyard. + Historians checked whether there had ever been a church ‘ear the field where the bones were found. There had not + This meant that we had to reject our fist hypothesis. ‘Our next hypothesis therefore was ‘The Mystery of the Strlotons in tne Plaids The'clues' so far: We discovered that there were: ‘+ 47 skeletons found on the banks ofthe River Ouse in Yorkshire, near the town of Riccall They were found by a farmer in a field in 1956. + The potce were called and they decided that these were not modem bones but very ol. ‘+ Archaeologists inspected the bones. Although they could not Identify the sex ofall the bones, they decided thal there were atleast 28 men, 2 women and 5 children, + They also looked in local records and discovered thet more bones had been found nearby in the 1830s and 1880s. ‘Some time later, in the 1980s, a further 23 skeletons were discovered. ur frst hypothesis was that this might be an old graveyard ‘+ Historians checked whether there had ever been a church ‘ear the field where the bones were found. There had not ‘+ This meant that we had to reject our frst hypothesis. When we reject a hypothesis on the basis of evidence, we have ‘made progress. Discovering that we were wrong is good.