Learning objective; to draft an historical interpretation in a particular style and for a specific purpose and audience.

Learning outcomes

Pupils will have;

• Contributed to the drafting of (or have independently drafted) a label for the Weymouth Vikings for the 2014 British Museum exhibition Vikings; Life and Legend
• Drafted a letter (or contributed to the drafting of a letter) to the Museum director justifying the inclusion or exclusion of particular details
• Compared the wording from the actual exhibition label with the conclusions of the archaeologists who excavated the skeletons.

Main learning activities

Invite comments from pupils about what they think a museum curator does and list some of their duties e.g. conserving museum objects etc.

Give out the task sheet from Resource A and from the detail explain that pupils will assume the role of curators at the British Museum who have been lent skeletons from the Weymouth grave for a major exhibition called Vikings; life and legend. The resource outlines that there is not much space on the museum a label so it must be no longer than three sentences. It must;

• describe the skeletons and the grave
• where the skeletons were found
• how they might have got there.

Pupils will also have to decide what information to include and what not to include. In addition they must write a letter to the museum director explaining what they have decided to include, exclude and the reasons for their decision.

Pupils could analyse examples of museum labels for artefacts from exhibition catalogues or on line exhibitions( a possible link with more generic literacy practise where pupils are immersed in lots of examples of a textype before attempting any writing in that particular style). Groups, pairs of pupils or individual pupils could use the writing frame from Resource A to help them draft their label and letter to the director. These pieces of writing could be assessed to gauge the quality of pupil responses, making use of the task specific mark scheme from Resource B.

Lastly give out copies of resource C, the actual museum label from the 2014 exhibition. Ask pupils to read the text and highlight similarities and differences with their own wording. Display Resource B from the resources accompanying the enquiry question What did archaeologists infer from the Weymouth Vikings? and ask pupils to reread the text (it summarises the main findings of the original archaeological excavation of the Weymouth Vikings). Lead a discussion about any differences between the conclusions of the original archaeologists and the British Museum label and possible reasons for this.

 

 

Commentary

This last section of the enquiry requires pupils to summarise their growing understanding of the evidence around the Weymouth Vikings through a particular task. This marks the culmination of the whole enquiry and is the final destination of the learning journey. This task could have been framed as a standard form of extended writing but pupils are usually more motivated by a real-world outcome .i.e. one that deliberately models a product from the adult world. For a list of suggested outcomes from Jamie Byrom`s 2012 Schools History Project conference workshop "I`ve started so I`ll finish" follow the link to Resource 3

Not only can such an outcome be more motivational it can also seem more relevant and purposeful . In this case pupils are being required to create a particular type of historical interpretation which expresses their final conclusions about the mystery of the Weymouth Vikings.

(Michael Riley defines an interpretation of history as ‘When the main focus of children's work is on how people in later times have reconstructed and presented the past.' For more detailed guidance on teaching about interpretations of history see his contribution to the Historical Association`s Transition Project-

Resource 1 - Transition

Resource 2 - Transition

However the style and format of the pupil`s museum label are dictated by the same constraints that face a real curator- wording has to be concise, cannot necessarily include all details about an artefact and should be as accurate as possible. The task requires pupils to select what they are going to claim about the Weymouth Vikings carefully. The limit of three sentences reflects the limited amount of space an actual museum label can be restricted to. It also requires pupils to select, as a curator has to do, the most important factual details about an artefact and what they might consider is the most likely interpretation of it. However the heart of the task actually lies in the letter to the Museum director where pupils have to articulate why they have included or excluded certain details. The justifications used should give a teacher insight into how much pupils have understood about the evidence surrounding the Weymouth Vikings and also about the nature of historical reasoning itself . For example if the detail is excluded purely on grounds of lack of room in the label that might represent a fairly basic response to the task. If however a detail has been left out in the justification on the grounds that there is not enough evidence to prove a particular theory true then that would be evidence of more higher-order historical thinking.

(A task specific mark scheme is how some excellent primary schools and secondary history departments assess "landmark" pieces of work across a key stage which can contribute to a portfolio of work demonstrating pupil progress over time and through a mix of different pupil outcomes).

Having completed the task pupils are then "ambushed" by being shown the text of the label from the British Museum exhibition itself. The comparison with their own thinking should be interesting for pupils as they can compare their view with that of the adult curator. Even more interesting is the difference of opinion between the overview of the curator and the conclusions of the original archaeologists. This makes the point that adult experts disagree about the mystery of the Weymouth Vikings. If this is so then it is also legitimate for children to do so. It models for pupils that historical views are so often provisional that a particular theory is based on a particular reading of the same evidence and is rarely the end of the debate. It also links the tasks being set for pupils in school to the work of professionals in the adult historical world.

Suggested training activities

1. As before whoever is leading the training could "teach" the activities up to and including the completion of the outcome task by colleagues.

Colleagues could also give feedback to the completed outcomes of others using the common mark scheme and an assessment for learning strategy such as two stars and wish or 3 to 1 marking.

Colleagues could be given copies of the second page of Resource 1, part of Jamie Byrom`s Schools History Project conference workshop (2012) "I've started so I'll finish".

Discuss whether the outcome for this enquiry fits the role and purpose of plenaries and outcomes as proposed by Byrom.

2. The remaining learning activities comparing the British Museum exhibition label with the conclusions of the original archaeological excavation could then be completed. Discussion could be held about why there are differences between the two interpretations and what this might tell us about the study of history itself

3. Give out Resource E (Riley`s definition of historical enquiry) from the section of this unit entitled Framing enquiry questions for a study in depth. Look back at the whole enquiry, it's questions and activities. Discuss:

• the extent to which it matches Riley's definition of historical enquiry
• How the approach to medium-term planning might be extended to other areas of historical content.

4. Display Christine Counsell`s claim from her contribution to the Historical Association`s Transition Project (she was speaking in the context of pupils understanding that there might be several possible answers to the same enquiry question) .

"History teaching is about cultivating readiness. It is training children for uncertainty"

Discuss the extent to which you agree with this and whether this sample depth study succeeds in modelling the approach to pupils.

 

5. Discuss how it might be possible to replicate the kind of approach to historical enquiry in your locality.