Learning objective; to make inferences from a historical source using some contextual knowledge and compare these inferences to those of archaeologists.

Learning outcomes;

• For pupils to have made further inferences from the Weymouth Grave finds based on some contextual knowledge.
• For pupils to have compared these inferences with those of archaeologists
• For pupils to have considered the validity of the inferences made by archaeologists from the Weymouth Grave finds.
• For pupils to have revised their reasoning in the light of discussion.

Possible success criteria

• All pupils can participate in discussion about the Weymouth grave finds
• Most pupils can make claims about the Weymouth grave finds with reference to evidence
• Some pupils can challenge claims from their peers and the claims of archaeologists about the Weymouth Grave finds by reference to evidence

Introduce pupils to the terms archaeology and archaeologist. Invite suggestions as to their meaning and ask for any examples of archaeology that pupils may have encountered in prior learning. Prompt images could be displayed of any previous history content where archaeology has featured, for example in the excavation of Tutankhamen's tomb (Ancient Egypt), the Amesbury Archer (British Bronze Age), Pompeii (Romans), the Sutton Hoo ship burial (Anglo-Saxons) etc.

 

 

Lead a discussion with one of these examples in mind about the limitations of archaeological evidence e.g. Tutankhamen's tomb and mummy can tell us a lot about how Egyptian kings were buried and how old the Pharaoh was when he died. However they cannot prove the cause of death for certain or tell us much about the King's character.

Explain that archaeologists carefully analysed the Weymouth claims (details of scientific analysis of archaeological finds might make rigorous cross curricular (or interdisciplinary) links with Science). Give out Resource A for pupils to either read in pairs or small groups or else to be read to pupils by the teacher. Ensure that pupils understand the information correctly. Within a set time limit ask pairs or small groups to discuss what inferences they think the archaeologists might have made in answer to the following questions;

• Who were the bodies?
• How did they die?
• When did they die?
• Who was responsible for their deaths?

During this discussion the teacher can be circulating among pairs and groups, supporting discussion where necessary, listening carefully, prompting further questions and probing pupil understanding.

 

 

Lead a whole class discussion, taking suggestions from different pairs or groups and write up inferences in answer for display (this could be done on a mind map or spider diagram).

If possible agree a class consensus about the most likely inferences in answer to the four questions.

Next reveal what archaeologists actually concluded by displaying the slide in Resource B. Allow time for pairs or small groups to discuss;

• What each inference is claiming
• What evidence from Resource A the archaeologists based their inference on
• Whether pupils agree with the archaeologist`s inference or not.

Lead a whole class discussion about each of the archaeologist`s inferences in turn, taking comments or probing pupil understanding through posing further questions. Lastly lead discussion of how and why pupils may have changed their own minds from their initial discussion about the Weymouth Grave.

Commentary

If the activities using puzzle picture and the layers of inference frame represent the outer skin of the evidence onion then the above activities represent the unpeeling of two more layers , one introducing pupils to more information about the actual finds themselves, and the second layer introducing them to some of the claims archaeologists have made about them.

Archaeologists use a mix of historical and scientific method in drawing inferences from their finds. These classroom activities are designed to provide pupils with some experience of archaeological reasoning and the way that archaeologists rely on evidence to prove the validity of their claims.

Describing the finds in Resource A in language simple enough for pupils to understand places them in a similar position to professional archaeologists when they uncover finds for the first time. In this way classroom discussion is designed to link study of history in school with the methods of adults using historical reasoning to hypothesise about the past from real evidence. This can also be a way of making the learning seem more immediate and engaging.

As with the use of the layers of inference frame in previous activities discussion involves pupils and their teacher probing the validity of claims in relation to evidence. Resource B distils the actual conclusions of the archaeologist`s report into a list of claims that pupils should be able to understand. Pupils are presented with these claims made by adult archaeologists from the same evidence that they themselves considered from Resource A and can debate the relative validity of each claim in Resource B informed by their own prior discussions.

The main difference between the reasoning of the archaeologists and pupils of course is that archaeologists possess far more contextual knowledge and experience in support of their claims than pupils ever can. What links the reasoning of professional adults and pupils in school in this case is the kind of historical reasoning that both are involved with.

Suggested training activity

1. Whoever is leading training might assume the role of teacher and follow the directions for activities using Resource A. They could lead discussion afterwards about:

• How adult reasoning from the training session might compare to the reasoning of pupils in class
• Speculate what the next activity might be in this sequence of learning

2. Whoever is leading the training might complete the remaining activities around Resource B. Discussion could be held about why the activities using Resources A and B as a whole have been planned in the way they have. This could be compared with the commentary under the activities.