Ancient and Modern History (2004) Advice for teachers

Transcription

1 Ancient and Modern History (2004) Advice for teachers Elaboration on an aspect of Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only) September 2010

2 Ancient and Modern History 2004 Advice for teachers Elaboration on an aspect of Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only) The QSA acknowledges the contribution of St Aidan s Anglican Girls School and Clayton Barry, Modern History state panel member, in the preparation of examples in this document. About this advice This advice is intended to help teachers implement the syllabus in their school setting. It provides information about one particular sub-criterion listed in Standard A descriptors for Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only). 2 Ancient and Modern History (2004) Advice for teachers Elaboration on an aspect of Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only)

3 Elaboration on Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only) As students embark on the two-year history program, one of the key processes they can improve is their ability to evaluate. Students can make significant, tangible advances in their ability to evaluate given some concrete scaffolding. This is good news because evaluation is such an integral component of the historical method. Evaluation allows students to navigate and synthesise a range of historical perspectives; it allows students to determine human motivation and consequence; and it allows students to come to terms with the contestable and contentious nature of historical evidence. Finally, it is through evaluation that students are able to engage in a meaningful way with the discipline of historiography. Therefore it makes sense that evaluation holds an important place in both the Ancient and Modern History syllabuses. What does evaluating the worth of sources mean? Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry is about the development of historical knowledge and cognitive skills through critical engagement with historical sources. One sub-criterion involves students in evaluating the worth of sources by: assessing the reliability, authenticity, representativeness, relevance and accuracy of the sources and locating value positions, biases, perspectives and standpoints in their historical context. Ancient History syllabus (2004) page 52 and Modern History syllabus (2004) page 47 How can students evaluate sources so that their writing remains fluid and fluent? Reference to evaluation can also be found in the standards associated with the exit criteria for Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge. A sub-criterion in the A standard descriptor requires students to: Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument. This sub-criterion is an important aspect of Criterion 3 because it reminds students that they are required to provide demonstrable evaluation within the arguments that they develop. Evaluation processes should be subtly incorporated. There is no need, particularly in a Category 1 task, for students to overtly refer to the evaluation processes in the way they might in an annotated bibliography. Rather, students can show quite sophisticated evaluation through incorporating only a few well-chosen words. Evaluation of sources will often include the differentiation between a primary or secondary source, or corroboration of sources. Below are some examples of how a student might refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the overall argument. Queensland Studies Authority September

4 Modern History examples refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument Differentiating primary and secondary sources Causes of World War One: German Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in a primary source that the responsibility for the disaster which is now threatening the whole civilised world will not lie at my door. In a series of letters written in 1914 to the Russian Tsar, German Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote that the responsibility for the disaster which is now threatening the whole civilised world will not lie at my door. In this example, there are three signposts that indicate the student is incorporating a primary as opposed to a secondary source: 1. Date of source 2. Type of evidence 3. Author of source Corroborating sources Neo-Imperialism: Influential anti-imperialist writers Chomsky and Blum say the same thing that violence should not be used by anti-us campaigners. Chomsky and Blum, influential anti-imperialist writers, have both cautioned members of more extremist anti-us movements against violence (Chomsky, 1998; Blum, 2006). Corroborating sources adds authority to a student s argument. Using words like both, consensus, a view supported by shows that the student is drawing widely from available sources. Assessing the relevance of sources Origins of the Cold War: Marx s theory of surplus is a really relevant way to discuss the problems of capitalism that arose in renaissance Europe. Marx s theory of surplus provides a useful model to describe the problematic division of capital and labour in renaissance Europe. Once a source has been seiected for inclusion in an argument, the student has decided it is relevant to the argument. It may be useful for students to compile a list of their reasons to help with making meaningful comments about relevance, for example, topical, current, useful model, authority of author, comprehensiveness of research, advances the argument, highlights contradictory evidence. 4 Ancient and Modern History (2004) Advice for teachers Elaboration on an aspect of Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only)

5 Assessing representativeness of sources Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations: King O Malley s racist ideas are not to be found in many history books of the time. King O Malley s pseudo-scientific comments about Australia s Aborigines did not reflect the popular mindset even in the time period they were written. In this example, attention is drawn to the origin of O Malley s comments (pseudo-scientific). Verbs like reflect, mirror, illustrative, indicative and exemplify can all be used to comment on representativeness. Assessing reliability and accuracy of sources Vietnam War: Most historians think that many myths surround the Vietnam War. Australian War Memorial historian Ashley Ekins asserts that many Vietnam War myths and misconceptions have resisted clear analysis (2008, p. 1). This is an example of how specificity can strengthen the authority of a student s argument. In this example, the inclusion of Australian War Memorial historian implies that the student has assessed the source for its reliability and accuracy (i.e. official government, subject-specific research), as does the inclusion of the referencing details. Detecting bias Australian Immigration Policy: The Refugee Council of Australia is very biased towards refugees and they believe that the Pacific Solution is illegal. According to the refugee advocacy group, Refugee Council of Australia, the Pacific Solution resulted in Australia not meeting its legal obligations to genuine refugees. By acknowledging the context of the source, the example reveals a potential bias in the evidence. It is important that students show how a source s context can potentially lead to one-sided standpoints. Queensland Studies Authority September

6 Ancient History examples referring to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument Assessing representativeness Most of the primary sources are written by the upper classes in Rome so historians have less evidence about the lower class. Graffito does suggest. [in Hammond: 1997: 201]. A rare insight is provided in an anonymous graffito from Pompeii, believed to represent the thoughts of the lower class, which states [in Hammond: 1997: 201]. or Cicero was a senator and an optimate and so his opinion reflects this view. However, his opinion that [in Jones: 1985: 49] was probably shared by most in the Senatorial order at that time and provides unique insight into this dominant position. Assessing reliability Suetonius says (in Graves 1976: 57), but is probably exaggerating...., something which Suetonius stretches to mean (in Graves 1976: 57). Plutarch describes what happened, saying, (in Scott-Kilvert 1960: 76), but he often writes to entertain so historians can t always trust what he says. An overly romantic account is offered by Plutarch: (in Scott-Kilvert 1960: 76) Introducing contradictory evidence Two sources disagree about if this was a good idea. Hammond (1997: 201) says it was a mistake, but McCoy says it was a good idea because, (2001: 28). Whilst Hammond (1997: 201) believes that this was a mistake, McCoy seems to suggest that there was a positive strategy behind the decision, arguing... (2001: 28). 6 Ancient and Modern History (2004) Advice for teachers Elaboration on an aspect of Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument (Standard A only)

7 Standard A Standard B Standard C Standard D Standard E consistently communicates accurately recalled or selected definitions, key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people, and the relationships among them usually communicates accurately recalled or selected definitions, key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people communicates some recalled or selected definitions and descriptions of key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people communicates some recalled or selected accurate definitions and historical knowledge communicates some recall or selection of accurate historical knowledge Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge presents coherent, valid historical arguments that: incorporate concepts of change and continuity over time use extensive vocabulary in a succinct and effective manner accord closely with the style and conventions applicable to the format of the task refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument incorporate direct and indirect references to diverse relevant historical evidence presents coherent, credible historical arguments that: refer to the causes and consequences of changes and continuities over time use vocabulary effectively accord for the most part with the style and conventions applicable to the task incorporate direct and indirect reference to relevant historical evidence use appropriate conventions of a referencing presents coherent responses that: use some historical concepts incorporate some direct reference to appropriate sources of historical evidence are expressed in descriptive and explanatory language in which the meaning is discernible despite errors in vocabulary, style and conventions use some elements of a referencing presents responses to basic historical questions that: incorporate some reference to sources of historical evidence convey meaning that is sometimes discernible despite frequent errors in vocabulary, style and conventions use some elements of a referencing, with frequent inaccuracies presents responses to tasks that contain errors in vocabulary, style and conventions that obscure meaning accurately use the conventions of a referencing meets stipulated or negotiated requirements of tasks for length, format or scope of responses. meets stipulated or negotiated requirements of tasks in most instances. usually meets stipulated or negotiated requirements of tasks. usually completes tasks but may not meet all of the stipulated or negotiated requirements. where tasks are completed, rarely meets stipulated or negotiated requirements. Queensland Studies Authority September