Supporting High Achievement and Transition to Higher Education Through History Virtual Academies

1
Supporting High Achievement and Transition to
Higher Education Through HistoryVirtual
Academies

• Arthur Chapman
• Institute of Education, University of London
• a.chapman_at_ioe.ac.uk
• History Subject Centre Conference
• LMH Oxford 24th March 2010

2
Menu

• 1. Overview
• 2. Contexts
• 3. 2008 HVA
• 4. 2009 HVA
• 5. Evaluation
• 6. References

3
Overview

• Teaching Development Grant, Higher Education
  Academy for History, Classics and Archaeology
• Online discussion boards focused on historical
  interpretations
• Two iterations March/May 2008 March/May 2009
• 2008 2 institutions, 15 students, 2 historians,
  1 history education academic
• 2009 3 institutions, 72 students and 2
  historians, 1 history education academic
• Preliminary project report available on the
  History Subject Centre website full analytical
  papers planned. Menu

4
Contexts Research and practitioner work on
online discussion in history

• Open Universitys Arguing in History project
  (Coffin, 2007)
• Practitioner reports of online discussion in
  Teaching History (e.g.Moorhouse, 2006) and
  elsewhere (e.g. Chapman and Hibbert, 2009)

5
Contexts Research on transition school /
university

• General concerns about disconnection Institute
  of Historical Research (2005).
• Research on transition Booth (2005), Hibbert
  (2006)

6
Contexts Research on student understandings of
interpretation

• Substantial body of work e.g. McDiarmid (1994),
  Lee (1997), Cercadillo (2001), Barca (2002), Lee
  and Shemilt (2003 and 2004), Barca (2005), Boix
  Mansilla (2005), Gago (2005), Hsiao (2005).
• Common themes?
• Progression involves movement away from naïve
  realist or objectivist assumptions about
  historical knowing. In which historians (ideally)
  mirror a given past passively.
• Progression involves movement towards an
  acceptance of an active role for historians (and
  historians reasoning and decisions) in the
  construction of the past.
• Menu Data Table

7
HVA Stage 2008 Explanation
1. Historiography Task (1) Students were asked to read (a) two contrasting historical accounts and (b) to answer two questions by (c) (d) making one post in answer to each question.
2. Academic feedback Students received individual feedback on each question from participating academic historians.
3. Moderator feedback The moderator posted generic feedback on both questions
4. Peer feedback Students were asked to make one post for each question to the other student in their group.
5. Historiography Task (2) Students were asked to revisit their original posts and re-post answers to the two questions in the light of the feedback that they had received from each other and from academics and taking account of the guidance in the moderator feedback.
6. Academic feedback Menu Students received individual feedback on each question from participating academic historians.
8
Accounts of Ranters

• Two accounts of around 470-500 words.
• The accounts make claims about the Ranters that
  are complimentary in some respects, contrary in
  others and contradictory in yet others.
• Short extracts follow.

9
Text 1

• It is very difficult to define precisely what the
  Ranters believed. Most of the evidence is from
  hostile witnesses and the Ranters had no
  recognised leader or organisation. Nevertheless,
  for a brief period between 1649 and 1651 there
  was a group which contemporaries called Ranters.
  We hear constant reference to them in the years
  following the Kings execution in 1649 and, a
  contemporary play announced in 1651, All the
  world is now in a Ranting humour!
• According to Bunyan the Ranters denied the
  existence of sin. Some are described as atheists,
  denying the existence of God.
• 2008 HVA
• 2009 HVA
• Menu

10
Text 2

• The Ranters are a fiction. The evidence for their
  existence as a group is minimal and that evidence
  comes, almost without exception, from persons
  writing against Ranting. The direct evidence
  for the existence of Ranterism is almost
  non-existent. 
• Historians who argue that the Ranters were a real
  phenomenon have only four direct Ranter sources
  from which to construct their arguments and one
  of these sources is anonymous. What do these
  sources allow us to conclude? Certainly, there
  were authors, such as Coppe, who set out beliefs
  that could be called Ranter in the sense that
  they denied religion, advocated sinning and so
  on.
• 2008 HVA
• 2009 HVA
• Menu

11
2008 Historiography Questions

• Question 1
• How might you explain the fact that these
  historians say such different things about the
  Ranters?
• Question 2
• If you had to choose between these two
  historians interpretations how might you do
  this?
• HVA 2008

12
HVA Stage 2009 Explanation
1. Historiography task (1) Students were asked to answer two general questions about variation in historical interpretation.
2. Academic feedback Group feedback from participating academic historians on both question was posted to the two groups.
3. Document task A collection of documents was posted to the VLE and students were asked to answer one question about the documents and to feedback on other students posts.
4. Moderator feedback Generic moderator feedback was posted to both groups on both questions.
5. Historiography Task (2) As in 2008, students were asked to read two contrasting historical accounts and to answer two questions by making one post in answer to each question. The same accounts and the same questions were used.
6. Moderator feedback Generic moderator feedback was posted to both groups on both questions.
7. Academic feedback Menu Final group feedback on both questions and adjudication.
13
2009 Historiography Questions (1)

• Question1
• Why do historians often come to differing
  conclusions about the past? 
• Question 2
• How can you choose between differing historians'
  accounts of the past? 
• HVA 2009

14
2009 Document Questions

• Assume that you are historians beginning to
  research the Ranters and that you have only this
  collection of sources available to you at this
  stage.
• What initial conclusions is it reasonable to come
  to about the Ranters solely on the basis of the
  information you have been given?
• HVA 2009

15
2009 Historiography Questions (2)

• Question 1
• How might you explain the fact that these
  historians say such differing things about the
  Ranters?Please use only the information you have
  been given on this site when answering the
  question and focus on what Historian A and B
  actually say.
• Question 2
• If you had to choose between these two
  historians' accounts of the Ranters how might you
  do this? Please use only the information you
  have been given on this site when answering the
  question and focus on what Historian A and B
  actually say. HVA 2009

16
2008 Student Post Stage 1

• The main reason that historians hold different
  opinions is that whereas the author of text 1
  suggests that the Ranters posed a challenge to
  society, the author of text 2 denies their very
  existence. The latter text suggests that their
  supposed existence was in fact the result of a
  moral panic. This author holds the opinion that
  accounts of supposed Ranterism were the result of
  the political climate of civil unrest during the
  mid 1600s. It suited Royalists and opponents of
  the revolution to create tales about groups who
  attempted to undermine Cromwells new regime.
• 1st of 3 paragraphs
• HVA 2008
• Academic response

17
2008 Academic Feedback

• Interesting -  but I think this answer is better
  at explaining what the differences are rather
  than WHY they exist.  There is the potential to
  do this in the first sentence of the answer but
  you need perhaps to reflect more on the basis for
  the conflicting views about Ranters that you
  identify. 
• HVA 2008
• Student post
• Academic feedback

18
2008 Student post Stage 1

• I think that whilst the author of text one
  suggests they were a solid movement, text 2
  thought they did not exist in anything other than
  ideals is more what they interpreted the evidence
  as rather than why they say such different
  things. Possibly the two historians have
  different interpretations of the word "movement"
  too - source one does not seem to think that a
  "recognised leader or organisation" are
  necessary.
• 1st of 5 paragraphs
• HVA 2008

19
2008 Student Feedback (Extract)

• I agree with your point that the historians draw
  different conclusions. This difference is
  primarily based on a disparity in interpretation,
  not due to a difference in evidence. Indeed, both
  use the same evidence, such as the Blasphemy Act
  of 1650, but twist this evidence to suit their
  argument. Both authors comment on the fact that
  this Act was created to tackle religious dissent
  and immoral behaviour. However, in text 1 the
  author purports that this Act was the direct
  result of the threat posed by the Ranters. In
  text 2, in comparison, the author emphasises how
  the Act makes no direct mention of the Ranters.  
• This difference of interpretation of factual
  information links back to your point.. As you
  state, there is a lack of evidence in either
  text, consequently both arguments are primarily
  based on assumption. HVA 2008

20
2008 Academic Feedback (Extract)

• They both agree that there were writings in which
  people ranted, and they both agree that they were
  produced in a turbulent time which helps to
  explain them. For historian 2, this is all you
  need to explain them, while for historian 1 dogs
  don't bark at nothing.
• Does that sum up what you intended to say? If so,
  can you think of a modern example where there has
  been a great deal of fuss about something that
  turned out not to be true? And is the study of
  panics that turn out not to be true proper
  history? Or should we concentrate on what we know
  did happen?
• HVA 2008

21
2008 Moderator Feedback (extract)

• Are the historians asking the same questions or
  are they in fact answering different questions
  about the past? (It is possible to set out with
  different aims - to set out to describe something
  in the past, to explain it, to evaluate it and so
  on.)
• Do the historians examine the same source
  materials as they pursue their questions about
  the past?
• Do the historians ask the same questions of their
  source materials?
• HVA 2008

22
2008 Student Post Stage 2

• There are a variety of reasons for this Firstly,
  each historian has a different definition of a
  movement. Historian 1 seems happy to call any
  coherent set of writings a movement, and even
  admits that the Ranters had no recognised leader
  or organisation. 2 disagrees, believing that a
  movement instead needs to have a significant and
  loyal following, and is sceptical towards the
  unwilling martyrs that 1 offers as a group of
  followers. Secondly, there is very little
  evidence This means that it is less likely that
  there will be one clear answer. Whilst 1 takes
  fragmentary evidence such as the reference to
  Ranting in a contemporary play, 2 takes this to
  point not to a movement, but there were people
  who ranted. The context has also led to a
  situation where the opinions of historians can
  vary 2 places more weight on the general
  turmoil of the time and suggests that the
  climate was right for people to Rant, but not for
  a movement to form. This has led, for example,
  for differing interpretations of the Blasphemy
  Act 1650 Edited HVA 2008

23
2008 Academic Feedback

• I very much liked the distinction you draw in
  para 2 between the definitions of a 'movement'.
  That seems to me valid and, indeed, to unlock
  much of the explanation of why the two historians
  saw such different things.  I also liked the
  witty way in which you distinguished between the
  two approaches in para 4 'the climate was right
  for people to Rant' is a phrase I shall remember
  - and perhaps even shamelessly plagiarize.
  Historians are like that!!
• .I think you need to say more about the nature
  of the evidence which the two historians are
  using. This would mean expanding on the
  assertions you make in para 3.
• HVA 2008

24
Evaluation Transition?

• Aim to build bridges between sixth form history
  and university history
• Outcomes the project is a bridge and has been
  sustained over two years and we aim to continue
  to develop it. Although it is only one project,
  it has succeeded in demonstrating the kinds of
  link that can easily and economically be made.
• Menu

25
Evaluation Transition?

• Aim to build bridges between sixth form history
  and university history
• Outcomes the development of the project involved
  dialogue between academic history, sixth form
  history and history education and the second
  iteration was co-constructed.
• Menu

26
Evaluation Transition?

• Aim to give students an insight into the demands
  of history at university
• Outcomes (1) The project involved sixth form
  students interacting with university historians.
  (2) In the 2009 evaluation survey, 64.7 of
  students stated that the HVA had provided them
  with insights into what history involves in
  higher education.
• Menu

27
Evaluation Understanding Student thinking

• Aim collect rich data on how advanced level
  history students approach interpretations
  problems.
• Outcomes The HVA has been very successful in
  collecting rich data on student thinking.
• Menu

28
Evaluation Learning experiences

• Aim to provide an engaging and stimulating
  experience for students
• Outcomes students were overwhelmingly positive
  in their assessments of the project
• E.g. In the 2009 evaluation survey, 82.4 stated
  that it had helped develop their thinking about
  evidence and interpretations.
• Menu

29
Evaluation Learning Outcomes?

• Aim get students arguing.
• Outcomes The 2008/9 iteration was more effective
  than the 2007/8 board in getting students to
  argue , however, students were more likely to
  make posts to the 2007/08 design.
• Menu

30
Evaluation Learning Outcomes?

• Aim move students away from objectivist notions
  of historical practice and towards engagement
  with historians reasoning and interpretive
  decisions.
• Outcomes
• (1)Only a sample of the data has been analysed
  and only provisionally. However, outcomes suggest
  some success in moving students thinking on.
• (2) Students ideas were already quite
  sophisticated.
• Menu

31
Explanation Menu 2008 Stage 1 N 5 2008 Stage 5 N 5 2009 Stage 1 N 5 2009 Stage 5 N 5
1.Backgrounds or beliefs affect objectivity 1 1 5 2
2. Use different sources 2 0 4 3
3. Interpret or evaluate evidence differently 3 4 2 4
4. Different kinds of text 0 1 0 1
5. Differing contextualisation 1 1 0 1
6. Define terms differently 2 2 0 1
7. Limited sources 2 3 0 0
8. Desire to innovate 0 1 0 0
32
Backgrounds or beliefs affect objectivity

• There are a few factors which can influence a
  historian's interpretation of past events. One
  factor is their individual political views some
  historians will manipulate historical evidence to
  accommodate their personal, political agenda. For
  example, a Conservative would dismiss Chartism as
  a trivial organisation, who can never succeed
  against the upper-class government
• Data Table

33
Use different sources

• Historians are unlikely to draw their conclusions
  from exactly the same evidence base and hence
  from this discrepancies may arise.
• Data Table

34
Interpret or evaluate evidence differently

• The same sources that one argues for its
  existence the other uses to argue against its
  existence. So the issue is not only availability
  of evidence, but the analysis and interpretation
  of evidence used to show different things.
• Data Table

35
Different kinds of text

• perhaps one reason these historians say such
  different things concerning the Ranters lies in
  the focus of what they are saying. Historian A
  appears not to question the existence of the
  Ranters, seemingly accepting their existence as a
  given, their focus being centred on the beliefs
  of the Ranters Historian B calls in to question
  the existence of the Ranters claiming that The
  Ranters are a fiction, something their argument
  is intent on proving
• Data Table

36
Differing contextualisation

• The context has also led to a situation where the
  opinions of historians can vary so wildly over
  one issue. 1 places a lot of weight on the fact
  that there were many groups of religious
  radicals active in Britain to support the view
  that Ranterism existed. 2 places more weight on
  the general moral and political turmoil of the
  time.
• Data Table

37
Define terms differently

• Another source of differencesin terms of
  identifying what is actually meant by the term
  Ranter. For Historian B the term refers to a
  handful of individuals For historian A on the
  other hand Ranters were more than this, they were
  a collective movement of people who were
  blasphemous and wanton in their ways
• Data Table

38
Limited sources

• Limited evidence does not allow for an argument
  that can be fully explored
• Data Table

39
Desire to innovate

• Also historians seek to challenge perceptions and
  accepted beliefs in order to expand the full
  possibilities, and gain a more fuller insight
  into the time period, whilst remaining in what is
  known to be true in the evidence available
• Data Table

40
References

• Barca, I. (2002). Direct observation and
  history The ideas of Portuguese students and
  prospective teachers. Paper given at Annual
  Meeting of American Educational Research
  Association, New Orleans, 1-5th April 2002.
  Online. Available at http//www.cshc.ubc.ca/vi
  ewpaper.php?id89. Last accessed 12/08/2008.
• Barca, I. (2005) Till New Facts are
  Discovered Students Ideas about Objectivity in
  History, in Ashby, R., Gordon, P. and Lee, P.
  (eds) (2005) Understanding History Recent
  Research in History Education, International
  Review of History Education, Volume 4, London and
  New York RoutledgeFalmer, pp.68-82.
• Boix-Mansilla, V. (2005) Between Reproducing and
  Organizing the Past Students Beliefs about the
  Standards of Acceptability of Historical
  Knowledge, in Ashby, R., Gordon, P. and Lee, P.
  (eds) (2005) Understanding History Recent
  Research in History Education, International
  Review of History Education, Volume 4, London and
  New York RoutledgeFalmer, pp.98-115.
• Booth, A. (2005) Worlds in collision university
  tutor and student perspectives on the transition
  to degree level history. Paper given at the
  Institute of Historical Researchs conference
  History in Schools and Higher Education Issues
  of Common Concern, 29th September 2005. Available
  at http//www.history.ac.uk/education/sept/booth.
  html. Accessed on 24/05/2009.

41
References

• Cercadillo, L. (2001). Significance in History
  Students Ideas in England and Spain, in
  A.Dickinson, P.Gordon and P.J.Lee (Eds.) Raising
  Standards in History Education, International
  Review of History Education, Volume 3. London
  The Woburn Press.
• Chapman, A. (2009) Supporting High Achievement
  and Transition to Higher Education Through
  History Virtual Academies. History Subject
  Centre. http//www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/he
  ahistory/resources/cs_chapman_highachievement_2009
  1001.pdf
• Chapman, A. (2001) Accounting for Interpretations
  / Interpreting Accounts. EdD Institution Focused
  Study. Institute of Education. University of
  London.
• Chapman, A. and Hibbert, B. (2009) Advancing
  history post-16 using e-learning, collaboration
  and assessment to develop AS and A2 students
  understanding of the discipline of history, in
  Cooper, H. and Chapman, A. (2009) Constructing
  History 11-19, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,
  Singapore, Washington DC Sage.
• Coffin, C. (2007). The language and discourse of
  argumentation in computer conferencing and
  essays Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award
  Report, RES-000-22-1453. Swindon ESRC. Available
  at http//www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk. Accessed
  on 25/05/2009.
• Gago, M. (2005). Childrens Understanding of
  Historical Narrative in Portugal, in R.Ashby,
  P. Gordon and P.J.Lee (Eds.) Understanding
  History Recent Research in History Education,
  International Review of History Education, Volume
  4. London and New York Routledge Farmer.

42
References

• Hibbert, B. (2006) The articulation of the study
  of history at General Certificate of Education
  Advanced Level with the study of history for an
  honours degree. University of Leeds PhD Thesis.
  Available at http//www.tactic-solutions.com/phd/
  bhibbert.htm. Accessed on 21/05/2009.
• Hsiao, Y. (2005) Taiwanese Students
  Understanding of Differences in History Textbook
  Accounts, in Ashby, R., Gordon, P. and Lee, P.
  (eds) (2005) Understanding History Recent
  Research in History Education, International
  Review of History Education, Volume 4, London and
  New York RoutledgeFalmer, pp.54-67.
• Institute of Historical Research (2005) History
  in Schools and Higher Education Issues of Common
  Concern. Available at http//www.history.ac.uk/ed
  ucation/sept/index.html. Accessed on 24/05/2009.
  
• Lee, P.J. (1997). None of us was there
  Childrens ideas about why historical accounts
  differ, in S.Ahonen, A.Pauli, et al. (Eds.).
  Historiedidaktik I Nordern 6, Nordisk Konferens
  om Historiedidaktik, Tampere 1996. Copenhagen
  Danmarks Laererhojskle.
• Lee, P. and Shemilt, D. (2004) I just wish we
  could go back in the past and find out what
  really happened progression in understanding
  about historical accounts, Teaching History,
  117, pp.25-31.
• Lee, P.J. and Shemilt, D. (2003). A scaffold,
  not a cage progression and progression models in
  history, Teaching History, 113, pp.13-23.

43
References

• McDiarmid, G.W. (1994). Understanding History
  for Teaching A Study of the Historical
  Understanding of Prospective Teachers, in
  M.Carretero and J.F.Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and
  Instructional Processes in History and the Social
  Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum
  Associates.
• Moorhouse, D. (2006) When computers dont give
  you a headache the most able lead a debate on
  medicine through time. Teaching History, 124,
  pp.30-36.

44
Supporting High Achievement and Transition to
Higher Education Through HistoryVirtual
Academies

• Arthur Chapman
• Institute of Education, University of London
• a.chapman_at_ioe.ac.uk
• History Subject Centre Conference
• LMH Oxford 24th March 2010