Hill West Research Papers
Write a rationale in which you critically evaluate the decisions you have made in the planning process, supporting your argument with reference to appropriate theory.
By J Thomas 2013
Write a rationale in which you critically evaluate the decisions you have made in the planning process, supporting your argument with reference to appropriate theory.
The three consecutive lesson plans were created with the principal objective of developing the understanding of history for children in a year two class. The history primary National Curriculum (1999) was used at the heart of planning, ensuring that each lesson meets the KS1 criteria, along with allowing opportunities for developing skills, knowledge and understanding in english. Each learning objective is aimed at meeting specific National Curriculum requirements.
The lesson plans are focused on the topic of The Great Fire of London, as this is an exciting story that can be understood at a simple level. It meets the primary history National Curriculum requirement at KS1 paragraph 6(d), as children are required to study a past event from the history of Britain. Furthermore, this topic provides profuse opportunity to develop the knowledge, skills and understanding of children, which are defined in the KS1 history National Curriculum (1999).
The primary history National Curriculum (1999) requires KS1 children to be able to communicate what they have learned in history in a selection of ways. The lesson plans were considered with the intention of progressing children towards achieving this target. However, it is necessary to point out that in reality more than three taught lessons would be required to achieve this goal.
The National Curriculum (1999) encourages teachers to use cross-curricular links. This is evident when viewing the primary history National Curriculum (1999), in which
reading, writing, speaking and listening skills are entrenched (Hoodless, 2008: 82). Barnes (2011: 250) supports this theory, arguing that the cross-curricular skills acknowledged in the National Curriculum (1999) remain a helpful guide, allowing teachers to take account of individual differences in learning.
Conversely, Boyle and Bragg (2006:1) insist that there is an english and mathematics governance over the ‘Foundation Subjects’. This view, shared by many, saw the proposed, but later rejected, Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum (2009). This guidance ‘respects the integrity of subjects but lessens the rigidity of their boundaries’ (DfE, 2009:19).
Barnes (2011: 70) supports cross-curricular teaching, stating that ‘‘cross-curricular methods are a means of promoting learning that are highly motivating for some, even most, children’. In addition, Parslow-Williams and Pond (2012: 244) assert that cross-curricular projects give children a purpose for their studies and an opportunity to apply their skills in real-life situations. Cross-curricular teaching is a widely supported concept and is commonly adopted by teachers in the UK (Dorey and Handscomb, 2012: 223).
Hoodless (2008: 83) maintains that ‘the links between history and language are many and varied since history is a subject which makes much use of language in all its forms’. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (1997) explain that the developments of the primary history National Curriculum requirements are closely linked to a child’s ability to use language.
History has the capability of providing children with a variety of genres in which they can write (Husbands, 1996). This is demonstrated within the third lesson plan, whereby the children will write a diary extract based on the events of The Great Fire of London.
Teaching literacy across the curriculum can lead to heightened learning within a range of subjects; enhancing the circumstances in which children can practise core skills (Wray, 2006). Research from Levsticks (1990) suggested that literature could be motivating in history learning. In addition, Smith (1993) found that children remembered more and had better conceptual understanding when literacy and humanities were integrated.
These arguments reaffirmed the decision to develop three consecutive lesson plans in history, with cross-curricular links to english. Moreover, it became apparent whilst considering the learning objectives of each lesson plan, that the link between english and history is imperative and extremely natural.
Despite the great volume of arguments in favour of cross-curricular teaching, it is important to stress that not every lesson should be taught in this manner. O’Hara (2001: 36) reasoned that skills and knowledge of language may be ‘reinforced through history lessons but are unlikely to be taught in them’. In addition, crosscurricular learning contradicts the notion that every child learns differently (Barnes, 2011). Whilst english National Curriculum links have been used within each of the three lesson plans, it would not be necessary, or appropriate to continue to do so in future lesson on this topic. It is important to strike a balance and consider all of the
children’s individual needs; therefore cross-curricular methods will not always be appropriate.
Research from Shayer and Adey (2002) suggests that the use of varied teaching strategies can provoke improvements in children’s attitude, independence and motivation. These findings encouraged the consideration of a range of teaching strategies whilst preparing these lesson plans.
Key themes throughout all lesson plans: Each lesson begins with an introduction of the learning objectives and an explanation of the lesson structure to the children. Hoodless (2008:7) asserts that these ‘organisers’ help to focus the children for the remainder of the lesson. Introducing the lessons well will encourage enthusiasm and involvement of the children (O’Hara, 2001: 53). The children will be addressed as a whole group as this is an effective approach for giving instructions (O’Hara, 2001).
Each lesson also includes activities that encourage children’s talk, as this is a ‘vital tool of learning’ Alexander (2000:430). Cockerton (2012: 193) described talk as adding to children’s learning potential, emphasising the importance of breaking up teaching with opportunities for discussion. The first lesson will use talk within a discussion following the storytelling; the second lesson will use talk in a dramatic context and the third lesson will use talk within the game of ‘eye spy’.
Lesson One Elicitation is used at the beginning of the first lesson, asking the children to discuss what they already know about the Great Fire of London. Although it is clear that the class will not have previously learnt this topic, it is important to address the extent of the knowledge that children may already have on this topic. The pedagogical technique of ‘scaffolding’ uses a child’s existing knowledge in this way as a starting point, before recognising what they will be able to achieve with the teachers help, before moving them towards this point (Dorey and Handscomb, 2012: 225). To engage children and to encourage a higher order of thinking the children will be asked open rather than closed questions (Manning, 2012: 170).
The practise of storytelling in the first lesson plan is founded on the argument that storytelling is the essence of history teaching (Blythe, 1982). This is further cemented by the belief that stories are important in the cognitive development of young children (Cooper’s, 2000).
The class discussion within this lesson is underpinned by Vygotsky’s emphasis on the importance of social interactions, meaning that the children will learn more from each other than they could achieve on their own (Cooper, 2002). Furthermore, Cooper (1995) argues that discussion and group interaction contribute both to literacy capabilities and historical expertise.
The sequencing activity within the first lesson addresses paragraph 1(a) of the history primary National Curriculum (1999). Great importance is placed on children undertaking chronological activities within the primary history National Curriculum
(Hodkinson, 2002). The children will be undertaking this task in pairs, as this will allow less able learners to be supported, alongside encouraging children to generate new ideas (Hoodless, 2008).
Lesson Two The use of drama within the second lesson plan is reinforced by Piaget’s theory that children construct knowledge best through active learning (Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003). Furthermore, the use of drama within this topic will allow the children firsthand experience through play, whilst imagining what it was like to be present at The Great Fire of London in 1666 (Bruce, 1997) and (Nichol and Dean,1997). Galton and Williamson (1992) argue that this strategy of work has great social and emotional advantages for children.
The children will work in mixed ability groups throughout the drama based activity, as this will allow the children with weaker language skills to be supported by the more able children (Hoodless, 2008: 48). Moreover, Pollard and Tann (1993) affirm that group work can be a useful method for upholding children’s development of social language skills, which encourages the link of english within these history lessons.
The use of self and peer assessment in this lesson will encourage the children to develop their understanding of the value of assessment in their learning (Manning, :174). However, it will be necessary to give the children a clear direction as it is essential that this form of assessment is handled in a sensitive manner. Laudram and Chynoweth (2012: 96) explain that this opportunity to speak and share with a larger audience is important in developing a child’s self-esteem and confidence.
Lesson Three The evaluation of the picture in the third lesson meets the ‘interpretations’ (paragraph 3) and ‘historical enquiry’ (paragraph 4) aspects of the KS1 history primary National Curriculum (1999). In addition, it helps the children to communicate their awareness and understanding of The Great Fire of London, as required by paragraph 5(a) of the history National Curriculum (1999). It is evident that pictures can be of great use within teaching; Turner-Bisset (2005) asserts that young children are capable of identifying a vast amount of detail from visual sources. Hughes, Cox and Goddard (2000) stress that is a child’s right to have access to a range of historical sources; as a result a range of learning resources have been incorporated within the lesson plans.
The use of the diary writing activity in the third lesson revisits the chronological requirement of the history primary National Curriculum (1999), ensuring that children have the opportunity to confidently meet the criteria in paragraph 1(a). In addition, this use of imaginative writing has the potential to enable children to make a personal sense of the past. (O’Hara, 2001). The children will be required to undertake this activity individually as this can be an effective method in encouraging children to take more responsibility for their own learning (O’Hara, 2001). Using this task, which is the same for all of the children in the class, is useful for assessment purposes (Hoodless, 2008).
Conclusion The core focus of planning the three consecutive lesson plans was to meet the relevant National Curriculum requirements, using elements of cross-curricular learning combined with a range of teaching strategies.
Whilst it is unarguable that teaching history linked with english enhances learning, arguments that I have discussed during this essay highlight the fact this is not always an appropriate methodology. Cross curricular learning should be balanced with creative teaching whilst allowing time to be spent focusing on core subjects.
The notion that children learn in different ways has placed a great focus on the need to identify and use a range of content and teaching strategies within the three lesson plans. This is the most logical way of ensuring that all children meet the National Curriculum requirements (Hoodless, 2008).
References Alexander, R. J. (2000) Culture and Pedagogy: international comparisons in Primary Education, Oxford: Open University/ Routledge. Bage, G (2000) Thinking history, London: Routledge-Falmer. Barnes, J. (2011) Cross curricular learning 3-11, 2nd edition, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Blythe, J.E. (1982) History in Primary Schools, London: McGraw-Hill. Boyle, B. and Bragg, J. (2006) ‘A Curriculum without Foundation’, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 569-582. Bruce, T. (1997) Early Childhood Education, 2nd edition, London: Hodder and Stoughton. Cockerton, E. (2012) ‘Planning’, in Cockburn, A. and Handscomb, G. (ed.). Teaching children 3 to 11: a student’s guide, 3rd edition, London: Paul Chapman. Cooper, H. (2000) The teaching of history in primary schools: implementing the revised National Curriculum, 3rd edition, London: David Fulton. Cooper, H. (2002) History in the early years, 2nd edition, London: Routledge/Falmer. Department for Children, Schools and Families. (DCFS), (2009) Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Final Report, Nottingham: DCSF Publications. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), (1999) The National Curriculum: Handbook for primary teachers, DfEE Publications. Dorey, F. and Handscomb, G. (2012) ‘The dynamic curriculum’, in Cockburn, A. and Handscomb, G. (ed.) (2012) Teaching children 3 to 11: a student’s guide, 3rd edition, London: Paul Chapman. Galton, M. and Williamson, J. (1992) Group work in education, London: Routledge.
Hodkinson, A. (2002) A coordinator answers: the development of chronological understanding in primary history, Primary History, vol. 31, pp. 8-9. Hoodless, P. (2008) Teaching history in primary schools, Exeter: Learning Matters. Hughes, P., Cox, K. and Goddard, G. (2000) Primary History curriculum guide, London: Fulton. Husbands, C. (1996) What is history teaching?: language, ideas and meaning in learning about the past, Buckingham: Open University Press. Laudram, L. and Chynoweth, S. (2012) ‘Classroom Skills’, in Cockburn, A. and Handscomb, G. (eds). Teaching children 3 to 11: a student’s guide, 3rd edition, London: Paul Chapman. Levstick, L (1990) Research directions: mediating content through literacy texts, Language Arts, vol. 67, pp.848 – 853. Manning, R. (2012) ‘Assessment’, in Cockburn, A. and Handscomb, G. (ed.) Teaching children 3 to 11: a student’s guide, 3rd edition, London: Paul Chapman. Nichol, J. and Dean, J. (1997) History 7-11 developing primary teaching skills, London: Routledge. O'Hara, L. and O'Hara, M. (2001) Teaching history 3-11: the essential guide, London: Continuum. Parslow-Williams, P. and Pond, M. (2012) ‘Making sense of the curriculum’, in Cockburn, A. and Handscomb, G. (ed.) Teaching children 3 to 11: a student’s guide, 3rd edition, London: Paul Chapman. Polland, A. and Tann, S. (1993) Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom, 2nd edition, London: Cassell.
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (1997) History and the use of Language, London: SCAA Publications. Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (2002) Learning intelligence: cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years, Buckingham: Open University Press. Smith, J. (1993) Content Learning: a third reason for using literature in teaching reading, reading research and instruction, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 64-71. Turner- Bisset, R. (2005) Creative Teaching: history in the primary classroom, London: Fulton. Wray, D. (2006) Teaching literacy across the primary curriculum, Exeter: Learning Matters.