,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@HistoryKss I think you're spot on in these assumptions. Many probs have been caused by the practice (reinforced by the old Ofsted) that 'challenge' inheres in a skill hierarchy, in a type of activity or, worse, some horrible, assumed correlation between skill increments & types of activity!
@HistoryKss Of course, when appropriate, it can be good for pupils to be asked v.challenging questions (ones that make them think really hard with their knowledge) or prepared to tackle complex tasks that require sustained analysis / application / argument...
@HistoryKss ...but looking for such things as the main evidence of 'challenge' or expecting to see them in any one lesson for challenge to be considered to be happening is absurd. It ignores the profoundly temporal quality of a curriculum, that is to say...
@HistoryKss ... a teacher is making later challenge possible by enabling pupils to build secure, rich, complex mental models from thorough accounts, thoroughly taught (such as the rich examples of you give of additional historical scenery that provides useful complexity).
@HistoryKss So what is challenge here? (i) acquisition (understanding, mastery, retention) of that rich complex material? (ii) its later use in some challenging written argument or debate? (iii) pupils' ability to read demanding scholarship because (i) & (ii) have prepared them well for it?
@HistoryKss The moral of all this is that the 'challenge' of a lesson or activity only gains meaning by association and extension with what comes later and what went before. The word 'challenge' only has meaning in this kind of temporal (& therefore curricular) context.
