,
15 tweets,
12 min read
Read on Twitter
@RKeoghHistory Hardly know where to start. There are so many (related) reasons which have been frequently expressed - especially in hist ed community - since first horrified reaction to schools doing this from about 2014. I'll suggest some stuff to read if that's helpful, but if not, DM me.
@RKeoghHistory 1) Pupils' grasp of substantive & disciplinary knowledge are profoundly connected, with layers of substantive knowledge often manifesting themselves indirectly in disciplinary (eg causal argument) performance. So we need to assess acquisition of substantive knowl in its own right
@RKeoghHistory 2) Therefore read Kate Hammond in Teaching History 157, "The knowledge that flavours the claim".
@RKeoghHistory 3) The building of schemata is fundamental to progress, this is why "the curriculum is the progression model". See Hirsch, ED (1987), Cultural Literacy, Chapter 2, for really clear account on schemata.
@RKeoghHistory 4) Smaller *components* (whether substantive - eg security in key narratives & abstract concepts; or disciplinary - eg practice in causal argument or evidential thinking) sit underneath *composite* performance. ie the final performance isn't the same as the means of its nurture.
@RKeoghHistory 5) Therefore see @daisychristo "Making Good Progress" She also explains the importance of decoupling summative and formative assessment. Tracking back from GCSE markschemes (eg question level gap analysis) obscures the true problems.
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo 6) More when I've had my supper...
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo 7) Consider the aspects of disciplinary thinking/argument in which we want pupils to grow thru KS3 (causal reasoning, evidential thinking, analysis of change... basics of NC Aims). GCSE Qus are just proxy genres, scarce approaching the riches pupils achieve in these areas at KS3.
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo 8) But even with GCSE success alone in mind, how cld practising a 4-mark Describe answer & a 6-mark Evaluate answer (or whatever) for 5 yrs, secure significant progress in those Qs? It ignores the layers of knowledge, vocab & thinking that sit underneath successful performance.
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo 9) The error is to treat a GCSE markscheme as a progression model when it is manifestly not.
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo 10) but I've focused on history given you're a historian. Take a look at @dmthomas90 blog post for maths davidthomasblog.com/2017/05/how-ex… and @IanBauckham on the @PTE_Campaign blog for MFL, and other subjects: parentsandteachers.org.uk/professionalis…
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo @dmthomas90 @IanBauckham @PTE_Campaign 11) I've also written about the issue in more general terms in the series I've begun on senior curriculum leadership here: thedignityofthethingblog.wordpress.com
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo @dmthomas90 @IanBauckham @PTE_Campaign 12) See also @daisychristo blog on why teaching to the test is so damaging for defining and securing high standards for all: daisychristodoulou.com/2014/01/why-te…
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo @dmthomas90 @IanBauckham @PTE_Campaign 13) but back to history. In the hist ed community, the tradition of treating the curriculum as the progression model, & decoupling formative & summative assessment. See Laffin (2000) in TH98; see Burnham & Brown (2004) in TH115; see @mfordhamhistory here: history.org.uk/secondary/reso…
@RKeoghHistory @daisychristo @dmthomas90 @IanBauckham @PTE_Campaign @mfordhamhistory 14) OK, enough. Having read that lot, DM me if you want more. Happy to help.
