@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth The trick is this. Anticipate where the force of pupils’ analysis will lie as the lessons of the enquiry proceed and what do you want them to (and what can they, realistically in the time frame) argue *about*.
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth Then make sure they will argue about /problematise / reflect on the construction of real, particular interpretations. Why, for whom, with what relationship with evidence, using what method was *this* interpretation constructed? And with what effect, on what audience, and why?
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth Therefore avoid “Was Haig an irresponsible butcher?” “Was Cromwell’s legacy good or bad?” “Arkwright: hero or oppressor?” Perfectly OK & interesting questions but if you want pupils to have the curricular entitlement of analysing actual interpretations, you’re firing too wide.
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth Use this structure to arrive at the focus of the EQ & force of meaningful, realistic analysis you want to foster. (It's the 2004 updated version of McAleavy's basic 1993 principles, as imbibed and practised on all good history ITT courses, prior to yet more recent adaptations!) 
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth Then consider your sequencing context. What (a) substantive knowledge of the period being interpreted, (b) substantive knowledge of the context of the interpreter and (c) disciplinary knowledge of interpretation types (see below) do they already have?
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth in other words... what have I made them ready for and therefore what will they newly notice in this new interpretation because of the lens through which they'll view it (because *prior* content has changed their schemata, such as analytic vocab or sense of period) they hold.
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth Things get clunky forced, artificial, superficial, dull when these issues in sequencing haven't been addressed, both in substantive & disciplinary knowl. Think how their prior knowl readies them. What interpretation phenomenon do you want to open up? How have you made them ready?
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth And so we arrive at excellent EQs like these. But remember that they are only as good as the prior knowledge and earlier thinking pupils have done. They could be useless if prior knowledge hasn't made them ready:
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth The next What's the Wisdom On in @histassoc Teaching History will be on this, including many more practical egs. I'm working on it right now (the December edition being edited by @KatharineBurn). So a much fuller account of this thread will be out for HA members soon.
@mrwbw @AmyBennettTeach @kenradical @SPBeale @TIJenner @hannahcusworth @histassoc @KatharineBurn But for now here are more EQs which illustrate the above principles. Note that they are carefully aligned to the distinctive, technical curricular entitlement of England's NC tradition around 'Interpretations', and they cannot work if not sitting within a sensible sequence. Fin!
