Assessing Progress in History: Moving Beyond National Curriculum Levels

1. “Am I A Level 6 Yet?” Alex Ford

2. Alex Ford Head of History, Guiseley School Author of www.andallthat.co.uk @apf102; @andallthatweb

3. How do your schools report on pupils’ attainment or progress in history? Which of these are measures of ATTAINMENT? Which are measures of PROGRESS? Which measure something else?

4. Common means of feedback

5. A recent example…

6. What does making progress in History actually look like?

7. Key Definitions • Attainment – a measure of understanding at a particular point • Progress – the development of a child’s abilities, knowledge and understanding over time • Progression Model – the system which underpins how students improve their understanding of the subject

8. Problem with NC Levels: Progression • The 10 statements all come from the National Curriculum Level Descriptions of 1991. • They all relate to the concept of causation and theoretically form a hierarchy from Level 1 to Level 10

9. Level 1 – Recognise everyday time conventions • Level 2 – Demonstrate, by reference to stories of the past, an awareness that actions have consequences • Level 3 – Demonstrate an awareness of human motivation illustrated by reference to events of the past • Level 4 – Understand that historical events usually have more than one cause and consequence • Level 5 – Understand that historical events have different types of causes and consequences • Level 6 – When explaining historical issues, place some causes and consequences in a sensible order of importance • Level 7 – When examining historical issues, can draw the distinction between causes, motives and reasons • Level 8 – Produce a well-argued hierarchy of causes for complex historical issues • Level 9 – Demonstrate an awareness of the problems inherent in the idea of causation • Level 10 – Demonstrate a clear understanding of the complexities of the relationship between cause, consequence and change Problem with NC Levels: Progression

10. Problem with NC Levels: Attainment • Never intended to measure attainment in individual pieces of work • Too broad and lack specific focus – difficult if not impossible to measure individual pieces of work against • eg. “Can understand how different periods of British and international history overlap and fit together. • Don’t offer a description of what improvement looks like

11. Problem with NC Levels: Progress Never intended to be used to measure progress AT ALL! Do not describe change over time. Using numerical system suggests linear progress should be made Confuses students and parents and focuses on the wrong thing – grades not descriptions

12. Problem with NC Levels: Progression • Fail to describe what progression in historical understanding looks like: • Second order concepts • Historical knowledge • Stuck in the generic: Level 4 “Describe”; Level 5 “Explain”; Level 6 “Analyse”; Level 7 “Evaluate” • ‘…moving from National Curriculum Level 4 to Level 5 (or whatever) is not an adequate description of progress let alone a prescription for progress.’ (Counsell, 2000, p. 41)

13. It’s no different with GCSE

14. How can we tell if kids are making “progress?” • Assessment does not need to fit on a unified, linear scale – more powerful if it does not! MESSY MARKBOOK • Assessing Attainment • Task/Topic specific – focus in terms of historical thinking and knowledge • Tasks should get harder over the key stage – demands/content • Simple task specific marks eg. Percentage, grade etc.

15. A “messy” markbook Pupil A Pupil B Pupil C Pupil D Pupil E Pupil F Pupil G Pupil H Pupil I

16. How could we assess? • Assessing Progress • A holistic measure over time based on all aspects of student work • Needs to trust teacher judgment • Descriptive of progress over time ie. little, slow, good, rapid • Linked to formative feedback

17. What are we REALLY trying to assess in history?

18. Progression & Conceptual Understanding • Establishing how students move from weaker to more powerful ideas in terms of key second order concepts • Eg. “How significant was the Norman Conquest?” or “Why did William win the Battle of Hastings? • Seixas and Morton: Historical Thinking Project • Guideposts of concepts for students to master • Misconceptions they need to overcome NOT ladders to climb • Based on research and experience

19. Causation: Mastery Model (Scott, 1990; Morton & Seixas, 2012)

20. Developing a Progression Model What GUIDEPOSTS would indicate a mastery of Change & Continuity? What misconceptions would need to be overcome? Causation Change and Continuity Historical Evidence Historical Interpretation World Views Communication

21. Developing a Progression Model Effective planning for mastery is key to students making progress. BUT the second order concepts do not exist in isolation from the content!

22. Progression and Historical knowledge • Key interplay between knowledge and second order concepts • Rejects the idea of standalone concepts – concepts are rooted ie. A causal explanation of William’s victory at Hastings might be quite different from an explanation of the failure of the Peasants’ Revolt • Knowledge is as transferrable and necessary as the conceptual understanding. “A view common in the 1980s and early 1990s [and indeed now] was that knowledge was ‘inert’ and ‘non-functioning’, whereas ‘skill’ was transferable. This view did not accord with my experience. It seemed to me that knowledge from one topic was highly ‘functional’ in a quite different topic, and definitely transferable.” (Counsell, 2014)

23. Progression and Historical knowledge • According to Hammond (TH157, 2014) • A really good answer contains a range of forms of knowledge: topic knowledge, period knowledge and general historical knowledge. • Existing knowledge “flavours” what is being written.

25. Knowledge and progress • Knowledge of key concepts. • For example "autocracy" and what they meant to people at the time. • Knowledge of context • the things that were going on in and around historical periods and their impact. • Knowledge of key people and events. • This is really the surface level - events cannot be understood without their context or the underlying concepts. • Need to consider what “fingertip” knowledge pupils need for a topic, but also what “residual” knowledge topics should leave behind (Counsell)

26. Bringing it together: marking some work Have a look at the William & Hastings task Use this and the materials we have looked at to create a description of a “gold standard” response to the question Try to focus on the historical thinking, the specific knowledge and the argument. • Burnham & Brown (2004, 2014) suggest that task specific, “level of response”, mark schemes are best suited to marking students’ work • Allow specific feedback against the task itself • Are descriptive of knowledge and thinking • Are diagnostic and can evolve

27. Bringing it together: marking some work Now have a go at completing the mark scheme based on what you have seen Which of the pieces will form the basis of your “mid” ability? Where would you place each of the pieces? • All of these are genuine responses to the question “Why did William win the Battle of Hastings?” • What order would you put them in? Why?

28. Further Reading • For a broader discussion of the issues see: • Burnham, S. & Brown, G. (2003) ‘Assessment without level descriptions’ in Teaching History, 113,Creating Progress Edition • Counsell, C. (2004) ‘Editorial’ in Teaching History, 115,Assessment Without Levels?Edition • Fordham, M. (2013) ‘O brave new world, without those levels in't: where now for Key Stage 3 assessment in history?’ in Teaching History, Historical Association Curriculum Supplement,Curriculum Evolution • Lee, P. & Shemilt, D. (2003) ‘A scaffold not a cage: progression and progression models in history’ in Teaching History, 113,Creating Progress Edition • Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2012) The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts, Toronto, Nelson Education. • Also recommend reading the whole of Teaching History Issue 157 which has articles on assessment after levels, progression models, knowledge testing, assessing substantive knowledge and using timelines in assessment