Does the linguistic
release the conceptual?
Helping Year 10 to improve their causal reasoning
Everyone has moments during their education when
something clicks, and the previously obscure suddenly
makes sense. I can remember when my GCSE teacher
used the word ‘latent’ to describe the tensions in Soviet
society preceding the revolutions. While I am a little
concerned that this, of all things, should stick in my
mind, I do vividly remember that this was a revelation:
not only was ‘latent’ a word that I had never encountered
before, but the ideas contained within it were also new
to me. Suddenly, the idea of causation as something
more than a simplistic, linear chain of events started to
make sense. Reflecting on this experience during my
PGCE, I wondered whether providing students with
new vocabulary would simply provide new means of
expressing concepts previously understood but which
they could not fully articulate, or whether, as in my
experience, vocabulary could help students not just to
express an understanding but to develop an
understanding in the first place (see Figure 1).1
Underlying the lesson sequence I subsequently devised
was my conviction that, contrary to the fear in certain
quarters (expressly stated or implicitly revealed through
‘protective’ teaching methods which avoid exposing
weak literacy), writing does not have to be a barrier to
expression.2 Inability to articulate one’s ideas due to a
lack of suitable vocabulary is a problem even the most
literate can feel, and having an overwhelmingly limited
vocabulary does of course profoundly restrict what you
TEACHING
can express. However, that is precisely why we should
be developing students’ language skills. If one has the
linguistic tools, the vocabulary, an understanding of
its precise meaning and, importantly, the confidence
to use it and to use it accurately, then writing is
liberating. And by liberating, I would contend that
language is liberating both of expression and of thought.
Words are tools not just for speaking and writing, but
ones with which we think, imagine, speculate, and
organise our ideas. ‘Thought is not merely expressed
in words; it comes into existence through them.’3
I do not want (and do not have the expertise) to dwell
on the psycho-linguistic angle implicit in my question,
but some outline of how it has been argued that a
thought is formed is necessary to explain the basis of
my planning. Very crudely, as I understand it, ideas are
thought to form and evolve in the following manner.
‘Mentalese’, sub-linguistic thought, is the starting
point. 4 This is almost subconscious, instinctive
thought. Before it can be reflected upon and
communicated, such thought then needs to be
translated into something conscious and defined in
one’s own mind. We do this by thinking in words
(‘inner speech’).5 However, Vygotsky describes inner
speech as ‘disconnected and incomplete, abbreviated
and incoherent’, which does not make for a good
historical explanation.6 We must therefore evolve and
refine our ideas as we turn them into speech
5
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association
James Woodcock
James Woodcock is a Newly Qualified Teacher at Cottenham
Village College, Cambridgeshire (11-16 comprehensive).
Does new vocabulary help students to express existing ideas for which they do not yet have
words or does it actually give them new ideas which they did not previously hold? James Woodcock
asks whether offering students new vocabulary can give them new ideas, and whether this can
enhance their historical analyses of causation problems. This is an account of an experimental
lesson sequence with a mixed-ability Year 10 class. The students were working towards the
essay question: ‘ “Hitler was not to blame for World War II.” To what extent do you agree with this
statement?’ Whereas there has already been plenty of published reflection and analysis by
history teachers on the development of literacy and language through causal reasoning in history,
Woodcock is asking a new question. He is asking whether a direct focus on specific vocabulary
can actually develop an understanding of the nature of historical causation and a facility with
causal reasoning. For example, there are so many synonyms for the word ‘cause’ precisely because
there are so many ways in which something can be ‘caused’. If the only words students use to
describe causation are ‘cause’ or ‘reason’ they can never produce a meaningful analysis.
Woodcock concludes, ‘The clumsiness of the word “cause” in the context of “causes of
appeasement”... reveals just how unsophisticated, imprecise, and inappropriate that word can be.’
Not only
was ‘latent’
a word I
had never
encountered
before, but
the ideas
contained
within it
were new
to me.
(colloquially, ‘thinking aloud’).7 This is why we ask
students to explain themselves explicitly, because there
is a big difference between knowing what a student
meant, and what a student actually said. Through
expressing their understanding, discussing it with
peers, and reflecting upon and refining it in response
to questioning, provisional ideas can begin to crystallise
in students’ own minds and evolve into something
more defined and communicable. We then need to go
further, moving from the spoken to the necessarily
more precise written word. Bakalis argued, ‘Sometimes
it is only through writing that pupils can work out
what they think and know,’ and certainly being
required to organise and commit your thoughts to
paper does require you to clarify them and tests your
conviction.8 In short, the process of writing ‘leads to
more analytical ways of thinking’.9 Improving students’
vocabulary is not just a question of improving the style
and appearance of their work. Although this is
undoubtedly valuable, what we really need to do as
history teachers is to help our students to become better
historians. Here there is a ‘reciprocal relationship
between history and literacy’; 10 ‘difficulty with
historical writing is a difficulty with history’ itself.11
As the National Curriculum requires for reading that
‘[p]upils should be taught the technical and specialist
vocabulary of subjects…the patterns of language vital
to understanding and expression and the language used
to express causality, chronology, logic, exploration,
hypothesis, comparison, ask questions and develop
arguments’, so I would apply this to pupils’ own
writing.12 Appropriate vocabulary, I hoped, would
enhance students’ historical analyses, in their minds
and on paper.
In order to plan and assess the success of the sequence,
I needed to decide on the success criteria for an
explanation and analysis of a causal process. I decided
on the following: the pertinent selection and
deployment of evidence; sorting and categorising
evidence and ideas into broader themes and factors;
informed, justified and logical explanation of how a
particular point answers the question posed; drawing
links between events and themes to reveal interaction,
development, regression, overlap, affirmation and
contradiction; deciding upon a hierarchy of causes;
and sustaining an argument which is consistent,
persuasive, logical, and addresses alternative views and
interpretations of events or particular pieces of
evidence.13 Rather than bland, unsophisticated, linear
explanations (or worse, descriptions) of events which
begin, ‘There are many reasons for…’, and in which
each paragraph begins with, ‘Another cause was…’, I
was looking for bold, powerful, nuanced, precise
analyses and explanations such as, ‘The underlying cause
was…Contributing to this was…These problems were
exacerbated by…Ultimately, the trigger for war was…’.
This would add analysis of the chronological timing of
events and their pace, the interaction of factors, the
multi-causal and multi-consequential nature of both
TEACHING
these factors and the central event under discussion,
and the relative importance of factors.14 In short, such
an answer would be better history.
That last point cannot be over-emphasised. Language
for the historian is a tool, not an end in itself. This
experiment and the assessment of the students’ work
was not about style for the sake of appearances, it is not
about the language per se. Instead, it was about students’
historical analyses and how language might be a means
to enhance them, right from the moment of conception
of an idea.
The sequence of lessons (see Figure 3) was taught to a
mixed-ability Year 10 class and dealt with the causes of
World War II, leading to the following essay: ‘ ‘‘Hitler
was not to blame for World War II.” To what extent do
you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.’
Causal links and thematic
categorisation
Students are repeatedly and rightly taught that events
have multiple causes. However, I would argue that
this is too simple. History does not happen through a
series of events acting on each other in a linear chain
leading to an ultimate event. Nor does history happen
through a series of factors acting in isolation towards a
key event. History as it happens is an infinitely tangled
web of cause and effect, of reinforcement and negation
(see Figure 2).15 Events are of course multi-causal, but
also multi-consequential. And by ‘events’, should we
not take the same approach to the ‘key’ event being
analysed, in this case World War II, as we do to the
preceding and consequential events? World War II has
a host of causes, and those causes in turn each have a
variety of causes (see, for example, Lesson 3), and so
an ad infinitum. To isolate a particular event for peculiar
analytical treatment would be unhistorical and
misleading. Further, causes of the ‘key’ event also act
on each other, and even feed back on each other. The
‘causes’ of appeasement do not act only towards
appeasement, and the ongoing process of appeasement
reflects and refracts its own ‘causes’ (compare Lesson
4, where encouraging students to respond directly to
opponents’ points was intended to reveal the ‘interdependence of factors’). 16 If students do not
understand this complexity, and then, however
provisionally, resolve it in order to formulate and
articulate an argument and a coherent, helpful
explanation, they can never fully understand history.
It is precisely this complexity which a varied vocabulary
can help a student to comprehend and explain. There
is a simple reason why there are so many synonyms for
‘cause’: because there are so many ways in which
something can be ‘caused’. If the only words students
use to describe causation are ‘cause’ or ‘reason’ they
can never incisively and accurately analyse the process
6
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association
Figure 1: The role of language in the development and expression of understanding
specific words
(mortar)
The Vocabulary Bridge
new big idea
new means of
expressing an idea
The River of
Misunderstanding
specific facts
(bricks)
The Fertile Land of
Understanding
Figure 2: The nature of historical causation
History doesn’t happen like this…
It happens
like this…
…and it doesn’t
happen like
this either…
Figure 3: Causes of World War II– medium term plan
Lesson
Lesson Objectives
Activities
Development in relation to the enquiry
1: How would
Hitler’s beliefs
influence his
foreign policy?
(1) Infer from music the nature of German foreign policy.
(2) Give examples of events and beliefs which influenced
Hitler’s fp.
(3) From those events/beliefs, suggest type of fp that
might be pursued.
Play Wagner Ride of the Valkyries – if this were describing a foreign
policy, what sort would it be? What would the key features be?
Collect student inferences on board.
•
•
Overview of the principles behind the policy.
Hitler’s personal motivations and how they
affect the nature of German foreign
policy. Within this: effect of the Treaty of
Versailles, etc.
2: Foreign Policy
1933-1937: what
did Hitler do and
why?
(1) Draw links between causes, reasons and motivating
factors and the events and actions of Hitler’s foreign
policy.
(2) Explain the connections drawn.
(3) Categorise the nature of the causes and events etc.
and suggest the most important.
Mein Kampf extracts – infer what Hitler objects to, what is important
to him. How might these combine and manifest themselves in Hitler’s
foreign policy?
Draw the causation links activity: on a worksheet containing a wide
range of causes, consequences, reasons and motivations, students are
to draw and explain the links between them until the sheet is a
complex web of inter-related events.
Discuss how to make sense of the tangled web. Discuss possible
categories. Students select 3 or 4 categories and colour code the
sheets accordingly. Decide which is the most important theme.
•
Introducing the practical manifestations of
the policy.
Examining multi-causality/consequence: links
between (a) different causes (b) different
consequences (c) causes and consequences.
Developing the themes (categorisation).
Introducing hierarchy of theme (concept later
to be developed into hierarchy of cause).
3: Why did Britain
& France follow a
policy of
appeasement?
(1) Explain how facts and issues were reasons for
appeasement.
(2) Explain whether / to what extent appeasement was
a policy of principle or of practical expediency.
(3) Begin to argue whether appeasement was purely to
buy time.
Multi-stage worksheet –
(1) worksheet lists facts or issues; students have to explain how each one
was a reason for Britain and France choosing the policy of appeasement.
(2) students to discuss and score – to what extent are the reasons
practical, to what extent principle?
(3) concluding question – was appeasement based on the assumption
that there would be a war or that war could be avoided?
•
4: Should
Chamberlain
appease Hitler at
Munich?
Offer reasons (backed with examples) on why Britain
should or should not appease Hitler at Munich.
Would you have appeased? Knowing what Chamberlain knew, weigh up
the pros and cons of appeasing Hitler at Munich – card sort. Followed
by team debate – appease or confront?
5: Why on earth did
Stalin ally with
Hitler?
(1) Explain how facts are reasons for alliance and argue
why Stalin should or should not ally with Hitler.
(2) Directly counter arguments to the contrary.
Should he or shouldn’t he ally with Hitler? – card sort activity of the
pros and cons.
Team ‘debate‘ game – argue whether Stalin should or should not ally
with Hitler Points awarded for explanations, use of evidence, and
counter-argument.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Explanation is different from simply giving a
reason.
Drawing and justifying inferences.
Showing the importance of evidence.
Progressing explanatory skills into forming
an argument.
Reinforcing deployment of points and
evidence.
Introducing the countering of contradictory
arguments and evidence.
6: What was wrong
with appeasement?
(1) Infer and explain contemporary criticism from
cartoons.
(2) Write persuasively about ‘what was wrong with
appeasement’.
Study contemporary cartoon sources (e.g. Punch cartoons). Write an
editorial as at 25 August 1939 criticising appeasement.
•
•
Developing an argument and writing persuasively.
Further reinforcement of explanation and
evidence, this time in the context of extended
writing.
7: Was it really the
straw that broke
the camel’s back?
(1) Identify causes from a narrative.
(2) Identify and label causes according to their ‘nature’.
(3) Explain links and relative timing and importance of
causes using technical and stylish vocabulary.
Students spot reasons why Alphonse the Camel broke his back.
Feedback onto board, simply numbering as Cause 1, 2, 3 etc. Discuss
what this doesn’t show: (i) links (ii) relative importance (iii) timing.
•
Making explanations more subtle and
sophisticated, expressing the timing, links and
relative importance of causes.
Introducing concepts and nature of causation
through the language of causation.
•
Use word sheets (see Fig. 5) to explore meaning of causal vocab.
Students to write a causal explanation around 2/3 causes using
appropriate vocab.
8: To what extent
was Hitler to blame
for WWII?
Structure extended writing focusing on causal
explanation.
Class, group and individual development of detailed essay plan/frame,
building on ideas and skills from earlier lessons. Write for homework.
•
Extended writing explaining causes of WWII,
with reasoned, substantiated judgments about
interplay and relative importance.
as it happened in a particular context. The clumsiness
the word ‘cause’ in the context of ‘causes of
appeasement’ above reveals just how unsophisticated,
imprecise, and inappropriate that word can be.
Throughout the sequence, students examined different
forms of causation: for example, personal motivations
(e.g. Lesson 1), instinctive reactions, rationalised
decisions, more spontaneous chain reactions (for
example, in an economic context), and so on. Each
type of causation requires a different form of words:
economic events might be ‘triggered’ or ‘precipitated’,
an individual might be ‘influenced’ or ‘motivated’.
Explanation
This aspect of the sequence was inspired by two
unrelated discussions with my then mentor and now
colleague, Geraint Brown. The first was about the
conceptual and practical distinction between giving a
reason and giving an explanation. History teachers
encourage students to learn the distinction between a
description and an explanation. Too often, however,
students think that they are explaining why something
happened because they have given a reason. In
particular, there were students in this group whose
knowledge and enthusiasm are unquestioned but who,
brought up on a diet of the History Channel and Dictators
Monthly magazine (no joke), were often inclined
towards detailed telling rather than explanation.17
Bakalis notes that often this problem is of a failure to
render facts historical, to organise and deploy them to
the purpose in hand, but in my experience of this
class, their problem was more subtle: they could
organise and deploy the facts in a way which shows
awareness of the question, but they failed to take the
final step to explicitly explaining how their point
answered the question.18 Partly, they did not feel the
necessity of stating the ‘obvious’, and partly this was a
question of language. Even when pushed – ‘yes, but
why?’ – students are often unable to articulate their
explanations because they do not have the precise
conceptual understanding or phrases and vocabulary
to efficiently and consistently refer back to the question
after each point. Instead, their thinking and expression
are clumsy and they leave the point to speak for itself
because they feel unable to say it better.
The second discussion was about developing teaching
methods which would target a specific skill in isolation
and making this skill accessible to all. The idea was
that, rather than requiring students always to progress
step-by-step up a ladder, achieving competence in the
‘lower order’ skills and then moving up, all could
temporarily be lifted up to the ‘higher’ skills. Thus,
where the lesson objective centred on historical
explanation, students could bypass the potential hurdle
and red herring represented by ‘lower order’ skills such
as recall and selection, and immediately begin the job
of analysis and explanation. Therefore, in Lesson 3
TEACHING
students were given a series of facts or issues and were
asked write an explanation of why each fact or issue
meant that Britain and France followed a policy of
appeasement. The facts or issues given deliberately
lacked any explanatory implications and the connection
with appeasement was occasionally obscure, but
because the students were not struggling to remember
or decide upon the relevant facts, all students could
devote all their intellectual energies and practise their
language skills by explaining how each fact was a reason
for the policy of appeasement. 19 The quality of
responses could be measured by how (in)frequently I
had to reiterate the worksheet question, ‘why did this
mean Britain and/or France chose to follow a policy of
appeasement?’
Oral feedback sessions and debates in various guises,
along with structured and student-specific questioning
and challenges, contributed, I believe, to their
conceptual development which Pinker and Vygotsky
contend takes place through the translation of inner
speech to outer speech.20 Indeed, the whole purpose
of directed, differentiated, cumulative questioning is
precisely to clarify and progress students’ thoughts and
ideas. Good questioning does not settle for illconsidered or ill-articulated ideas: both are moved
forward until the student hits on the form of words
which suddenly illuminate the issue, the ‘bingo!’
moment. For example, a supposedly ‘lower attainer’
finally hit on the point of the question in Lesson 7,
‘Was it really the straw that broke the camel’s back?’
(see Figure 4) when he said, ‘We need to decide how
important the straw was.’ A vital component of causal
understanding had just fallen into place through
questioning and discussion. What I then needed to
do was allow him to explain how important it was.
Determining relative importance
To answer any question ‘why?’ we must decide upon
the relative importance of the reasons.21 This often
appears to be the hardest thing we ask our students to
do; ‘importance’ is, without scaffolding or criteria, a
particularly obscure notion. In essence, importance in
a causation exercise means deciding which reason had
most influence on the other reasons and on the ‘final’
event itself, and justifying that decision. We need to
decide on the degree and nature of the influence:
crudely, is it direct or indirect; more subtlely, is it, for
example, transformative or simply providing
momentum? Clearly, language and the concept of the
process are at the heart of understanding relative
importance: simply saying that one event ‘caused’
another does nothing to help us to understand how
important that cause was.
While not overlooked, relative importance was one
area where I feel the earlier lessons in this sequence
were lacking. Importance was addressed in Lesson 2
9
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association
Thought is not
merely
expressed in
words; it
comes into
existence
through them.
Vygotsky
Figure 4: Was it really the straw that broke the camel’s back?
This story was first written by Arthur Chapman. See Chapman, A. (2003) ‘Camels, diamonds and counter-factuals: a
model for causal reasoning’, Teaching History, 112, Empire Edition. I have found it very useful indeed, and have
adapted and extended the story to suit different causation problems. My adapted version is reproduced here with
thanks to Arthur Chapman for his kind permission for allowing me to build on his original model.
Once upon a time there was a camel (called
Alphonse). For various reasons (relating to an
unfortunate accident during his birth) the camel
had severe back problems. This was not the end
of his misfortune, however, because he had an
evil exploitative owner (called Frank the Camel
Killer). Frank had hated camels ever since a
nasty incident in his childhood involving a
camel’s hoof and his rear end. He was very
bitter and had never trusted camels since.
Plenty of camels had died doing similar work to
Alphonse and his friends. After a particularly
costly few weeks, when camels were keeling over
left, right and centre, the camels decided to form
a trade union to defend their rights and protect
them from evil owners. However, when it comes
down to it, camels are selfish creatures who don’t
trust each other. They were more worried about
looking after themselves than about working
together, and the trade union fizzled out.
Frank regularly overloaded his camels prior to
taking them on gruelling and totally
unnecessary round trips up and down
mountains on his way to deliver goods to his
customers. These customers, shockingly, were
completely indifferent to these frequent and
gross violations of the rights of camels and
found Frank and his antics at least vaguely
endearing. On top of it all, Alphonse was
sometimes his own worst enemy. Camels are
very proud creatures, and he would act tough to
his camel friends, and on his rare breaks he
would show off how much he could carry.
Well, one Friday, Frank had just finished
loading-up Alphonse and his poor exploited
fellow creatures for yet another gruelling and
totally unnecessary round trip up and down the
mountains. He had piled and piled and piled up
the goods onto Alphonse’s back and was taking
a break and reflecting smugly on his
handiwork, chewing a straw. On a whim he
decided to add the bedraggled straw he had
been chewing to Alphonse’s load. Alphonse
groaned obligingly. He eyed his owner with
disgust. He keeled over and died of radical and
irreversible back collapse.
but on reflection there were problems with the use of
the word ‘factor’ in the final activity, which diluted
the causation focus. If ‘factor’ is treated as synonym for
‘feature’ or ‘element’, then to decide on the most
important factor is merely to analyse the nature of the
policy and not specifically to analyse the reasons for the
nature of the policy. Causal importance was, however,
addressed explicitly in Lesson 7 when we analysed the
meaning of the vocabulary. Those words which were
identified as denoting importance did provide insight
into the nature of ‘importance’ because such words
often also powerfully suggested connections between
and influence on events.
Introducing the vocabulary
Lesson 7 was the core lesson, where the connection
between the linguistic and conceptual was made
explicit and the nature of causation extensively analysed.
With the question, ‘Was it really the straw that broke
the camel’s back?’ I followed Clark’s faith in analogy as
TEACHING
helpful for analysing reasons and adapted and extended
Chapman’s tale of Alphonse the Camel (Figure 4).22
Students tried to identify as many causes as possible
(some groups reached over 30!), and then we discussed
what a simple list of causes did not explain: chronology,
pace of events, connections between causes, and
relative importance of causes. All these mattered in
explaining the death of Alphonse the camel.23 Sample
language of causal explanation which could be used to
express such ideas was then introduced (Figure 5). Such
language is not peculiar to history but is invaluable to
develop causal understanding and skills of explanation,
and can add real power and depth to historical writing.
For example, linking causes ‘does not just mean
noticing that they are linked; it does not just mean
saying that they are linked; it also means finding a form
of words to say what the link is,’ to explain its nature.24
Further, as regards expressing the chronological
positioning of events, the distinction between what
constitutes a long-, medium-, or short-term cause is
‘often far from clear’.25 Students therefore need a
subtle, varied vocabulary which can either express the
10
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association
vagaries where specificity is unhelpful or inappropriate,
or allow precision when vague, general statements are
insufficient.
The word latent, which so helped me as a student, is
perhaps a good illustration. The literal meaning of
words can mean far less than what the word suggests to
a reader: words also evoke an atmosphere, feeling and
emotion beyond their literal meaning, and it is this
combined power which I wanted my students to
harness. For example, dictionary definitions of ‘latent’
refer to ‘potential’ or ‘dormancy’, which are valuable
and illuminating in trying to understand and explain
why events happen. Used in the right context however,
‘latent’ might also suggest something ominous, sinister,
brooding, or, conversely, a sense of hope and
optimism. And we can go still further: the word
represents a particular historical concept. ‘Latent’ can
suggest the chronological positioning of events or ideas,
the speed of development, and connections and
interaction between events and ideas. By encouraging
students to consider the deep, varied meanings and
implications of words, to dissect them, I hoped to
introduce to them new ideas, new ways of thinking
and viewing events, and new means of expressing ideas
and their nuances efficiently, accurately, deliberately,
persuasively and stylishly.
The written assessment
In Lesson 8, students were set an extended piece of
writing which exploited the skills and understanding
developed over the whole sequence. Measuring the
success of the exercise purely on the basis of the specific
use of language, the results were mixed but promising.
Some students clearly relished the chance to play with
words, using those provided (Figure 6, Quotations 5,
7-11) or devising their own evocative and rich phrases
(Quotations 3, 6, 17) all of which really helped to
paint the process onto their page. However, generally
such moments were relatively isolated and perhaps
students ought not to be too poetic all the time for risk
of the language hiding rather than enhancing the
analysis. Clearly, there is still work to be done, but
what I think this demonstrates is not that the lesson
concept was flawed but that language skills, as any
historical skills, flourish with perseverance and directed
support and guidance (the clumsiness of Quotation 2
nonetheless reveals ambition and promise).
As discussed below, the principle behind the lessons
has therefore been extended and revisited, and also
introduced much earlier in students’ school life, in the
hope that sophisticated vocabulary becomes part of
the everyday language of the History classroom,
Figure 5: Vocabulary table
Word
Does this
suggest
importance?
Does this
suggest timing?
(e.g. long term,
medium term)
Does this
suggest
connection with
other events?
Does this
suggest speed
of the event
itself?
(e.g. happen
quickly or build
up over time?)
Does this
suggest that
you are
confirming or
contradicting
an earlier
point?
Underlying
Contribute
etc ...(see below for full list)
Full list of words provided to students:
Contribute
Nevertheless…
Subsequently…
However...
Fundamentally….
Motivate
Exacerbate
Despite…
Encourage…
This led to…
Underpin
Drive
Allow
Further…
Develop
In addition….
Discourage
Influence
Latent
Foundation
This nurtured…
Prevent…
Support
Permit
Trigger
Birth
Preceding
Deter
Origins
Reflect
Incite
Beginning
Consequently….
This was the source…
This bred…
Underlying...
Spark
Element
Impede…
Erupt
Foundation
Extinguish
Significantly…
This compelled…
The root of…
Bring about
Principally…
Central
Figure 6: Extracts from students’ work
No.
Quotation
1
‘Ultimately, one of the most significant events in the inevitable development into
WWII…A further reason…’
2
‘The Treaty of Versailles was the underlying event that nurtured WWII’
3
‘The Nazi-Soviet Pact cleared the way for an invasion of Poland’
4
‘Another thing that happened because of the Treaty of Versailles…’
5
‘The Treaty of Versailles is the root of the most evil regime in the 20th Century.’
6
‘Hitler took advantage of appeasement’
7
‘[the invasion of Poland] provoked the declaration of war’
8
‘Hitler’s passions for reform and war derive from the end of WWI.’
9
‘His thoughts of world domination fuelled his drive to war.’
10
‘The break-up of German territory inspired nationalistic views…’
11
‘The Treaty of Versailles bred an intense hatred…’
12
‘Hitler was to blame for World War II and I will prove it!’
13
‘In 1929, the Wall Street Crash occurred, causing economic uncertainty across the
world. This has many different consequences, none of which Hitler was to blame for.
Firstly it provoked imperialism, as governments…’. ‘The Wall Street Crash was also one
of the reasons why Britain and France followed the policy of appeasement in the
1930s…’
14
‘Another cause of World War II was Hitler’s Nationalism. He wanted all German
speaking people to be united in one nation and he wanted more ‘lebensraum’ for his
people. Soon after he came to power in 1933 Hitler began rearming Germany, which he
had been strictly forbidden to do by the Treaty of Versailles. He began his rearming in
secret, and then gradually let it be known what he was doing after the League of Nations
Disarmament Conference collapsed, using the excuse that he was only doing it because
other countries refused to disarm. Consequently, Hitler became more confident, he
formed Anschluss with Austria…then set his sights on Czechoslovakia and despite
saying he only wanted the Sudetenland invaded the whole of the country. This triggered
a British reaction as they realised Hitler could not be trusted. Chamberlain told Hitler
that if he invaded Poland, Britain would declare war. Despite this Hitler invaded Poland
on 1st September 1939. This was a step too far, the British declare war immediately.
Hitler’s nationalism and untrustworthiness triggered World War II because he took it a
step too far for other countries to accept without feeling threatened. So without Hitler,
or a leader like him, a war may have happened but it would have occurred much later…’
TEACHING
12
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association
Figure 6 (continued): Extracts from students’ work
No.
Quotation
15
‘Another source of German hatred of the Treaty of Versailles was the splitting up of
German territories and the reduction of their armed forces…This inspired nationalistic
views and was perhaps the reason why Hitler was elected in the first place.
Furthermore, the Germans were forced to pay £6,600 million …when they could barely
afford to rebuild their own country. All these aspects ... bred an intense German hatred
of the treaty and all countries involved in it. Instead of preventing war, it helped to
cause it by making the Germans determined to seek revenge. Hitler was in the position
to let them have this revenge, but very likely another person would have reacted in the
way he did if Hitler were not leader...’
16
‘A further reason for World War Two was countries’ desires to expand their empires.
Having notices that the League of Nations did not attempt to stop Hitler’s plans to
rebuild Germany’s army, the Italian leader Mussolini took advantage of this opportunity
to invade Abyssinia, as did Japan to bomb Manchuria…[goes on to discuss earlier
problems of the League, America’s not joining, and Hitler’s rearmament].’
17
‘If Germany had been fairly represented, and the guilt for the war equally shared, hatred
might not have been brewing inside the German people.’
18
‘After his reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 Hitler was fully aware that the French
would do nothing without British backing, the British would not put their navy at risk,
and that the League of Nations would appease him to prevent another war. This put
Hitler under the impression that he could do whatever he wanted and nothing would be
done to stop him. He now had the perfect opportunity to right everything he felt was
wrong from the uniting of all German speakers to the recreating of imperial Germany.’
19
Comment overhead by Year 8 pupil: ‘I’m going to be using Alphonse in all my essays
now’.
increasing students’ confidence in its use. Further, I
was not assessing their use of language per se but their
historical analyses, and here there was more evidence
of success. What all the essays did at times reveal, to a
greater or lesser extent, was a more profound
understanding than their sometimes clumsy expressions
indicated. Several theories revealed an originality and
level of thought which certainly went beyond the linear
identification of multi-causality, even if the vocabulary
did not always prima facie suggest this (e.g. Quotation
13 shows multi-consequentiality; Quotation 14 needs
more explicit explanation and links between points
but reveals an underlying thematic analysis; Quotation
15 more eloquently draws neat connections, although
lacks supporting evidence and could have gone further;
the opening words of Quotation 16 indicate a lack of
analysis; however the paragraph addresses an important
theme, and the conclusion did make a powerful case
for the importance of Versailles so significance had been
considered to some degree; Quotation 18 ties events
TEACHING
and ideas together from across the period in a causal
web).
In order to make language work a fixture in my
classroom, to develop students’ linguistic competence
and confidence, I have subsequently developed ‘word
mats’, double-sided A3 laminated sheets with extensive
but not exhaustive lists of words for a range of concepts,
including ‘Cause and Consequence’; ‘Change and
Continuity’; ‘Comparison, Similarity and Difference’;
‘Typicality’; ‘Historical Significance’; ‘Historical
Interpretations’; ‘Reliability and Utility’; ‘Confirming
and Contradicting’. These same mats have been used
in lessons from Year 7 to Year 11, for a variety of
purposes. For example, they can be used they can be
used to define and develop an understanding of a
particular concept, as in these lessons, or for peer and
self-assessment tasks, such as redrafting. Games can be
built around the use of the words in debate or
discussion, or the mats can simply be made available
13
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association
If students
do not
understand
this
complexity
they can
never fully
understand
history.
for reference when writing or discussing. They can be
used to aid understanding of the type of analysis
required by particular questions, and for contrasting
the different thought processes and types of
explanation required in very similar questions (such as
identifying the distinction between a causation answer
and a change and continuity answer). The mats can be
used simply as ‘history dictionaries’, a word bank to
refer to, or they can used as a prompt for students to
develop new ideas and use new words and phrases,
such as creating their own metaphors for a particular
concept, inspired by the appropriate words on the
mats. If and when appropriate, the value and
importance of using such language can be explicitly
discussed and explored, and its use can be specifically
assessed if judged helpful in a particular context. As
with any technique, the mats can form the heart of a
lesson or be used in an introduction, conclusion, or a
small part of a wider activity, or used in conjunction
with homework; language use and analysis can be made
as implicit or explicit, as integrated or isolated as is felt
appropriate for a particular lesson.
What has been particularly noticeable in this sequence
and subsequent vocabulary work is the enthusiasm with
which students of all ages and abilities have played
with the words and with their own suggestions (e.g.
Quotation 12, 19), and the explicit relief and sense of
satisfaction many have felt when finding a way of
expressing themselves, or finding a new level of
understanding. Those with relatively weak literacy skills
or powers of explanation have found it hugely
motivating to hear themselves sounding more like an
articulate historian, even if they only manage to use
one or two of the simpler words. For the already more
articulate, focusing on the sophistication and precision
of their language as a means of developing and
expressing their understanding has proved a great way
of pushing them into deeper, more nuanced and yet at
the same time more concise analysis.
Conclusion
Does providing students with new language lead to a
new understanding? At the end of two isolated
Alphonse the Camel lessons taught to different groups,
I asked my students whether the word ‘latent’ provided
them with a new idea, or a new means of expressing
an existing idea. One Year 9 student was confident it
was the former; for one Year 12 student it was the
latter. Ultimately, the positions of the above two
students and in the tension at the heart of the question
are not mutually exclusive. A concept, the meaning of
the word associated with it, and the understanding of
the specifics to which it relates, are fluid. Through
reflection and new experiences, each will continually,
symbiotically, mutate and evolve and continue to
inform and reshape students’ understanding.26 In one
sense, therefore, it does not matter the extent to which
TEACHING
a word provides a new idea or a new means of
expression; both are vital, and neither marks the end
of the process of conceptualisation.
What is important for history teachers is that students’
abilities as historians improve. Conscious reflection,
as in Lesson 7, upon the deeper, multi-faceted
meanings of words and, crucially, what they can add to
students’ historical understanding, analyses and
explanations, can play a central role in developing
students’ conceptual understanding. Words are tools
for precise, nuanced thinking, understanding and
communication. Ultimately, if students have a refined
and diverse vocabulary, and develop expertise and
confidence in its use, they will be able to think and
communicate in a more sophisticated manner, and that
can only make them better historians.
Many thanks to Geraint Brown for allowing me the freedom to
experiment as a trainee and so develop this sequence, and for all the
advice he offered which informed my planning. Thanks also to Sally
Wilson of Deacons School in Peterborough, with whose Year 12 students
I first experimented with using vocabulary to help students’
understanding. I am particularly grateful to Arthur Chapman and
his late friend Alphonse the Camel, whose sad demise was the inspiration
for these lessons and whose story I adapted to form the basis of Lesson 7.
See Teaching History 112 for Arthur Chapman’s Alphonse story.
REFERENCES
1.
Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language (ed Alex Kozulin), MIT Press,
pp96-97, 250; Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct, Harper, p71.
2.
Bakalis, M. (2003) ‘Direct teaching of paragraph cohesion’, Teaching
History, 110, Communicating History Edition, p19.
3.
Vygotsky, op cit, p218, cf. p59; cf. Wood, D. (1998) How Children Think
and Learn, Blackwell, p141.
4.
Pinker, op.cit.
5.
ibid. p82.
6.
Vygotsky, op.cit., p235.
7.
ibid. p219.
8.
Bakalis, op.cit., p19.
9.
Wood, op.cit., p200, emphasis added.
10.
Rudham, R. (2002) ‘A noisy classroom is a thinking classroom: speaking
and listening in Year 7 history.’ Teaching History, 105, Talking History Edition.
11.
Bakalis, op.cit.
12.
DfEE (1999) National Curriculum for England, Key Stages 1-3, HMSO, p35
13.
For example, see Evans, R. J. (1997) In Defence of History, p129, p142; Carr,
E. H. (1984) What is History?, pp89-90; Chapman, A. (2003) ‘Camels, diamonds
and counterfactuals: a model for causal reasoning.’, Teaching History, 112,
Empire Edition; National Curriculum Council (NCC) (1993) Teaching History
at Key Stage 3, Ch. 9; Leonard, A. (1999) ‘Exceptional Performance at GCSE:
what makes a starred A?’, Teaching History, ,95, Learning to Think Edition
14.
Chapman, op.cit.
15.
cf. Evans, op.cit., p143
16.
Hammond, K. (2002) ‘Getting Year 10 to value precise factual
knowledge’ Teaching History, 109, Examining History Edition, p14
17.
Wray, D., and Lewis, M. (1997), Extending Literacy: Children Reading
and Writing Non-fiction, Taylor and Francis Books, Ltd, pp115-116
18.
Bakalis, op.cit.
19.
cf. Clark, V. (2002) ‘Illuminating the Shadows: making progress happen in
causal thinking through speaking and listening’, Teaching History, 105, p29
20.
cf. Wood, op.cit., p174
21.
cf. Evans,op.cit., p129; Carr, op cit, p90.
22.
Clark,op.cit.
23.
Chapman, op.cit.
24.
Clark, op.cit. emphasis added
25.
Scott, J. (ed.) (1990) Understanding Cause and Effect. Learning and
Teaching about Causation and Consequence in History, (Teaching
History Research Group), Longman.
26.
cf. Vygotsky, op.cit., pp98, 102, 105, 121, 143, 146, 212, 217, 218, and 253-254.
14
HISTORY 119
© The Historical Association