Rationale

The following sequence of three lessons has been designed for use in Year 8 History

classroom, with students in the class of varying ability levels, as well as EALD students. The

aim of these lessons is to introduce students to the Vikings as a topic of study, with the

lessons being designed for the K – 10 Syllabus, with the aims and rationale having been taken

into account, evident through the provision of meaningful and engaging learning across the

lessons. The Vikings is part of Depth Study 4, and is situated in the Ancient to the Modern

World, with the key questions of this area of study having been utilised in these lessons. This

is evident through the lessons, with students looking at the beliefs and values of the Vikings,

as well as “the causes and effects of contact between societies in this period” (Board of

Studies, 2012, P. 64). Coupled with this, literacy is a focus of the lessons, with each lesson

requiring students to engage with texts to build historical understanding. Literacy is important

to the study of history, as noted by Reisman and Wineburg (2012) who state the benefit of

this to increasing student vocabulary and literacy capabilities.

In order to effectively teach these lessons, evidence-based research has been utilised to ensure

the efficacy of the learning. The Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) has

been utilised, evident through the provision of learning objectives, high expectations, and

explicit teaching practices across the three lessons (CESE, 2015; CESE, 2016a; CESE,

2016b). Furthermore, the learning of the lessons is underpinned through the use of Vygotsky,

achieved through the effective use of scaffolding and modelling in all of the activities of the

lessons, which Fani and Ghaemi (2011) note is essential to ensure that all learners in the class

can succeed. Bloom’s Taxonomy is also a basis of the questioning and task difficulty in the

lessons, through use of Ursani, Memon, and Chowdhry (2014) who note the importance of
tasks involving ‘creating’, to adequately challenge students. Assessment of the learning in

these lessons is formative, which is also a means of differentiation by product, as Gannon and

Howie (2010) note that oral skills develop before literacy in English language learners. Smith

(2010) also notes that formative assessment is affective as a measure of gauging student

understandings. In the implementation of formative assessment, the model of Fitzgerald

(2016) has been utilised, to ensure that the assessment is embedded into the learning of the

lessons, rather than being the focus of the lessons. Therefore, the tasks that students complete

in the lessons are designed to contribute to furthering learning, not just as a means of

assessment of learning, which Popham (2011) notes is essential in ensuring that assessment is

transformative.

All activities in the three lessons are strategies from Haydn, Stephen, Arthur, & Hunt (2015)

to ensure that the activities are effective in providing a meaningful learning for all students in

the class. Haydn et al. (2015) note the importance of engaging students in their learning, so

the first task of lesson one focusses on activating student background knowledge to achieve

this. The timeline task that students create in lesson one is underpinned by Hutton and

Hembacher (2012) who state that understanding of time is essential to historical thinking, as

it is imperative that students see time clearly, rather than as a tangled mess of events. This is

furthered by Wineburg and Reisman (2015) who note that for historical learning to be

effective, it is first necessary to anchor events in time and place. This has therefore been the

primary focus of the first lesson, to ensure that students are able to adequately understand the

contexts and key events of the time, which forms a solid basis for students to build historical

understandings. This also means that numeracy skills are being developed within the lesson,

which is outlined by AITSL in standard 2.5 (APST, 2014).

Sexias (2017) notes that perspective taking is entwined within the act of reading, and this has

been extended upon in lesson two. This is achieved through students reading texts, and

responding through creating an interview of a Viking. Reisman and Wineburg (2012) also

note that it is essential to give students a meaningful reason to read, which is achieved in the

lesson through students having a creative purpose for reading the texts. Furthermore, this task

functions as a means of students understanding the varying perspectives of the past, which

Hutton and Hembacher (2012) note is central to historical thinking. Martin (2012) also notes

the benefit of this, as it allows for students to see the multiple stories that make up the past,

shifting students view from history being a single narrative of events. Haydn, et al. (2015)

notes the benefits of students engaging in roleplay activities, as these tasks engage students in

the learning, and allow for students to form deeper understandings of the content of study.

The third lesson involves students analysing the impact of Norse mythology of Vikings,

which is furthered through students looking at the impact of Norse mythology on society

today, which Sexias (2004) notes as being of importance, as history is not separated from the

present, but rather a nexus between past, present, and future. Fogo (2014) sates the benefits of

looking at how the past impacted upon contemporary society, as it allows for students to

understand the changes and continuities in history.

Throughout the three lessons there is a focus on group work, which is designed to allow for

an inclusive learning environment, whilst being a support mechanism for EALD students,

with Hutton and Hembacher (2012) noting that group work helps develop oral literacy skills

within language learners. Across all three of the lessons, students work on the creation of a

mind map, which involves students reflecting on the learning of the lessons, by consolidating
understandings. This activity is designed to allow for students to begin to construct a holistic

understanding about the area of study, rather than the learning being a series of unconnected

events. Retz (2017) notes the importance of this, stating that the construction of a ‘whole’ is

central to the study of history.

 References

AITSL. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Professional Knowledge. Retrieved

from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Board of Studies. (2012). History K – 10 Syllabus. Retrieved from

http://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/history/history-k10

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2015). What Works Best: Evidence-Based Practices

to help improve NSW student performance. Retrieved from:

https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/what-works-best-evidence-based-practices-

to-help-improve-nsw-student-performance

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2016a). How students can improve literacy and

numeracy performance and why it (still matters). Retrieved from:

http://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/how-schools-can-improve-literacy-and-

numeracy-performance-and-why-it-still-matters

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2016b). What Works Best Reflection Guide.

Retrieved from: http://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/what-works-best-reflection-

guide

Fani, T., & Ghaemi, F. (2011). Implications of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in

teacher Education: ZPTD and Self-scaffolding. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences,

29. PP. 1549-1554. DOI: 10.1012/j.sbspro.2011.11.396

Fitzgerald, P. (2016). Differentiation for all literacy levels in mainstream classrooms. Literacy

Learning: the Middle Years, 24(2).

Fogo, B. (2014). Core Practices for Teaching History: The Results of a Delphi Panel Survey. Theory

& Research in Social Education, 42(2). Pp151-196. DOI:10.1080/00933104.2014.902781

Gannon, S., & Howie, M., & Sawyer, W. (2010). Charged with meaning: Re-viewing English: Third

Edition. Phoenix Education

Haydn, T., & Stephen, A., & Arthur, J., & Hunt, M. (2015). Learning to Teach History in the

Secondary School: A Companion to the School Experience (4th Edition). Routledge

Publishing

Hutton, L., & Hembacher, D. (2012). Developing historical thinking with English learners. Social

Studies Review, 51. ProQuest

Martin, D. (2012). Using Core historical thinking Concepts in an Elementary History Methods

Course. The History Teacher, 45(4). 581-602. www.jstor.org/stable/23265947

Popham, J. (2011). Transformative assessment in action: an inside look at applying the process.

ASCD Publishing

Reisman, A., & Wineburg, S. (2012). 'Text Complexity' in the History Classroom: Teaching to and

Beyond the Common Core. Social Studies Review, 51. ProQuest

Retz, T. (2017). The Structure of historical Inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6). 606-

617. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2015.1101365

Sexias, P. (2004). Theorizing historical consciousness. University of Toronto Press

Sexias, P. (2017). A Model of Historical Thinking. Educational philosophy and Theory, 49(6).

PP593-605. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2015.1101363

Smith, N. (2010). The History Teacher's Handbook. Continuum International Publishing Group

Ursani, A., Memon, A., & Chowdhry, B. (2014). Bloom's taxonomy as a pedagogical model for

signals and systems. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 51(2).

Dx.doi.org/10.7227/IJEE.51.2.7

Wineburg, S., & Reisman, A. (2015). Disciplinary Literacy in History. Journal of Adolescent &

Adult History, 58 (8). Doi: 10.1002/jaal.410. pp 636-639