Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Peter, let's have a
conversation around this Category 1 extended written response to historical evidence. This
is one that
has been designed, in relation to, the theme "studies of hope". It focuses specifically
on, um, these, on the story of
Mahatma Gandhi. And on the, Salt Tax protest of 1930/1931. Students over the past five
or six weeks have been examining the
whole story of the struggle for independence in India around this debatable point of whether
in fact he can - Gandhi can - be
called a success or was he in fact a failure. Um, and I'd just like some feedback really
on the instrument and what you think
of the instrument. It has been derived from the general objectives and from the criteria.
I've had a look at the piece and I, I think it's a great piece of assessment. The first
quote that you use looks at that
element of Gandhi and non-cooperation, which then gives students a context to write this
Category 1. And then in your second part of the first page you've gone into and provided,
you've modelled for students that
this is going to be a contentious issue, and that first quote will be supporting of ... the
first source will be supporting
of Gandhi. And then your second one is an Indian source which is critical of Gandhi.
And that gives students the idea of
about perspectives, and that what they will have to then do themselves. It definitely
relates to Criterion 2 when you do
that, because it allows students, definitely within that A standard, to evaluate and to
make a decision based on both primary
and secondary sources, so I think that's great. I think when I was designing the instrument
I was really conscious of the fact that for a successful Category 1 to be
attempted, the question has got to have a contentious and debatable point in it. Something
where the students can actually
argue for, or against, a particular case. Since they have to use stimulus material,
which we've provided, it allows them to
select from that stimulus material the evidence that they see that relates to the, the triumph
or indeed to this, to the
failure. So when you look at the instrument you'll see that there are a variety of sources
associated with it, and these
sources have been designed in such a way as to present the positive side for Gandhi. The
triumphant and Gandhi. And at the
same time to bring out those elements of criticism. So in designing the instrument, what I was
trying to do was fulfil on the
conditions, the syllabus conditions that really say that Category 1 essays ought to have a
point of contention in them, that
allows students then to argue a case for and against and base their argument very largely
on stimulus material, source
materials that have been provided. So the way this one has been set up: it's set up
with that context of: "Was Gandhi a
success or a triumph - a triumphant success - or indeed was he a dismal failure?"
I think the sources are balanced in terms of your seen, unseen, primary and secondary.
And I think you've done a really good
job in finding those critical sources about Gandhi because it is difficult that Gandhi
almost has a saint-like perception in
history and it's difficult and the students find it difficult to criticise Gandhi. And
so I think you've got the balance
correct in terms of allowing students to actually make that decision. Because you're correct.
You need a contentious issue,
but you also want students to be able to have the sources to make that synthesis themselves.
Choosing the source material is really critical, I think, in the design of a Category 1 instrument
and finding differing
perspectives because the criteria effectively asks us to respond to have students respond
to different perspectives. Can we
just have a look at the way in which criteria might link and feed into the task, and just,
you know, if we're asking students
to do certain things, does the task actually allow them to do the things that we, that
we're expecting them to do. And I
suppose the first thing is Criterion 2, which is general objective two: "forming historical
knowledge through critical
inquiry". The key thing that students are asked to do - and it's quite clearly there
is to use, and the word "use" is
highlighted - use a range of primary and secondary sources in order to develop an argument in
order to answer a question. The
way that this is, that I've tried to construct this is, in fact, when you look at the task
in bold, I've got the expression
"using the evidence supplied" so that it's a very clear directive to students that "This
is Criterion 2 that is being
referred to in this task." Have you a sense of the other criteria ...?
I've had a, I've had a look at this, the response and the way that I develop a Category 1, as
you would know, is that going
across Criterion 2 and looking at the full range of descriptors across the three key
dot points, in terms of using a
diversity of primary, secondary sources, evaluates and synthesises. Making sure those three dot
points are within the task is
a very important element. Well in designing the task, in order to allow
for all ranges of student abilities, it's clearly set at the highest level in
that everything that a student is required to do for an A I think is covered in here.
There's clearly an element of
comprehending both the explicit and the implicit. There's clearly the need for students to analyse
and interpret. You can see
that in the task. Identifying perspectives, well that's clearly that's a major part of
it and they're given very clear
instructions about how they should do that. The sources provided provide you with different
perspectives about the issue.
You're required to reflect these different perspectives, so that, that's very clearly
there. Corroborating of the evidence is
built into it. It's certainly implicit, if not directly explicitly stated. They're asked
to evaluate the sources, so that's
significant. And of course the whole thing requires the synthesis and insightful decisions.
So the - the task - is really
designed around that A standard, but you're right when you say that if you look at the
C standard there is certainly a lot
that a C student can do in here in terms of looking at the, the more narrative elements
of the work.