Выполнить одно задание

Название: “History Teachers’ Insights into Substantive Historical Knowledge”

Источник: Hammond K. The Knowledge That ‘Flavours’ a Claim: Towards Building and Assessing Historical Knowledge on Three Scales // Teaching History.

№ 157. December 2014. p. 18-24.

P 1: It is an interesting exercise to review what the history education community has written about substantive historical knowledge and its interplay with second-order knowledge. Many teachers have made reference to the close integration of the two, but there seems to be a tendency to comment briefly on the relationship rather than to explore it in depth. For example, Vermeulen states that substantive knowledge is ‘underpinned’ by second-order knowledge and that substantive knowledge is needed as a base on which to ‘hang’ evidential understanding, but does not dig into this relationship any further. Similarly, Reisman claims that substantive historical knowledge ‘enables’ second-order enquiry but does not go on to explore how this occurs. This fairly common practice of stating connections between substantive and second-order knowledge but not really exploring them suggests that our understanding of this relationship is under-theorised.

P 2: An important exception to this generalisation is Pickles, who reported on her attempts to explore the way in which her students’ substantive historical knowledge affected their ability to make meaning from historical sources. Pickles concluded that her students seemed to be operating with three types of historical knowledge (substantive knowledge of the topic and context, second-order knowledge of how to handle historical evidence and second-order knowledge of empathy) and that the second-order understandings were an essential precursor if students were to make the most effective use of their substantive knowledge. Pickles’ research added a new  angle to our understanding but there is still a black hole over the issue of substantive historical knowledge. Can substantive knowledge be simply divided into ‘topic’ knowledge and ‘context’ knowledge? And what happens when – as they marshal material or advance conclusions – students use substantive historical knowledge implicitly? Pickles seems to address neither tacit knowledge nor its implicit manifestation.

P 3: Further insights into the nature of substantive historical knowledge come from Lee who drew out the important distinction between factual and conceptual substantive historical knowledge. Counsell distinguished between students’ ‘fingertip’ knowledge (temporary, detailed substantive working knowledge necessary to hold in ready memory when working on a topic) and their ‘residue’ knowledge (longer-lasting substantive knowledge of period structures and characteristics that needs to outlast a particular topic focus and which will make it possible to recognize recurring features in future topics and to make links across topics). Returning to my Tet Offensive essays, I could see, to some degree, how these characterizations helped me to explain the differences between the stronger and weaker pieces of historical analysis, but I was still unable to say what exactly students were doing with their substantive historical knowledge that made certain essays shine. It was time to start theorising for myself.

Exercise 1: Use context clues to get the meaning of the words/phrases and give their Russian equivalents.

P 1: to review, history education community, historical knowledge, close integration, fairly common practice

P 2: generalization, to affect context, essential, a new angle to our understanding, conclusions, a black hole

P 3: insights into, to draw out the important distinction between, temporary, characteristics, to make links across topics