7.1 What do we know about how pupils learn in history?

This section outlines some of the main influences on our understanding of how pupils learn in history. The work of Piaget, Bruner and Vygotsky have contributed significantly to the constructivist view of learning, where pupils are seen as constructing knowledge for themselves by accommodating, assimilating or rejecting new experiences that come into conflict with their existing ideas. The Schools History Project (SHP) and the Concepts of History and Teaching Approaches (CHATA) were specifically history focused and looked at how children understand the past. Due to the nature of this site it cannot offer anything other than a cursory overview (though additional references for this unit can be found in the bibliography).

General theories about how children learn
Piaget’s belief that children construct meaning for themselves promoted the importance of child-centred learning. This idea has been developed further by other educationalists. Construction of knowledge is seen as happening in discrete stages, moving from the sensory-motor period, through pre-operational and concrete operations to formal operations. This last stage sees the development of logical reasoning and abstract thought during the late teenage years. The application of Piagetian ideas in history teaching led to the conclusion that few pupils below the age of 16 could deal with the abstract nature of history.

This latter idea was challenged by the SHP in the1970s. By emphasising the procedural nature of the subject, particularly the use of evidence, the project wanted to get pupils to ‘do’ history. Much of the thinking behind the project fitted in with the ideas of Bruner. Bruner believed in the importance of the social context of learning. He also believed that people make sense of the world through enactive, iconic and symbolic representation – that is through physically doing something, drawing images or through symbol systems such as language. By using a mixture of these learning can happen. To help children learn, Bruner suggested the importance of scaffolding – providing an appropriate level of support to enable the child to successfully complete a task. Another key idea was the spiral curriculum, whereby a topic or concept would be revisited at various points in a course with increasing degrees of complexity. Given the fact that substantive content is seldom revisited in history teaching (e.g. how many times do we teach the Norman Conquest!), this points towards revisiting the second order concepts of history (e.g. causation, change) in increasing degrees of complexity. It was Bruner’s contention that children could learn difficult material given the right conditions.

A major influence on learning theory was the work of Vygotsky. He believed that thought was internalised language. Therefore the development of language skills was crucial in the intellectual development of children. Vygotsky stressed the social nature of learning, where children’s interaction with others leads to new understanding. Central to this interaction was the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). By working with children at the edge of what they know and understand they can be led into new areas of understanding. Getting the degree of challenge right is important as is the interaction between child and a teacher. Vygotsky’s work stressed the importance of the social construction of knowledge and promoted the idea of working in groups, though this had to be organised and directed to be successful.

A more recent development has been associated with Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. Dissatisfied with traditional measures of cognitive intelligence, he proposed that there were (at least) seven different intelligences:

• Interpersonal – the ability to read the intentions and desires of others and to use that knowledge to influence groups
• Intrapersonal – the ability to reflect upon one’s actions and to empathise
• Kinaesthetic – the ability to learn through physical activity and doing things
• Verbal-linguistic – the ability to learn best through written and spoken communication
• Mathematical-logical – the ability to use logical reasoning to solve problems
• Visual-spatial – the ability to perceive the physical world accurately.
• Musical – the ability to imitate sounds, identify rhythm and pitch.

He theorised that these all exist within individuals to different degrees, although individuals may come to favour a particular way of perceiving and understanding the world. One of the implications of this is that pupils will learn better if work is presented in a particular way. Gardner though draws a distinction between the content of instruction and the means of communicating that content. History is clearly a linguistic based subject (what Gardner would see as the content), but children who are weaker in that intelligence may struggle if the subject is presented like that. It is possible to communicate the content in different forms that may draw on alternative intelligences to allow pupils to access the content, such as through visual material or role play. An off-shoot of this line of thinking has been an emphasis on learning styles. In classrooms there has been an emphasis on visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learners, but Gardner stresses that the learner must translate back into the domain of history and its linguistic nature (see Gardner, 1995). Recently there have been attacks on the idea of multiple intelligence and learning styles (e.g. see reports by the Learning Skills Research Council). There are dangers that pupils may be pigeonholed as ‘kinaesthetic’ learners and not challenged in other ways, whilst there is a lack of research evidence to support the claims made for the effectiveness of learning styles. Ultimately what seems to be the sensible idea that is reinforced by this work is the need to use a variety of approaches to help pupils learn.

Specific research into how children understand the past
Both SHP and CHATA explored different stages of pupils’ thinking in relation to different elements of history, such as working with evidence, empathy and difference in accounts of the past. One of the key findings was that pupils’ responses in history were partly dependent on the tasks that they were presented with. They also identified possible stages in pupils’ thinking but said there was no linear progression, and that understanding of different aspects of history can develop at different rates, and that the quality of response was also task specific, so that children may well appear to be going backwards at times. Though the projects do not represent a theory of how children learn history as such, they provide an indication of the (mis)conceptions that pupils are likely to hold, and a model of how pupils’ progression can be conceptualised. An appreciation of these conceptions is important if trainee teachers are going to help pupils move forward.

Professional knowledge held by teachers
Teachers may well (either explicitly or implicitly) draw on these different knowledge bases about how pupils learn. However, teachers also have a rich knowledge of pupils and their reflection on those experiences provides another knowledge base for them (see Husbands, Kitson and Pendry, 2003). They may make little reference to learning theories when discussing their practice, but this doesn’t mean that there is little theorising going on! Teachers often think in terms of what conditions need to be in place for pupils to learn. Pupils need to be engaged, both intellectually and emotionally. They need to be challenged to think but also to care about the topic they are learning. They therefore need to be motivated, see the significance of whatever they are studying and be able to access the work. From this will emerge success and confidence.

Activity 7.1.1 Planning for learning