Using historical evidence: The semantic profiles of Ancient History in senior secondary school

IF 0.5 Q1 HISTORY
Lucy Macnaught, Erika Matruglio, Y. Doran
{"title":"Using historical evidence: The semantic profiles of Ancient History in senior secondary school","authors":"Lucy Macnaught, Erika Matruglio, Y. Doran","doi":"10.52289/hej10.106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents findings from the Australian Research Council funded ‘Disciplinarity, Knowledge and Schooling’ project (DISKS) which investigates knowledge-building practices in Australian secondary schools and gave rise to the ground-breaking notions of ‘semantic waves’ (Maton, 2013) and ‘power pedagogy’ (Martin, 2013). In this paper, we investigate student writing in senior secondary school Ancient History. We focus on how students use evidence in their responses to different types of exam questions. Our research question focuses on the extent to which key features of responses to short answer questions appear in extended responses and vice versa. This focus arose through findings that teachers in our study tended to view short answer questions as a ‘mini’ version of extended responses and prepared students accordingly. The similarities and differences are important to identify as extended responses make a significant contribution to the overall exam grade. To better understand the use of evidence in responses to different types of exam questions, the study draws on the dimension of Semantics in Legitimation Code Theory (Maton, 2013). We use the newly developed wording and clausing tools (Doran & Maton, 2018, forthcoming) to analyse the relative strength of context dependence in responses to Year 12 exam questions. Context dependence is particularly relevant to how students use evidence, as it involves relating the concrete particulars of specific historical artefacts, events, and the behaviours of historical figures to more abstract concepts in the discipline of history that are not bound to one historical setting. Our analysis tracks relative shifts in context dependence in student texts to generate semantic profiles of their exam responses. Findings show that although teachers may use the writing of short answer questions as preparation towards the high-stakes extended writing tasks, short answer responses are not ‘minature’ versions of extended responses. We argue that the differences are teachable and propose the use of model texts to make these features visible to students. Beyond the timeframe of secondary school education, learning to use evidence, particularly for the development of arguments, may provide a robust foundation for tertiary level writing tasks where students need to control degrees of context dependence.","PeriodicalId":53851,"journal":{"name":"Historical Encounters-A Journal of Historical Consciousness Historical Cultures and History Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Encounters-A Journal of Historical Consciousness Historical Cultures and History Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52289/hej10.106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents findings from the Australian Research Council funded ‘Disciplinarity, Knowledge and Schooling’ project (DISKS) which investigates knowledge-building practices in Australian secondary schools and gave rise to the ground-breaking notions of ‘semantic waves’ (Maton, 2013) and ‘power pedagogy’ (Martin, 2013). In this paper, we investigate student writing in senior secondary school Ancient History. We focus on how students use evidence in their responses to different types of exam questions. Our research question focuses on the extent to which key features of responses to short answer questions appear in extended responses and vice versa. This focus arose through findings that teachers in our study tended to view short answer questions as a ‘mini’ version of extended responses and prepared students accordingly. The similarities and differences are important to identify as extended responses make a significant contribution to the overall exam grade. To better understand the use of evidence in responses to different types of exam questions, the study draws on the dimension of Semantics in Legitimation Code Theory (Maton, 2013). We use the newly developed wording and clausing tools (Doran & Maton, 2018, forthcoming) to analyse the relative strength of context dependence in responses to Year 12 exam questions. Context dependence is particularly relevant to how students use evidence, as it involves relating the concrete particulars of specific historical artefacts, events, and the behaviours of historical figures to more abstract concepts in the discipline of history that are not bound to one historical setting. Our analysis tracks relative shifts in context dependence in student texts to generate semantic profiles of their exam responses. Findings show that although teachers may use the writing of short answer questions as preparation towards the high-stakes extended writing tasks, short answer responses are not ‘minature’ versions of extended responses. We argue that the differences are teachable and propose the use of model texts to make these features visible to students. Beyond the timeframe of secondary school education, learning to use evidence, particularly for the development of arguments, may provide a robust foundation for tertiary level writing tasks where students need to control degrees of context dependence.
运用历史证据:高中古代史的语义概况
本文介绍了澳大利亚研究委员会资助的“学科、知识和学校教育”项目(DISKS)的研究结果,该项目调查了澳大利亚中学的知识建设实践,并提出了“语义波”(Maton,2013)和“权力教育学”(Martin,2013)的开创性概念。本文对高中学生的古代史写作进行了调查研究。我们关注学生如何在回答不同类型的考试问题时使用证据。我们的研究问题集中在对简短回答问题的回答的关键特征在多大程度上出现在扩展回答中,反之亦然。这一关注源于我们研究中的教师倾向于将简短回答的问题视为扩展回答的“迷你”版本,并为学生做好相应的准备。相似性和差异很重要,因为扩展的回答对整体考试成绩有重大贡献。为了更好地理解证据在回答不同类型的考试问题时的使用,本研究借鉴了合法化代码理论中的语义学维度(Maton,2013)。我们使用最新开发的措辞和从句工具(Doran&Maton,2018,即将出版)来分析12年级考试中上下文依赖的相对强度。语境依赖性与学生如何使用证据尤其相关,因为它涉及将特定历史文物、事件和历史人物行为的具体细节与历史学科中不受某一历史背景约束的更抽象的概念联系起来。我们的分析跟踪了学生文本中上下文依赖性的相对变化,以生成他们考试反应的语义档案。研究结果表明,尽管教师可能会使用简短回答问题的写作来为高风险的扩展写作任务做准备,但简短回答并不是扩展回答的“minature”版本。我们认为这些差异是可教的,并建议使用示范文本让学生看到这些特征。在中学教育的时间框架之外,学习使用证据,特别是用于发展论点,可能会为学生需要控制上下文依赖程度的高等教育写作任务提供坚实的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
33.30%
发文量
18
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Historical Encounters is a blind peer-reviewed, open access, interdsiciplinary journal dedicated to the empirical and theoretical study of: historical consciousness (how we experience the past as something alien to the present; how we understand and relate, both cognitively and affectively, to the past; and how our historically-constituted consciousness shapes our understanding and interpretation of historical representations in the present and influences how we orient ourselves to possible futures); historical cultures (the effective and affective relationship that a human group has with its own past; the agents who create and transform it; the oral, print, visual, dramatic, and interactive media representations by which it is disseminated; the personal, social, economic, and political uses to which it is put; and the processes of reception that shape encounters with it); history education (how we know, teach, and learn history through: schools, universities, museums, public commemorations, tourist venues, heritage sites, local history societies, and other formal and informal settings). Submissions from across the fields of public history, history didactics, curriculum & pedagogy studies, cultural studies, narrative theory, and historical theory fields are all welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信