Am I understanding this rightly? Pompeii is just one of the 4 topic areas in the new syllabus and people seem to have gone into a frenzy about it. Or have I missed something and need to pay greater care/attention to it?
Some one senior - can you please advise me to allay my anxiety about whether I need to be worried!
This years year 11 must answer a source based section on Pompeii in the 2006 HSC. I think the frenzy has been generated because it's compulsory, the course appears to have been 'dumbed down' and if you didn't want to do Rome before, you have to now!
Rather than a "dumbing down', I think the inclusion of Cities of Vesuvius allows teachers and students to build on the archaeology skills acquired in the Preliminary course, thereby giving continuity and significance. I think the anxiety is more directed at the idea of this option as a moderator for other performances, the process of which seems to be clouded. Any ideas?
1. I think it is interesting that a syllabus revision...whatever it is...is almost immediately, automatically, labelled as 'dumbing down'. I can't imagine that anyone who has studied this option previously...even in in Year 11 manifestation...will see it that way.
2. It does allow for continuity with the arcaheologcial core...is that what attracts kids to AH in Year 11...it is at my school...was at my previous school?
3. A core...an official core...will be handy for moderation purposes...if you are a psychometric measurement person...half of OBOS appear to be?...it probably means that the universe is back in balance.
4. There will be a certain symmetry about the AH and MH papers...and BOS seems to be obsessed with this idea of comparability...I have never in my '100 odd years' as a teacher had a parent ask, comment, inquire, complain or give a toss about comparability!
5. The obvious 'frenzy' is about a new topic...about teaching a Roman topic when previously it was possible, allowable, to not teach Roman History at all. There are non-Romans (yes they do exist...they are out there) now complaining that Romans have an advantage? There are Romans now complaining that Romans are being disadvantaged...yes, seriously!
6. Let us choose a core that 'advantages' or 'disadvantages' no-one? Any ideas?
Yes Denis you are so right - we do exist - I am one of those non-Romans - prefer the Greek and Near East options. Cities of Vesuvius is a very good choice as the compulsory unit - gives continuity to the archaeological based Year 11 course. I started my collection of resources for "Vesuvius" toward the end of 2004 and am finding it all rather fascinating and I am now thinking that a trip to "Vesuvius" would be a good idea ( and it would be partially tax deductable as an educational expense ) For those of you who are feeling a tad petulant about "Vesuvius" don't be - I am an 'old double major' in Geography and have had to teach well outside my area with Modern History, Work Studies and more recently Business Studies. About three years ago I was "given" the senior Ancient History classes - talk about getting a mental adjustment and going on a steep learning curve - wow ! In 2006 I've got Yrs 11 & 12 Ancient History AND Business Studies - talk about being diagonally parked in a parallel universe - teaching "Vesuvius" will be a breeze ! ( be positive) I suggest that all the petulant Ancient History teachers should make the effort to attend the Macquarie University Seminars on teaching the AH courses - they are excellent - run by sub group called MAHA (?). It takes me just under 4 hours driving time to get to Macquarie Uni for these seminars but it is well worth the effort even after having had to get up at 4 am
In answer to your request for suggestions on other ways of structuring the Core topic in AH...While P&H are generating a lot of new energy amongst Ancient History teachers, I still think that a much more interesting, if not more equitable, way of approaching the issue of a Core topic in Ancient History is to have generic questions about archaeo/historical sites, structured in the same way we have formulated questions for the History Extension Course. This would mean that teachers could choose a site from a list under the headings of Greek, Roman, Near Eastern and Egyptian and not be concerned about inequity. This would also be more in keeping with the freedom that we have in the Preliminary Course, especially with the new Historical Investigation. My Preliminary students love it and they are researching some wide-ranging topics (within parameters). It is great preparation for those who will do History Extension in Year 12 and is also of benefit to the less able students who can work at their own pace and to their own interest.
Personally I think the designation of a specific topic in this Ancient History syllabus to be an example of cultural imperialism - why should one are of study be considered to be any more 'important', 'valid', 'significant' than another? However, my suggestion of 'generic questions' for the Core topic does not fit well with the BOS's requirements of having standardised and moderated material on which all students in NSW must be tested. In other words, our testing instruments are still one of the driving factors in the construction of knowledge in this state.
My students are very interested in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Everyone had a chance to put their view during the consulation process . Now is the time to put the energy into teaching the course well. Lets get on with that, and stop the grumbles, especially since it is the core is used for moderation of the other questions that can vary in difficulty and standard. Like most teachers I am very happy with the core of the new syllabus.
Long time...no reply...I am not being perverse...perhaps provocative...but I tend not to want to sit back and get on with it...if there may be a better way to do things...I can actually do both...teach and show an interest in where the subject is going.
Can any Modern historians out there tell us whether they have any evidence that having a core is advantageous or not?
Is there any evidence that the MH core is used for 'moderation'?
Or is a core just something that OBOS Assessment branch feels happy about...because it makes AH and MH consistent...comparable?...like their confusing definitions of Assess and Evaluate...who can tell me the difference?
I have certainly never seen having a core as a disadvantage; there are, however, some distinct advantages to it, advantages that go well beyond any potential for moderation. As a source-based study, it encourages explicit teaching of skills that are fundamental to any historian's work. And yes, those skills are important in all other areas of the course, but the reality is that they are emphasised less as teachers strive to get through the content. Certainly when I use primary sources in the other areas of the course, my students are generally very well equipped to interrogate them because of the skills they have developed during the core study.
For many of the national studies and peace/conflict options, the core provides a very sound contextual base from which to work and ovbiously it flows on well from the prelim core study. For students, it's an effective and engaging part of the transition to HSC work.
None of this, of course, is intended as an endorsement or otherwise of the ancient core, which is outside my teaching experience...
There would appear then to be some advantage in having a core that is the 'beginning' of the course in chronological terms? or that is taught at the beginning of the course?
That is not likely to be the case with the AH core?
It does not fit chronologically.
It may not fit pedagogically to teach Early Empire Roman history before the Spartans etc?
Perhaps I am old fashioned...but I tend to use chronology as a contextual aid?
Having reached the Trial exams with this new course I felt I could now add my bit. I have enjoyed the new core topic as have my class. Time has been the problem - we are still trying to finish it all. I studied the core third having done Sparta and Greece 500-440 BC. We are now working on Agrippina which ties in nicely with Pompeii. My students were not interested in Egypt or the Near East. We touched on all areas in the Prelim to give them a base but they preferred Greece and Rome. My class has really enjoyed the P&H topic.
I am really glad that we no longer have the confusion of the Additional Society/Historical Period. This was always an issue with the less able students who, no matter how much you primed them, still often made the wrong choices.
I think the concept of a Core is a good one, it certainly has gone a long way in improving the structure of the HSC paper--remember the 800+ illegals in 2001, but now after a year and being in the fairly unique situation of having taught the course 3 times, i have to ask the question again, why P & H and why so much emphasis on archaeology, isnt all that done in Yr 7 & preliminary? I am even more sure now that the focus of this course is way too narrow, historically, chronologically, geographically intelectually etc. There should be much more emphasis on HISTORY of the written kind and a higher order skills focus in the Ancient History Core because being stuck in the dirt of 79BC with the likes of the Plinys, Strabo and all that grafitti (and the pots and stuff) for the entire life of this Syllabus is not an altogether sinterlating prospect i have to tell you.
So apart from fixing the structural problems of the old paper I'm not sure how this course benefits HISTORY students in any broad sense of the subject is concerned.
Maybe more than just Syllabus revision is in order for Ancient History?
I believe that Cities of Vesuvius is an excellent core topic: there is pleanty of historical debate in the topic: particularly with the 3rd section of the topc: the ethics and the debates about the roles of the archaeologists. Also looking at the scholarship is a good experience: Historians like Zamker and Lawrence have done a lot to question some of the assumptions that focus on the AD 79 level and they look beneath that as does the work of the Anglo-American project. Certainly from an exam structure and setting point of view, the new paper is so much easier to follow and answer correctly than the old one. The girls where I teach often do Ancient History because they love doing Egypt that we do for 1/2 the HSC course. But they have responded well to the change to Pompeii as it something different from Egypt and I am using it as a link into the historical period on Augustus. Keep digging for depth in your Cities of vesuvius topic!!
