Lesson video

Hello, welcome to history here at Oak National Academy.

My name's Mr. Newton, and I will be your teacher today, guiding you through the entire lesson.

Right, let's get started.

In these lessons, we will focus on a specific historical environment in Norman England, and today we will learn about structuring an answer.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to understand ways to approach the 16 mark historic environment question.

Before we begin, there are a few key words we need to understand.

Second order concepts are ways in which questions about history are shaped.

Continuity is when something continues without changing.

Causation is why something happens.

And finally, consequence is the results or impacts of something.

So today's lesson is split into three parts.

We'll first look at the required knowledge, before moving on to adding alternative arguments, and finally reaching a judgement.

Okay, let's start with knowledge about the sites.

Sometimes, historians look at the causes of things in Norman England, such as why William won the Battle of Hastings.

Sometimes, historians are interested in what changed or stayed the same, continued after the Norman Conquest, or what's happened as a consequence of events or actions.

We call these second order concepts.

Change, continuity, causation and consequence, the four Cs.

All historic environment questions will feature one second order concept.

So that could be a change question or a question about continuity, causation or consequence.

For example, luck was the main reason for success in mediaeval battles.

How far does a study of the Battle of Hastings support this statement? So the clue is in the phrase, the main reason for.

The main reason for shows the question is about causation.

What was the reason for means the same as what caused.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Which of these statements is about causation.

A, the main reason for castle building in Norman England was for defence.

B, church reforms under Lanfranc had relatively little impact in Norman Wales.

C, the Normans kept more than they changed in government and law in England.

Pause the video.

Have a think and come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was A, the main reason for castle building in Norman England was for defence.

And the clue was in that phrase, the main reason for, effectively means what caused something.

Okay, let's continue.

So historians do not always agree with each other about change, continuity, causation or consequence.

So when you get a question which says the main reason was for something, another historian might have a different point of view.

And this is also true for the other second order concepts.

For example, one might argue that there was very little continuity, meaning that there was big change.

While another historian might argue that in fact there was very little change.

Historians certainly do not always agree about the causes or consequences of historical events or processes.

Or if they do agree about them, then they may not about their importance.

Okay, let's have another check.

Which second order concept are these two historians arguing about? So let's read the first argument.

"In my view, Norman tactics were much less significant "than Harold's basic lack of preparation.

"He rushed down to Hastings without all his troops, "and his best troops were exhausted "after a rapid march south from York." Okay, I wonder which one of the four Cs or which second order concept it's referring to.

Okay, let's have a look at another argument.

"The victory at the Battle of Hastings "was because of superior Norman tactics.

"The feigned retreat was crucial.

"It weakened the Anglo-Saxon shield wall "until the Normans could break through it." So pause the video, decide which second order concept these two historians are arguing about, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you identified the correct one of the four Cs in that it was causation.

Okay, so to be convincing, historians need to do more than state their arguments.

They need to use evidence to back up their claim.

And if a historian uses evidence to back up their claim, this means that they're going beyond just their mere opinion.

They're making an evidence-based argument, an evidence-based claim.

And this is exactly what you must do when structuring your answers.

When you answer your historic environment question, you need to use your knowledge about your historic environment sites to support your points.

So let me give you this example to help you understand what I'm talking about here.

Here is part of an answer to a question about the main reason for William's victory in the Battle of Hastings.

See if you can identify where the student has used their own knowledge to back up their claim.

Okay, so let's read the student's answer.

I agree that William's leadership was the most important factor in the Norman victory.

At a crucial point in the battle when the Bretons had retreated and rumours were spreading that William had been killed, he showed his leadership by tipping back his helmet and riding around his troops to show them he was still alive and ready to lead them to victory.

So can you see where the student has used their own knowledge? Pause the video, have a think and then come right back.

Okay, so hopefully you can see, the writing in black there, if that was the only sentence in the answer, then that's just an opinion, isn't it? Without any evidence or facts to back it's up.

It's just a statement.

Just says, "I agree "that William's leadership "was the most important factor in the Norman victory." So my question then would be, so what? Where's your evidence? Where's your argument? So it's the purple writing which is the crucial part of the argument, the crucial part of the answer, where we can see the knowledge, the facts and the details being brought to bear to support this statement that they've started with.

And the answer reminds us of that story of William tipping his helmet back and proving to his troops that he was still alive.

And those factual details, simple things like the Bretons saw the fact that William tipped his helmet back.

They're really showing the reader that a student knows their stuff, knows these facts, knows these details.

Okay, let's check your understanding.

Here, I've got another part of the student's answer.

How many pieces of relevant evidence are used to support the answer here? So pause the video, have a think and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew the answer was three or more.

Okay, let's move on to task A.

What I want you to do now is use your knowledge about the Battle of Hastings to add relevant detail to support these arguments.

So you can see in the left hand column, this is the main reason for success in mediaeval battles was, and then I've provided you with three reasons or three causes, leadership, preparation and tactics.

So in the right hand column, this is where you're gonna put relevant detail to support each argument.

For example, what evidence or knowledge or facts or details can we use to back up the argument that the main reason for success in mediaeval battles was leadership? And we need to think about all the examples of William's leadership.

Okay, pause the video, have a go at the task and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So for the leadership row, the relevant detail you could have used to support the argument was that after rumours spread that he had been killed, William showed his leadership by tipping back his helmet.

And if we move onto the next row, preparation was that Harold did not prepare properly.

He rushed down to Hastings without all his troops, and with exhausted troops at that.

And the final row, tactics.

So for that, we could have wrote, the Normans' feigned retreat tactic weakened the Anglo-Saxon shield wall until the Normans could break through it.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the second part of the lesson, adding alternatives.

So as we've already said, historians often disagree about certain aspects of history, particularly to do with the four Cs.

They may disagree about the causes of certain events, whether there was change, whether there's continuity, and the consequences of events or actions.

So the first historian makes an argument that the main reason for the English defeat at the Battle of Hastings was that Harold had to rely on undisciplined fyrd troops.

They broke the shield wall formation and then ran away when Harold was killed.

So that's one argument.

However, as I read that, you're probably thinking in your own mind of an alternative argument that can be made.

Let's see the second historian's counter argument.

Although important, that was not the main reason.

Running after the retreating enemy was how Anglo-Saxons won battles, and the Battle of Hastings went on for an unusually long time.

And that shows plenty of fyrd discipline.

So let's have a look at another example of two historians making two separate arguments.

The first historian makes the argument, the main reason for success in mediaeval battles was usually luck because the battlefield was so chaotic.

And that is what's happened at the Battle of Hastings.

Harold was killed by a random, unlucky arrow.

Okay, let's see how the second historian made a counter-argument or an alternative argument.

Luck was important, but other factors were also significant.

For example, location.

Harold's decision to position his forces on a ridge at the top of Senlac Hill increased the defensive strength of the shield wall against William's cavalry.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What I want you to do here is match the argument with a relevant counter argument.

So in the left hand column, you have the arguments, I want you to match them to the correct counter argument in the right hand column.

Pause the video, have a think and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's have a look at the first argument.

Harold lost because he had to rely on undisciplined fyrd troops.

And of course the counter argument to that was the shield wall stood its ground for hours on end.

That took a lot of discipline.

And the next argument, William's preparations for the battle were exceptional.

He left nothing to chance.

So how can we argue against that? And of course, that was William's choice of battlefield was actually poor.

His troops were in a marshy land at the base of a hill.

And the final argument, Harold lost the battle because he rushed to Hastings instead of waiting to gather troops.

And of course that left us with this final counter argument, that Harold had gained a great victory at Stamford Bridge with a surprise attack.

Okay, let's continue.

So the historic environment question puts forward one argument.

For example, the main reason for A was B.

And then you are asked how far you agree.

So your next step should be explore the evidence to support the argument in the question.

In other words, how convincing is it? And then explore one or more other arguments.

Maybe the main reason for A was actually C or D.

So you may be thinking to yourself, why am I constantly looking for alternative arguments? So the purpose of these types of questions is that a good historian will not only know their own argument, but will also know the counter arguments that can be made.

And this shows you have a complete knowledge of all the arguments that can be made for a specific topic.

You are showing that you can fairly consider all the facts, and interpretations of those facts.

So the next time you see a question like this or a statement which says the main reason for A was B, you should be immediately racking your brains for lots of evidence and knowledge which can back up that point, but also offer counter arguments.

And in that way, you're building the whole picture, not just one side of the argument.

So here is a question about the Battle of Hastings.

Luck was the main reason for success in battle during the mediaeval period.

How far does the study of the Battle of Hastings support this statement? Explain your answer.

So hopefully, you've got your historian's hat on and you're already thinking, what other reasons for success could we consider? So let's think about some possible alternatives.

What other reasons could there be for success in battle during the mediaeval period? So it could be the location, that could be crucial.

Is it in a field, is it in a forest? Is it in a swamp? Is it on difficult terrain, easy terrain? That could have a huge impact on the battle.

And what about preparation? Are both sides fully prepared? Is one side more prepared than the other? And military innovation has been hugely impactful in warfare over the centuries.

If one side benefits from a particular military invention, an improvement in armour, improvement in weaponry.

Furthermore, what about tactics and strategy? Is one side using a particular tactic which is especially effective? And what about motivation? If one side or one leader believes they have God on their side, they're gonna be much more motivated in battle, for example.

And finally, leadership.

Being a strong and effective leader can have a huge effect on the success in battle.

Okay, let's have another check.

How many of the missing alternatives can you recall? Pause the video, have a think and come right back.

And well done if you could remember the missing alternatives.

Well, leadership, location, preparation, military innovation, tactics and strategy, motivation.

Okay, let's move on to task B.

Here is the same question again, luck was the main reason for success in battle during the mediaeval period.

How far does the study of the Battle of Hastings support this statement? Explain your answer.

So on the next slide, I'm gonna show you the start of a student's answer to this question, and I'm gonna want you to finish the answer, to continue the answer by adding those alternatives.

So let's read the student's answer first.

"Luck was certainly an important reason "for success in mediaeval battles "because the battlefield was so chaotic "it could easily have been William who was killed "or wounded by a random arrow at the Battle of Hastings, "rather than Harold.

"However, I consider other reasons "to have been important too." So what are those other reasons? That's what I want you to do in this task.

So continue this answer, using one or two of the sentence starters for one or two new paragraphs.

So here's the first sentence starter.

Another important reason for success in mediaeval battles was leadership.

This was important in William's victory because.

So if you complete that sentence, that's gonna give you an alternative.

And the second sentence starter is that it was actually preparation, not luck.

That was the main reason for success at the Battle of Hastings, because.

So pause the video, complete those sentence starters, then come right back.

Okay, well done, welcome back.

So there's many ways you could have completed those sentence starters.

So check what you have with my answer here.

So for the first sentence starter, another important reason for success in mediaeval battles was leadership.

This was important in William's victory because he was able to use strong leadership to deal with a near disaster when the Bretons retreated following a rumour that William had been killed, which could have caused Norman defeat.

William took control and tipped back his helmet to show his troops that he was still alive.

He stopped the retreat and saved the Normans from possibly losing the Battle of Hastings.

And for the second sentence starter, it was actually preparation, not luck that was the main reason for success at the Battle of Hastings because the feigned retreat, which looked like luck, was actually a tactic that the Norman knights trained to carry out.

In this tactic, the knights pretended to retreat in panic, but then turned around to surround the enemy that ran after them.

Therefore, William had prepared his troops to use this tactic.

And the Norman's use of this tactic was a turning point in the Battle of Hastings, which makes it an important reason for success.

Okay, great.

Let's wrap up the lesson by looking at the final section, reaching a judgement.

So let's zoom out a little bit and have a look at what an overall structure of an answer might look like.

So one approach to answering a historic environment question could look like this.

Firstly, we read the question and unpack the question.

It's really a key part to answering the question, is to fully decode it, unpack it, understand exactly what's being asked of you.

In fact, it's good practise to reread the question multiple times and to underline key aspects of the question.

And part of that unpacking process is you working out what is the second order concept? Is it a causation question? Does the question say the main reason for something? Or is it about change or continuity? So after you've read the question multiple times and you fully understand what's being asked of you, you can start thinking about your knowledge, your facts, your details you can bring to back up the question's arguments.

But of course, as we've discussed, a good historian will be able to see the full picture and understand that there's more than one argument for specific topics.

So in your answer, you'll want to go on to discuss an alternative argument.

And once again, you're gonna go beyond just stating simple statements or opinions like I disagree with the main reason.

You're also going to use knowledge to back up your arguments.

And a really good answer will have multiple alternative arguments with lots of knowledge to back up those arguments.

And finally, something which we've not discussed yet in this lesson is you're going to want to conclude your answer with a judgement.

In other words, how far do you agree with something? So again, you might be asking yourself, why am I being asked to structure my answer in this way? So you should ask yourself, how would a good historian come to a conclusion? How would they decide how far they agree with something or to what extent they agree with a certain argument? How would they come to their final judgement ? Do they just use a random piece of knowledge that they like the sound of? No, of course not.

A good historian will present both sides of the argument before reaching their final judgement.

So they'll show the reader that they know the full picture, that they know all of the arguments and the knowledge and the detail involved with the question before making their final judgments.

And then a good judgement will use contextual knowledge, some of the arguments that have been made, to back up and support the judgement.

So in other words, not only are you making evidence-based arguments throughout your answer, you're also gonna make an evidence-based judgement on how far you agree with something.

And a really good answer will be able to make lots of little mini judgements along the way.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What is missing from the bottom of the diagram? Pause the video, have a think and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Well done if you knew it was the judgement , how far you agree on something.

Okay, let's delve a little deeper into reaching a judgement.

So unpacking the question means identifying what judgement it is asking you to make.

Have a look at the following question.

The main change from Anglo-Saxon warfare to Norman warfare was the use of knights.

How far does a study of the Battle of Hastings support this statement? Explain your answer.

You should refer to the Battle of Hastings and your contextual knowledge.

So obviously that's a large, rather complex question, and we need to kind of break that down into smaller parts and unpack what it means.

So firstly, we could just look at the first sentence.

The main change for Anglo-Saxon warfare to Norman warfare was the use of knights.

And obviously, that key word in that sentence which we can highlight is change.

And that tells us the second order concepts that we're dealing with.

And again, just by focusing on the first sentence, we can already understand the argument that is being made.

The question's argument is saying that knights were the main change from Anglo-Saxon to Norman warfare.

So we can immediately act as the judge and start making our own judgments of whether we believe that to be the case.

Is that really the case, that the main change from Anglo-Saxon warfare to Norman warfare was the use of knights? I might wholeheartedly agree with it, but I can still think of alternatives.

I might completely disagree with it, or I might agree with it to a certain extent.

But immediately from the top of my head, just from reading that, I can start thinking about some various judgements that can be made.

So have a think to yourself, now, how far do you agree that knights were the main change? And part of unpacking the question is very briefly thinking about that, perhaps jotting down a few ideas, things that support that statement and alternative arguments that can go against it.

And here you can immediately start weighing up a judgement based on how many ideas you can quickly jot down for one side or the other.

So let's continue unpacking the question.

We'll now move on to the next sentence, which is how far does a study of the Battle of Hastings support this statement? So the question starts off quite broad, looking at the change of Anglo-Saxon warfare to Norman warfare and arguing that it's the use of knights.

But now the question is asking you to focus in, and it only wants you to refer to the Battle of Hastings in your arguments.

So your judgement must be how far you agree that knights were the main change in the Battle of Hastings.

Okay, so hopefully you can see there how a little unpacking of the question can help you to start getting a rough outline of what your judgement might look like.

So how do you actually reach a judgement then? So consider the question's argument against what you know from your historical environment site.

And we know the question has specifically told us the site is the Battle of Hastings.

Then you think about how far does what you know support the argument? Then you would look at what is an alternative argument or arguments.

And then you can think about how far does what you know support the alternative arguments or arguments? And so now you'll have a list of things that support the argument and a list of things that go against the argument.

And hopefully you'll start to see that you have more arguments on one side than the other.

And from here, you can start to weigh up and work out what your judgement would be, and which one of those arguments is the most convincing, and how that knowledge and those arguments can be used to back up your judgments.

So you'll use your decisions about how far to make your judgement.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Here is another historic environment style question.

What is the judgement you're being asked to make? Discuss this with a partner.

So effective motivation was the main reason for success in warfare in the Norman period.

How far does a study of the Battle of Hastings support this statement? So remember all the things we talked about with unpacking the question, and use that to identify the judgement you're being asked to make here.

Pause the video, have a quick discussion and come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

And hopefully you identified that the judgement being asked of you here is how far do you agree that the main reason for success in the Battle of Hastings was effective motivation? So as you can see, I've shown you one way in which you can structure your answer.

However, there is a degree of flexibility to the structure, and you don't have to wait to the end of your answer to hint towards your judgments.

In fact, you can make judgments all the way through your answer.

And this is called making a sustained judgement.

So once you've unpacked your answer and you've begun writing your paragraph, packed with knowledge which agrees with the question's argument, and at this point you can briefly state how far you agree with the question's argument, based on what you've written so far.

And then your answer will go on to have paragraphs about alternative arguments.

And at each time you introduce an alternative argument, again you can briefly state how far you agree.

Is it a convincing alternative argument or can you see how the question's argument is still more convincing? Once again, for your second alternative argument, you can briefly state how far you agree with it or not.

Good historians will make a sustained judgement in this way.

As I mentioned before, we are not looking for opinions or simple statements when it comes to making your judgments.

You need to use your knowledge to make your judgement or judgments, and specific historic environment knowledge is best.

And that's why unpacking the question is so important, so that you can identify the focus of the question and understanding the historic environment that has been mentioned in the question and use your knowledge from that site.

Sometimes, students write general answers without referring enough to their historic environments.

These are not successful answers.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Luck was the main reason for success in battles in the mediaeval period.

How far does Aisha agree? So I'll read this paragraph from Aisha's answer, and hopefully you can identify how far you think she agrees.

"The factor that made the biggest difference "actually occurred before the Battle of Hastings.

"The Viking invasion was so unlucky for Harold "because it meant he was not in the south "when William invaded.

"He had access to fewer troops "because of the battles in the north, "and his elite housecarls "were exhausted by battle and marching "by the time they arrived at Senlac Hill "on October the 14th, 1066." Pause the video, decide how far you think Aisha agrees, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was A, 100% agree.

And the clues in her paragraph are that in the first sentence, she mentions that the factor that made the biggest difference, and then she goes on to say in the next sentence, the Viking invasion was so unlucky.

So we're getting a clear idea of how far Aisha agrees with the statement that luck was the main reason for success in battles in the mediaeval period.

Okay, let's have another check.

And I now want you to add a judgement to Aisha's answer to show that she agrees that luck was the main reason for success in battles in the mediaeval period.

So we've already identified that we can see that Aisha's answer is 100% agreeing with the statement, but we now need to explicitly write that in a judgement supported with evidence.

Pause the video, have a go and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So there's many ways you could have written that judgement , but compare your answer with what I have here.

So you could have written, this shows that luck was the main reason for William's success because he had nothing to do with the Viking invasion.

If it had not been for the Viking invasion, he would have faced much more opposition at the Battle of Hastings, and may have lost.

So hopefully, you can see how that judgement works.

You can see that Aisha had already done some of the groundwork and shown how she was agreeing with the statement.

We just need to explicitly land that judgement , explicitly say how far we agree with this statement, and then explicitly say the evidence which backs that up.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to task C.

What I want you to do here is complete this table about three possible reasons for William's victory at the Battle of Hastings.

Some parts of the table have been completed for you.

So in the left hand column, you can see the main reason for victory as either being luck, leadership or tactics.

And in the far right column, you can see the counter argument has already been made for you.

So you just need to come up with the arguments for all three.

Pause the video, have a go at the task, then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So there's many arguments that you could have come up with, but compare your answer with what I have here.

So for the first one, luck.

You could have written that the Viking invasion was very lucky for William.

And for leadership, you might have said that William's leadership stopped a disastrous Norman retreat.

And finally, for tactics, you could have written that the famed retreat tactic was a turning point in the battle.

Okay, let's move on to the second part of task C.

How far do you agree that luck was the main reason for William's victory at the Battle of Hastings? I want you to write one paragraph explaining your judgement.

Make sure your judgement is based on knowledge of the historic environment.

So use all the knowledge you've gained in today's lesson, how to unpack the question, how to write a judgement , to complete this task.

Pause the video, have a go and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So there's many ways you could have answered that question, but compare your answer with what I have here.

And in this first judgement , you're gonna see it pretty much disagrees with the statement.

And in the next example answer I'm going to show you, it'll be a judgement which agrees with the statement.

And I think that's a really good way to tackle your judgments.

It's a lot easier to either completely agree or disagree with the statement.

Of course, you can always have an in-between judgement where you halfway agree, you agree to a certain extent but not fully.

And certainly, a lot of judgements are reached in that way, but perhaps easier to just fall on one side of the other, agree or disagree.

Anyway, let's read this first answer.

"Although luck was an important factor in mediaeval warfare, "it was not the main reason for William's victory "at the Battle of Hastings.

"It is true that the Viking invasion "meant William faced a weakened Anglo-Saxon army, "but that was because of poor leadership by Harold.

"For example, Harold rushed his army to Hastings "before he needed to.

"In contrast, William's leadership was very effective, "particularly in his response "to the threat of Norman retreat, "and in planning and ordering the feigned retreat.

"In the case of the Battle of Hastings, "It was poor leadership, "not luck that was the main reason for William's victory." And you can see there that the contextual knowledge that's been used is specific to the Battle of Hastings, which was very important when reaching your judgments.

Okay, let's have a look at the next example.

And as I've said before, this is how you could have written your judgments if you agreed with this statement.

"Luck was a critical reason "for William's success in the Battle of Hastings.

"While it is certainly true "that William was well prepared for the invasion, "his choice of battlefield shows poor leadership "because it allowed Harold the opportunity "to defend a ridge at the top of Senlac Hill.

"As a result, William could not use his knights effectively, "and the battle lasted for hours.

"It was only by lucky chance "that parts of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd "chased after retreating Norman troops, "which weakened the shield wall.

"And it was only by luck "that a random arrow killed King Harold, "ending the battle in William's favour." Okay, excellent.

Let's summarise today's lesson.

All historic environment questions will feature one second order concept, change, continuity, causation or consequence.

Different arguments can be made about change, continuity, causation or consequence.

Historians make judgements about how far they agree with an argument on the basis of evidence.

And in writing answers to historic environment questions, using knowledge about the site is very important.

Well done on a brilliant lesson, and hopefully you can see how good historians answer historic environment questions.

I'll see you in the next lesson.