The power of Initial Stimulus Material (ISM) to ‘hook’ pupils into historical learning via an intriguing image, a provocative quote, a story, or even a soundscape that promotes curiosity, has been long established. In his 2001 article, Phillips built a set of principles for using ISM as a gateway into the conceptual issues underpinning an enquiry. He argued that ISMs could be used by teachers to gain pupils’ attention, interest and curiosity, and help to turn implicit ideas into explicit ones.
Philips’ research also explored the role of carefully planned and executed questioning in which teachers ask questions about the ISM that are ‘based upon pupils’ existing knowledge, as well as their known conceptual capabilities and understanding.’ (Phillips, 2001, p.22). Using the example of the famous Dutch print of Charles I’s execution, Phillips asserted that precise questions, requiring specific propositional knowledge, would be ‘inappropriate for some pupils because it does not connect with their ‘known’ experience’ (p.22). Instead, he suggests, these questions should progress ‘from simple information gathering, to advanced speculative or hypothesis generating questions’ (p.22).
This ‘questioning’ aspect of the ISM has always fascinated me and caused me to ponder my motivations as a teacher when using ISMs in lessons – was I always using it to inspire intrigue or stimulate curiosity, or did I sometimes use ISMs for other purposes?
An opportunity to explore this more fully came when I was tasked with finding meaningful ways to integrate the Intensive Training and Practise (ITAP) element of the 2024 Initial Teacher Education Quality Requirements into the highly subject-specific curriculum of the University of Nottingham Secondary History PGCE. The core-practices-first focus of the ITAPs prioritises training teachers in generic classroom strategies and routines rather than developing their disciplinary pedagogical understanding. Reconciling this approach with my ambition to retain the integrity of our subject discipline, I found myself thinking of about the different ways history-specific pedagogical practice has interpreted these generic core-practice approaches. In preparing an ITAP based around ‘eliciting prior knowledge’, and while reflecting on Ausubel’s assertion that ‘the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him [sic.] accordingly’ (Ausubel, 1968, preface vi), I found myself returning to my earlier ponderings around ISM use in the classroom.
How do I use ISMs in history education?
In my experiences as a classroom history teacher, and now teacher educator, I think I have always deployed ISMs as much for eliciting prior knowledge as I have to hook and promote curiosity and prepare students for the enquiry to come. Frequently, ISMs act as a diagnostic tool in my classroom, helping me to understand student and pupil starting points, revealing their historical hinterlands (Counsell, 2018) and the broader contextual awareness they are bringing to the topic at hand.
An example
When I was still in the classroom, one of my favourite lessons involved exploring the Imperial Federation Map of the World Showing the Extent of the British Empire in 1886. For me, this source has always symbolised the perfect ISM – what child can resist engaging with the exotic animals, fruits and fascinating people embedded in the border of the map? This initial beguilement becomes even more powerful as pupils realise the hidden symbolism and intent behind these images.
I used this map for years as the opening lesson of a Year 9 enquiry ‘How did Britain’s relationship with the wider world change in the period 1750-1900?’ Every time, supported by the structure of a layers of inference diagram (Cooper, 1992; Riley, 1999), classes would do exactly what Phillips describes – generate their own questions and hypotheses and, through careful teacher guidance, establish the objectives of the enquiry using their own natural curiosity as the springboard for their ongoing study (Phillips, 2001, p22).
However, another by-product of this lesson was that, through the inference diagrams and questioning phases, I would gain a much more secure understanding of the pupils’ starting points with the topic. Moreover, it would encourage the pupils to retrieve their prior knowledge and make connections between their previous topics and wider learning. Pupil understanding of this source was enormously supported by their previous historical study of Greek and Roman mythology, a Year 8 enquiry entitled Voyages of Discovery (something I would likely now rename Voyages of Colonisation), Enslavement and the French Revolution. It was also supported by their wider geographical knowledge, such as map-literacy and awareness of trade routes, and their mathematical knowledge which allowed them to interpret the demographic and economic data connected to each colony on the map.
The utility of this particular ISM extended beyond its role as a hook. It had become a diagnostic tool, a method for retrieval of knowledge from long term memory, and a mechanism for supporting pupils to make more explicit connections between different elements in their schema of understanding. It enabled them to prepare for thinking more deeply about the historical enquiry.
Why do I think this matters when thinking about a core-practice like ‘eliciting prior knowledge’?
| Traditional ISM Use | Prior Knowledge ISM Use |
| Purpose: To excite and motivate. | Purpose: To diagnose existing schema and misconceptions. |
| Focus: What questions will we answer in the lesson? | Focus: What knowledge do you have to answer this now? |
| Pupil Action: Guessing, wondering, expressing surprise. | Pupil Action: Retrieving, justifying, making connections. |
Thinking about an ISM as a means of eliciting prior knowledge allows us to ask pupils what they already know and to activate their knowledge in a meaningful way. By asking them to engage with the ISM we are inviting pupils to draw on the residue that remains from their previous historical learning, popular culture, family stories, and other school subjects. Importantly we are eliciting this prior knowledge in an historical context. This allows misconceptions to be identified in relationship to pupils’ wider knowledge and understanding, allowing us to move beyond the simplistic right/wrong information-rich approach which is frequently a feature of dislocated knowledge retrieval questions completed as a Do Now at the start of a lesson.
Questions that elicit prior knowledge for the Imperial Federation Map could mean that:
- Instead of asking “What do you see?” we might ask “What do you see, and what does it tell you about the world it came from?” This shifts the task from description to inference, forcing pupils to activate relevant historical context (substantive knowledge) to justify their claim.
- Rather than just asking pupils to generate questions in relation to the ISM, we can also ask them what prior knowledge they have that helps them to understand the ISM, for example, “What do you already know about Britain in the 1880s? How does that help you to interpret the image?”. This helps to signal the need to retrieve prior learning.
- Using the ISM to identify misconceptions might lead us to pose a question such as “Some people think the British Empire was all about conquering lands and showing Britain was the dominant political power in the world at the time. How does this source support or challenge that view?” Even if the pupils don’t know the answer, their attempt to respond reveals the depth of their knowledge and prior understanding of concepts such as trade and colonialism.
Reconceptualising ISMs?
ISMs as hooks into historical enquiry are a well-established pedagogical tool. I’m not suggesting that every ISM should become a method for retrieving prior knowledge. It is totally appropriate for them to be employed as enticing puzzles or provocations through which pupils’ historical curiosity can be stimulated and enquiries launched.
However, as many schools now stipulate that all lessons must begin with a ‘do now’ retrieval practise task, beginning teachers (or even experienced teachers) looking to take a more subject-specific ‘retrieval plus’ approach to eliciting prior knowledge might find that a fresh look at ISMs could provide an antidote to inauthentic practices. Reconceptualising ISMs as a tool for eliciting prior knowledge could strengthen our subject-specific interpretation of this core-practice. And of course, there is nothing to stop us using an ISM to do both jobs – most teachers probably already are!
By reframing the ISM from an energetic opener to a cognitive diagnostic, we can gain important information to help us pitch a lesson/ enquiry for our pupils and solidify the connections within pupils’ schema. In a sense, it gives us a little window into our pupils’ historical thinking and helps us understand the impact of our wider curriculum.
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cooper, H. (1992) The Teaching of History, David Fulton
Counsell, C. (2018). ‘Senior Curriculum Leadership 1: The indirect manifestation of knowledge: (A) curriculum as narrative’, The dignity of the thing (7 April 2018) – https://thedignityofthethingblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/senior-curriculum-leadership-1-the-indirect-manifestation-of-knowledge-a-curriculum-as-narrative/.
Phillips, R. (2001). Making history curious: Using Initial Stimulus Material (ISM) to promote enquiry, thinking and literacy. Teaching History (London), 105, 19–24.
Riley, C. (1999). Evidential understanding, period knowledge and the development of literacy: a practical approach to “layers of inference” for Key Stage 3. Teaching History (London), 97, 6–12.
Becoming a History Teacher 