On balance, I don’t think KS3 history should begin with a “What is History?” skills unit. History ‘skills’ (chronology, timelines, spotting bias and the like) do not exist independently of content and need to be illustrated with historical examples to assume meaning. Not doing so is akin to studying a human by looking at their clothes. “What is History?” units often do this haphazardly, using de-contextualised aspects of history to illustrate skills. These ‘nuggets’ are confusing and make history seem incoherent. Some such units do not teach any history at all, instead requiring children to demonstrate their mastery of ‘skills’ by using examples from their own lives. In one department I worked in children were expected to complete a timeline of what they did during their summer holidays, which created misconceptions and confusion around what history at secondary school actually was.
“What is History” units often fail to achieve their aims because frontloading ‘skills’ and not revisiting them means that children quickly forget what they’ve learned. For example, some curriculums require the drawing of detailed BC/AD timelines as part of this unit but never demand children do so again. This means few remember the lesson, making the task a waste of time for most students.
These units take up time and curriculum space better spent studying more content, are confusing and often tediously contrived. A better approach is to start at the beginning of the content and explicitly teach historical skills using chronologically appropriate history. For example, if a department feels that a thorough grasps of timelines is really necessary, it could plan for children to complete one on Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Vikings as part of a lesson on England prior to the Norman Invasion. Similarly, departments could teach interpretations through looking at the contenders to the English throne in 1066 instead of, for example, different views of a modern day football game.
Before dismissing “What is History” skills units completely it is worth considering the context in which they were conceived. The thinking behind them was done in the 1970s by the Schools History Project and such units were intended to take place in Year 9 before children began the old SHP ‘O’ Level and CSE courses. It was assumed that these children would already have studied a classic knowledge based curriculum for almost three years and would need this introduction to concepts and skills ahead of the very different SHP course. The “What is History” unit was never meant to be an introduction to history for eleven-year-olds. It was misapplied because it was misunderstood. This misunderstanding calcified and became an unquestioned staple of Year 7. Many departments still teaching this unit do so mainly because it’s what they’ve always done and most teachers are understandably relieved when it’s over.
There is, of course, value in teaching what history is and how it works before starting content but this can be done explicitly in one lesson. It is probably wise to ensure that children know history is the study of people in the past for which there is written evidence, and that historians arrive at their opinions by looking carefully at evidence. At my school we make sure this is clearly and directly articulated in their books. Then we rule off and crack straight on.