Response to investigate
It is biased so it is useless.
Practical disciplinary literacy
History: disciplinary literacy in practice
Read provenance and purpose, corroborate a claim and qualify a judgement.
The task students are answering
Material to use
Use these invented teaching sources. Source A, a factory owner's letter to investors, 1840: ‘Our workers are content, and our factory is managed with their welfare in mind.’ Source B, a worker's diary, the same year: ‘Yesterday we worked fourteen hours, and the room was so crowded that I could hardly move.’ These are classroom fabrications, not historical quotations. The accounts concern the same factory, but neither establishes every worker's experience.
Ask students
How useful is Source A for investigating working conditions? Explain one thing it can show and one claim that needs checking against other evidence.
Expected response
A short judgement naming the author, audience, useful claim and limitation. Refer to Source B when explaining the need for corroboration.
What to look for
- Connects the owner's audience and purpose to the favourable presentation.
- Explains a specific use instead of dismissing the source as simply biased.
- Uses the disagreement to justify checking further evidence, without treating the diary as automatically conclusive.
How a response can develop
The model and sample responses below address the question above. Reveal the teaching interpretation after discussing what is clearer in the improved response.
Provenance
Teaching source: an owner writes to investors about factory conditions.
Claim
The owner describes workers as satisfied and the factory as well managed.
Judgement
Useful evidence of the owner’s presentation; compare worker accounts and inspection evidence before accepting the description.
More precise response
The letter is useful for understanding how the owner presented the factory to investors. Its purpose may encourage a favourable account, so claims about conditions need corroboration.
Reveal the teaching interpretation
Replace the binary reliable/unreliable label with a claim-specific judgement. Ask what the source can show even if the account is self-interested.
These are invented teaching samples. One response alone does not establish proficiency, attainment or a learning difficulty.
Teacher preparation and teaching sequence
Prepare the material described in Visual model. Read the exact student question aloud and show the expected response before modelling. For Music and PE, supply the recording or demonstration first.
- Read or observe: introduce the task: Evaluate an invented factory owner’s letter claiming that workers are well treated.
- Model: think aloud through the three-part model, connecting each decision to the evidence.
- Notice: compare the two sample responses. Identify one meaning difference, not just a difference in length.
- Rehearse: Provide the letter beside a contrasting invented worker account. Mark agreement, disagreement and missing evidence.
- Transfer: Evaluate a new source with a different author and audience. Give a specific use and a limitation.
Useful language to notice
The letter is useful for understanding how the owner presented the factory to investors. Its purpose may encourage a favourable account, so claims about conditions need corroboration.
Highlight words that connect evidence, explanation and qualification. Choose a small useful phrase set rather than asking learners to memorise the entire model.
Use the task with your class
Student instructions
How useful is Source A for investigating working conditions? Explain one thing it can show and one claim that needs checking against other evidence.
Produce: A short judgement naming the author, audience, useful claim and limitation. Refer to Source B when explaining the need for corroboration.
Independent follow-up
Invented source C: an inspector's report says that safety guards were fitted on all machines during a scheduled visit. Evaluate its usefulness and what it cannot establish about ordinary working days.
Use the fresh task after practice. Record what the learner achieves and which supports remain necessary.
Adapt and keep your resource
Edit these fields for your class or department. Drafts stay in this browser; use anonymised evidence. Download an editable text copy to keep it elsewhere.
Model the decisions, then invite a response
“Useful for answering which historical question?”
“What evidence supports that connection?”
“Which condition, exception or limitation matters here?”
Respond to the sample
Replace the binary reliable/unreliable label with a claim-specific judgement. Ask what the source can show even if the account is self-interested.
First establish the learner’s subject meaning through talk, a sketch or a familiar-language response. Then address one English choice that helps communicate that meaning.
Access, independence and department use
Access: introduce essential terms with a representation; allow bilingual notes, partner rehearsal and a brief sentence frame. Keep the subject reasoning.
Independence: use fresh content and remove the full model. Retain required access arrangements and record any prompts.
Department pilot: use this routine in one unit. Collect a small anonymised sample before and after teaching, note the support provided and review with an EAL colleague.
Plan a manageable pilotHistory: disciplinary literacy in practice
Everyday communication and academic language
BICS is a useful shorthand for interpersonal communication; CALP draws attention to the language demands of academic learning. They are not two learner categories or a direct WIDA/CEFR conversion. Familiar conversation can conceal difficulty with a dense text or an unfamiliar subject explanation. Look at the task, context, support and individual language domains.
Plan from what learners can do
WIDA’s Key Uses provide a useful way to identify the communicative purpose: recount, explain, argue or discuss. Use the grade-band descriptors with the learner’s domain-specific evidence and choose support that keeps the subject thinking intact.
- Recount: Sequence the key events in a short historical account.
- Explain: Explain how two factors contributed to an event, using selected source details.
- Argue: Judge how useful a source is for a specific question, identifying both evidence and limits.
- Discuss: Compare interpretations and ask which further source would help resolve a disagreement.
Open the subject language planner
Original teaching examples informed by WIDA Can Do Descriptors. They are not official descriptors or predicted assessment outcomes.