For examination subjects, content is king. Without a secure bedrock of factual knowledge, analysis cannot be attempted and evaluation and formulation of different perspectives is impossible. It was in order to find a fresh way of\u00a0motivating students to acquire and effectively share their knowledge that I started using\u00a0the “Tell us something we don’t know!” quiz format in the classroom.<\/p>\n
This approach works\u00a0well as a way of encouraging students to conduct some detailed research ahead of a lesson, but equally well as a revision strategy leading up to the examinations.<\/p>\n
To conduct the game, start by giving all the students a homework requiring them to find answers to central examination-style questions. In the case of history, I set each the students three increasingly challenging questions, each one building upon the other, in the\u00a0following format:<\/p>\n
When the students return to class, they are divided into\u00a0teams of three or four students. We then\u00a0proceed with the quiz, with each student instructed to take notes as the game proceeds (alternatively, the teacher could act as scribe and make notes in a word processor, projected on the screen, and share it with students afterwards as revision material).<\/p>\n
In this\u00a0round, each team can provide one fact for one<\/strong> point, or pass if they have no ideas. The process continues until no team has any further points to make. Everyone makes notes as the story proceeds, putting notes into the correct order, then writes up their findings afterwards. Here’s an example of what my 14-year old students\u00a0produced, with no\u00a0prior knowledge before their homework on this topic was set:<\/p>\n What were the main events leading up to the Anschluss with Austria?<\/strong> Each team provides one reason (substantiated with evidence) for two<\/strong> points, add a further point of information to substantiate an existing reason for one<\/strong> point, or pass if they have no ideas. The process continues until no team has any further points to make. Everyone makes notes as the story proceeds, then writes up their findings afterwards.<\/p>\n In this instance, my students came up with the following:<\/p>\n Why did Hitler encounter so little resistance when he absorbed Austria into the Third Reich?<\/strong> In each round, the first team provides one argument (substantiated with evidence) for one side of the argument, to win two<\/strong> points. The next team has to do the same for the opposite<\/strong> side of the argument, or pass if they have no ideas. The process continues until no team has any further points to make.<\/p>\n To what extent do events in Austria show Hitler was a gambler rather than a planner?<\/strong>
\nNOTE<\/strong>: As this is an \u2018events\u2019 question, a very valuable added twist is\u00a0that after the first two events, teams get a bonus point if they can state an event which took place before the event nominated by the previous team but after the one that immediately precedes it in the timeline that is building up. In other words, it pays for each team to start with the earliest events and move forwards as steadily and logically as they can, so that this round allows all students to see the story develop, step-by-step, in a logical chronology as far as possible.<\/p>\n
\n\u25aa The Treaty of Versailles had forbidden any alliance between Germany and Austria. \u25aa In addition, Austria lost half of its land after World War One (in the Treaty of St. Germain) and the prospect of unity with Germany became more appealing. \u25aa In 1934, Hitler planned to invade Austria but backed down when Mussolini sent troops to the Brenner Pass. \u25aa In 1936 the Rome-Berlin Axis was formed between Germany and Italy which removed the threat of Italian opposition to Anschluss. \u25aa Hitler encouraged the Nazis in Austria to campaign for a plebiscite to secure an Anschluss. Austrian police later discovered Nazi plans for an invasion of Austria, which outraged Schuschnigg and led to him demanding a meeting with Hitler. \u25aa In Feb. 1938 Chancellor Schuschnigg visited Hitler to try persuading him to bring the Austrian Nazis under control. \u25aa Hitler bullied Schuschnigg at this meeting into accepting 10 demands including the appointment of leading Austrian Nazi Seyss-Inquart as a member of the government. \u25aa Schuschnigg returned to Austria, then called a plebiscite to try to undermine Hitler\u2019s claim that most Austrians wanted an Anschluss. \u25aa Hitler threatens violent action and hurriedly draws up proper invasion plans at short notice; Schuschnigg resigns. \u25aa The President of Austria appointed a new, Nazi-friendly Chancellor, who cancelled the plebiscite and also invited the Nazis in to \u2018restore order\u2019. \u25aa Hitler sent troops into Austria to take the country over and announced unexpectedly \u2013 after a predictable triumph in a new Nazi-organised referendum – that Austria will now be incorporated into the Reich.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nRound 2: EXPLAIN<\/h4>\n
\nOne reason is because the Treaty of Versailles was considered too harsh on Germany: for example its economy had been badly destabilised by the reparations bill of \u00a36.6 billion, Britain and France in particular were keen to make amends in a policy known as \u2018appeasement\u2019: this included being more open to a closer union between Austria and Germany for their mutual benefit. \u25aa\u00a0A second reason is because the Austrians themselves were keen on the idea: had lost half of their land after World War One and had been left landlocked (in the Treaty of St. Germain) and the prospect of unity with Germany became more appealing. In addition, the Austrians had been unified with the Germans for hundreds of years during the time of the Holy Roman Empire so there was a strong cultural link between the two countries and Hitler himself was Austrian. \u25aa\u00a0Finally, because Britain, Italy and France had been neutralised: in the case of Britain, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement had taken the sting out of\u00a0British opposition to the Nazis, and the Rome-Berlin Axis had made an ally of Italy. These events destroyed the Stresa Pact and left France neutralised as a result \u2013 especially as at this point France didn\u2019t even have a government following a political crisis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nRound 3: ASSESS<\/h4>\n
\nHow he was a \u2018gambler:\u2019<\/strong> \u00a4 Hitler had already attempted but had failed: He had ordered Austrian Nazis to cause chaos in Austria in an attempt to overthrow the government. Italy also sent troops to the Austrian border whilst following the terms of the agreement with Austria to protect each other from outside aggression.\u00a0\u00a4 Hitler hadn\u2019t even told his closest advisors: they were only told he wanted the Austrian government to appoint\u00a0Nazis into the government and undermining their independence. \u00a4 He was bold, and kept his nerve: he threatened to invade Austria despite the fact that his generals told him that they had not got\u00a0any invasion plans drawn out and on hand.
\nHow he was a \u2018planner:\u2019<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a4 Hitler made and alliance with Italy in advance: The Rome-Berlin axis was made in 1936 to ensure that Italy wouldn\u2019t risk attacking\u00a0Germany once again like she\u2019d done in Hitler\u2019s first attempt of Anschluss in 1934. In addition, he sent Philip of Hesse to smooth things over with Mussolini, who was thanked by Hitler directly afterwards in a personal telegram.\u00a0\u00a4 The idea of expanding eastward had already been talked about in Mein Kampf: Mein Kampf, the autobiography written by Hitler himself, expresses Hitler\u2019s want to unite Germany with his birth country, Austria.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nTaking it further<\/h2>\n