Dale Banham and Ian Dawson show how active learning deepens students’ understanding of attitudes and reactions to the Norman Conquest. At the same time they build a bold argument for active learning, including a direct strike at the two most common objections to it. Many teachers still see it as a fun ‘extra’ and blame ‘curriculum coverage’ demands for not having enough time for it. Ian and Dale argue that it saves teaching time. Because activities such as theirs accelerate learning in the early stages of an enquiry, pupils acquire secure knowledge more quickly, leaving more time to do interesting analytic work. Like Rachael Rudham, Vaughan Clark and other teacher-authors in the speaking and listening edition of Teaching History ( TH 105), they also argue that such non-writing activities substantially and directly improve pupils’ writing. Ian Dawson suggests, further, that the role of active learning at A level and beyond is in need of major re-evaluation. Inclusion and diversity are issues in the post-16 and post-19 history curricula, too. Ian finds that his undergraduates, just like Dale’s Year 7 pupils, overcome initial learning obstacles much more quickly through this type of exercise, enabling them to read more keenly and independently in follow-up work.