Teaching Historical Thinking and the SBG Part I

      I know this blog post is long, long, long overdue (My bad Joe!) and the general idea is to discuss how to teach historical thinking. However, I aim to discuss my foray into using standards based grading as well because I believe the two are intimately related. How? Well consider the following points:

1. Skills: To teach historical thinking properly, one must focus on skills that require students to act like historians. SBG also focuses on skills rather than the reliance on simple fact memorization. This approach is different for students.

2. It's Unnatural: Historical thinking is, to quote Sam Wineberg, an "unnatural act" that many students have a difficult time grasping due to several factors. SBG has the same issue: "What do you mean I don't get points for this?" SBG is clearly an "unnatural" process for students to understand.

3. Institutionalization: I do not want to play the "blame game" here but every school is a part of an institution and certain practices tend to get institutionalized. Both historical thinking and SBG tend to run counter to that institutionalization and when an individual is attempting to implement either (or in my case both! What was I thinking?), they will have to change students' thinking about history and/or how they are assessed. That type of thinking is not a part of the normal practice in most schools. 

4. Do Over! : Students need to learn that not only is failure and option, it's expected!! Who has ever picked up a soccer ball, a baseball bat, a basketball and was immediately a pro at it? Who has ever opened a piano or grabbed a guitar and was all of a sudden a Mozart or a Jimi Hendrix? No one. Ever. So why do we expect students to fail at those things (and continue to practice, practice)  but when it comes to thinking and learning we only give them one shot on one day??? If you think about it for more than a minute, you are over thinking it. Teaching students to see both the trees and the forest (historical thinking metaphor!) and to hone, aye! perfect their skills takes time to do it again and again and again and again. Instantaneous is not the droids (oops word) you are looking for! 

So, where do I begin: SBG or historical thinking? Since teaching historical thinking is what led me to standards based grading, I think I will start there.

Teaching Historical Thinking in the Digital Age

     For history teachers the global connection of information and knowledge is both a blessing and a curse. Students no longer use the glossary as a crutch when studying history they now have wikipedia (not bad) and Yahoo answers (getting worse) and help us all Cha-Cha (please no) Teaching in this white noise of information is a blessing because with so much information at the student's finger tips, the teaching of history has never been easier. However, the teaching of historical thinking has never been more difficult. That's the curse. Teaching students that facts can be found on Google but using those facts and crafting an argument cannot. That is also a part of the curse as well. So how does one teach historical thinking in this yottabyte of information? It helps when you begin to focus on the skills that historians use when they examine history.

     The reason Sam Wineburg wrote that historical thinking is an "unnatural act" (His book is here) is well, quite frankly, it is unnatural for most people let alone 15 yr old teens! The big problem for history teachers is this thought courtesy of Jackie Boyle (a long time ELA/History teacher in my building): we as teachers all think historically naturally. We don't know why or really how, we just do! The secret is to get them to think like you! (a dangerous proposition I know) You have to teach how you think, analyze, dissect, and interpret history. For us, this is a natural process. You have to teach that process to your students. When we think about how we do that, here is what comes to my mind:

1. No facts in isolation: I was going to put memorization but I am not a fan of that word. See this is where most students think history stops: at the memorization and regurgitation of simple facts. For example, students should know that it was Lyndon B. Johnson who was president at the start of the war in Vietnam. Yes. However, they should also know that at the height of that war, Johnson quits and leaves the country in a bit of turmoil. That puts him in better context of the era. 

2. I am Michael S Wolski and I Support this Message: The second skill students need to know is how to support statements with evidence. This does not have to be some long drawn out thesis statement that requires a 10 page paper. This can be one sentence like: When Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to accept his party's nomination for president in 1968, it left the country in turmoil. Open ended and a challenge to many students, but this is the kind of statement, even on a small scale, that history teachers can engage in everyday. 

3. Reading and writing are not dead!: I am a voracious reader. I have been ever since 4th grade. I know many complain that students do not read, but I think if we approached it in a way that showed students the value of reading, that would help improve the lack of reading. Also, if we gave them choice while making the reading interesting and as relevant to their lives as possible that would help. Guided readings are the death of reading. I know it is easy, but from my experience, textbook based reading guides are boring and really don't get to the heart of the reading. 
     "Mr Wolski, this isn't English class" Teaching history, I get that a lot. But I understand their confusion. History is a story and you have to write the story. This is "unusual" and because of this fact, students have a difficult time writing within and about history. Historical writing is different than regular writing in that it is a process, it's an argument, and it has to fit within the context of the historical narrative. And that narrative changes depending on the time period you are studying. For example, when writing about the industrial revolution, the context is not the same as the Civil Rights Movement. Sure there are similarities, but the influences for both are different. Sometimes, the student have the difficulty seeing that forest. They just want to write about the trees. 

Continued in Part II....

June Blog Circle Topic: Reflecting on Successes and Areas of Improvement

Hello everyone,

I was reminded today that our last blog circle posts are from April! That's ok. Time to regroup.  

First, if, more recently, you have sent me a post that I have not uploaded, I apologize. Please let me know and I will be sure to upload it.

I think the concept of a blog circle is really powerful. At the same time, we need to be realistic and accept that at times the busyness of the school year is going to prevent us from doing this every month. That's ok. 

As we begin June, wrapping up the 2013-14 school year, let’s spend this month reflecting on both our successes and areas that still need improvement.


I look forward to reading each of your posts.  

@joetabhistory

The theme for this month’s blog circle post is ‘How to Assess Historical Thinking’.

Historical Thinking Skills take Time to Teach

Few, if any, historical thinking skills (HTS) can be learned in a single lesson. HTS are often not intuitive and require considerable practice and feedback. In future blog posts, I want to explore how I am going to set up my course so that I can teach these skills systematically and, ultimately, more effectively.

The HTS that I chose to focus on for this blog post is the skill of sourcing a document or photo.

Overview/Some Commentary

The mentality that we need to help students learn to avoid is just accepting a source at face value. This, I am reminded repeatedly, is the default mentality for most students and, I suspect, many adults, as well.

How do we do this? We do this by reminding students that since all primary and secondary sources are created by people, they need to viewed with an eye for the creator’s point of view and goals, both of which exist in a specific context. (Note: Historian Keith Barton reminds us that not all sources provide testimony. And because all sources DO NOT provide testimony, a simple sourcing heuristic is not always helpful. Issues of reliability and credibility are, obviously, most relevant when we are reading sources created for the purpose of transmitting a message and meaning, such as a letter or speech. Once a source's authenticity has been established, issues of credibility are NOT relevant when an historian is using evidence from the time period that does not provide testimony, such as receipts, newspaper ads, or government statistics...(make sense? I may need to review Barton and revise this section.))

What do students who DO NOT  grasp the ideas and skills associated with sourcing tend to do?

A basic or novice understanding of sourcing involves a reader approaching a source with the following in mind:

Bias = bad, Unbiased = Good

We need to create experiences that helps students move beyond these simplistic notions.

Novice views of Sourcing

-If the source expresses bias, it cannot be used. Therefore, the source should be discarded.

-It IS possible and desirable to find and use unbiased source. This, after all, students assume, is what historians spend most of their time trying to do, discovering 'the truth' by finding unbiased sources that reveal it.  

-Textbooks are an excellent place to turn if one is looking for an unbiased source.

-Primary sources provide us with a direct window to the past (using SHEG Stanford’s rubric language here with ‘direct window to the past.’)

Understandings that we should help our students move toward.

Any time an historian encounters a source of information, they analyze it to decide if and how they may use it in an historical argument.

All of us, whether historians or not, need to think about and analyze  where the information we encounter is coming from. Otherwise, we have no way to judge the best way to respond to that content.  

When we source, we can be more confident that we have answers to the following questions: What are we to make of this source? What meanings can we derive and infer from this source? Is this source trustworthy? How do we make this judgment? What parts of this source should we reject and why? What parts of this source should we accept and why? 

What did I do in the classroom?

I set up this exercise using a source depicting Louis XVI’s execution. I was not able to determine the origin of this source. For the purpose of this assignment, I told students that we were going to assume it was created in 1830. Why did I have to give them a year? And why did I choose 1830? I knew that handing them a source and providing them with no information about who created it  and when undermined the sourcing that I was going to have them do. I chose 1830 because I wanted to force students to think about the distance between the execution of Louis and the (supposed) creation of this source. What impact did over  three decades have on how students interpreted this source?   

How did I set this up?

Here are some questions that I used in class.

What is a source? (Some points to make/questions to ask: Are all sources the same? Should we treat a letter from a soldier to his wife differently than we might treat a collection of receipts or government statistics? If so, why? What's the difference?  

Key point: A source is someone/something from which we get information. Students are often desensitized to the sources they  encounter regularly, especially textbooks and teachers. Student desensitization is evident when their default is to accept information on face value that is provided by teachers and textbooks.)

Why is it important to question a source?  (Some points to make/questions to ask:  And what do we even mean by questioning a source? When we question a source, what kinds of questions should we ask? Some expected student responses to the importance of questioning a source:

So you can decide whether or not to believe the information.

So you can evaluate how accurate the information is.

(What are some points that I ought to make at this point in the lesson? Or at some point in this lesson? A source can often tell us much more than it literally says. It can tell us about the time period being studied. We need to interrogate a source in order to arrive at some of the more subtle meanings and messages contained within a source. When we get information we need to think about how the messenger influences the message. Source work is conducted for a reason.  When historians are working with sources, whether primary or secondary, it is because they are trying to answer certain questions about the past.

How did I transition to the activity?

Tell students that sourcing is the first step in historical analysis, in thinking like an historian (see Big Six: 47).

Some sourcing questions are straightforward.

When was this source written/created?

Who created it?

What was the creator’s point of view? How do we know?

The Big Six text discusses how sourcing questions can become more subtle, abstract, and inference based. The big idea here, I think, is that we need to take what we have learned via our sourcing questions and draw some inferences, make some educated predictions about the reliability and usefulness of the source.

Based on our sourcing questions and answers, we to consider the creator of the source’s agenda: their purpose, goal(s) and motivations. And we need to keep these factors in mind when making judgments about the source.

For example, just because Napoleon says something happened, doesn’t mean that it happened exactly as he says. Napoleon’s words, though, do reveal aspects of his personality and character. They also tell us about his world, what was going on around him. For this reason, once we identify and account for a source's main biases, we can use the source to support our arguments about the past. 

How reliable is this source? It depends on the historical questions you are asking.

Questions of reliability need to be precisely stated. Reliability does not just exist out there, as a concept. Reliable how? If this source is being used to consider how artists at different moments in time have portrayed Louis’ execution, then this source is reliable, in as far as it tells us something about the time period when it was created. If this source is being considered as evidence of how Louis XVI acted in the moments leading up to his execution, then it may be less reliable, given (at least for the purpose of this assignment) that it was created thirty years after his execution.  

How did students interpret this source?

Some students were quick to describe the image, an essential beginning step in analyzing a source. It is necessary, however, that we teach students that they need to do more than just describe what they read or what they see. They need to link these observations to larger questions and answers. When students do this, they are beginning to think like an historian.

Here are some student comments that I’d like to consider (I have more that I will add and comment on) as I think about my rubric (linked below) and historical thinking in general:

Some student comments describing the image, describing Louis.

“Louis looks depressed.”

“..he must be scared. He is about to die. He acted calm and collected.”

“He listened to all of the orders he was given.” (We need to push the student to tell us why he is saying this. Is this accurate? We cannot determine the accuracy of this from a single source.)

“It is a picture of Louis getting executed.” (Though true, a basic observation.)

More comments will be added...

Additional Comments/Thoughts
-Some students may not even attempt to ‘close view/read’ the source. We should be able to discern whether or not a student has taken the time to view the source, to make some observations. Some students may 'close view' the source and see things that are not actually there. It is important that our rubric accounts for both possibilities.

Link to my Rubric ( I need to spend more time thinking about and writing about how I used this rubric and how it may need some revision.)

 

 

 

   

 

@gephillip

History Ed Blog Circle:March

04/17/2014

 

 

Our March question was: How do you asses historical thinking. I know it is the middle of April already, but I finally finished with a blog post for our history group. Here it is. 

Why didn't you teach me to think historically old social studies teacher?

Dear Social Teachers of my Past,

I know teachers usually teach in the they they were taught. Heck, most new parents use the parenting skills of their parents. But does that make this correct? Yes and No. While I am sure you are taking the best skills of the teachers of your past, don’t get sucked into the their worst traits. This means, don’t lecture any more! Well at least not all the time. You need to teach me to think, and history teachers, you needed me to think like a historian!

Throughout school, you always had us write essays, take tests, do projects, etc, etc, etc. While in school I thought you were trying to give us busy work, in reality you were trying to teach us to think historically, I think.  You believed that if students could memorize facts and repeat information, then they must be able to think like a historian. Well, not so fast my old teachers!

Today old teachers, I think it is more important to teach your students how to think historically. This reason maybe why history repeats itself! Most people have forgotten the facts they were made to memorize for the test! Here is how.

First, engage me in great questions. Yes you heard me, ask great questions. Not one of those Lower Blooms questions that I can simply Google or what you call a test that has multiple choice and fill in the blank questions, but give me something that will actually make me think. While I may not like it this moment, I will thank you later (which I have for the harder work you made me do!). Secondly, teach me to think historically. What does this mean? Well, teach me to look at viewpoints objectively, teach me to weigh and analyze conflicting evidence. Teach me to think for myself and be a great citizen. This is the tricky part, how do you do this?

First you need to teach me to ask questions. I need to be able to collect information from texts, images, videos, or any other type of Primary/Secondary source. Secondly, I need to be able to contextualize the information. What does that mean? Well it means I am able to put events in place and time. If I am reading a document from the 1800s, I can visualize time and place. Thirdly, I need to be able to carefully consider what the source is saying. I need to be able to understand the language they are using. Fourthly, I need to be able determine points of agreement and disagreement. I need to be able to compare and contrast these sources. Finally, I am able to make judgements about what is really being said.

As to not be to objective, make a rubric that has what you are expecting me to know based on the criteria above. Remember, I am a sponge and I want to learn. Teach me to ask questions, I will always use this skill.

Sincerely,
Me

Some of this information is based on the data I learned from http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/

 

http://www.reversingsocialstudies.com/1/post/2014/04/history-ed-blog-circlemarch.html

@WilliamABerry

Link to @WilliamABerry11 's post.

@pstrukel

In an effort to extend students' skills with primary documents, offer an arrhythmic assessment in the midst of a series of short course units, incorporate technology, and meet content expectations, I devised a project-based assessment for a unit that introduced students to the early years of the Cold War (1945-1960). As has typically been the case when I have facilitated a task like this, our class experienced mixed results. I would definitely incorporate this project again, but I would like to share some of my takeaways - partly so I don't allow frustration with imperfect results to shape future decisions.

The base information for the activity (with a link to a Google Doc that students were to copy and use as a collection tool) is found here: https://www.smore.com/9pj2g-unit-16-cold-war-am-history-10 . With this and an introductory video I made using Tellagami - both first-time tools for me - I was modeling technological experimentation for my students. I hoped to cultivate a sense of adventure with these. On our first day of working with this material, I shared some basic vocabulary terms as well as the background information pertinent to the start of the Cold War as the cooperating Allies concluded their efforts in World War II.

Using the resources of Stanford History Education Group , I offered students four documents to help them begin this process of gathering primary documents to support their conclusions. Students were encouraged to collaborate in their document work through prompts about the Novikov Telegram and Truman Doctrine. In sharing the letter from Henry Wallace to President Truman, I needed to underscore the postscript that Wallace was asked to resign after writing this letter. While we have been working with primary sources throughout the year, a number of students still need guidance on recognizing subtleties.  I need to emphasize the notes that primary documents often provide more intentionally in the future - in a manner similar to emphasizing the need to read directions.

While most of my students have become competent at interpreting primary documents, I overestimated their ability to distinguish primary sources from secondary ones. While the Stanford resources applied well to the first two unit goal questions, I recommended other websites https://bitly.com/bundles/pstrukel/1 to use as well. Students had access to the link as well as a QR code to direct them to this collection site. In first drafts of work submitted, students occasionally used one of the base sites as their primary source and quoted an introductory paragraph from it. "But I found it in the Bitly Bundle!" was exclaimed in defense of this maneuver; this led to a review session of how historians tell the story versus a more direct account anchored in the time period that sheds light on what happened. It would have been a worthwhile investment to exercise primary document recognition skills prior to having students tackle this work.

Students were not as adept at Google Doc sharing as I had anticipated. Reminding that the default setting keeps a document private was a daily announcement. An analogy that seemed to resonate with a number of students was that giving me a link without opening access to the document was like asking me to open a padlocked locker without providing a combination.

Positive aspects of this project included the number of skills that needed to be applied. From primary document recognition to communicating through a presentation tool, students were asked to create meaning and connect their ideas to the content. An example of an exceptional student product for the third unit goal is provided here: http://www.thinglink.com/scene/505796041249914882  . This student had used Thinglink in the past, and it was such an awesome feeling to see how she used this tool to convey her understanding of the content and application of primary sources! While I occasionally smile upon reading a solid essay, I rarely experience a "wow" to the degree that I did upon evaluating this work.

The interactive nature of the "turn-in" document was positive as well. Asking students to communicate what they wanted me to notice or what they liked about their work was not merely a nice gesture, but it asked them to reflect upon their work. I feel like I don't do this enough and, with about 150 students, it opened up the opportunity for conversations that simply can't occur in the confines of a class period. Students appreciated the chance to improve their work and use the comments that I offered. On the second day dedicated to this project, I showed students how I had commented on a student's Prezi using the turn-in document. There was an audible gasp in one of the class periods as they noticed that I had directly remarked on a request a student had made in her reflection column. "You mean that we can ask you if we think we did something wrong and then we'd have a chance to correct it?" Yes, that still counts as learning.

Mini-lessons on the processes and content at the beginning of each class period that served as a work session helped students. Since this unit introduced the Cold War, I knew that I had the opportunity to clarify widespread misunderstandings in future units that examine the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam War. Thus, the foundation of understanding could be guaranteed while the structures produced from the foundation could certainly be varied - at least over the course of this unit.

The scoring rubric performed as I hoped. It rewarded deeper thinking and synthesis. It offered a "C" to a student who capped his/her work with only one primary source on a unit goal. Because I use standards-based grading, the unit goal scores were recorded on a spreadsheet and a trend score was determined prior to establishing an overall percentage grade on the work. On a typical unit test, a student who does not "test out" of a unit goal, or standard, earns a score of "NYC" for "not yet competent" on the unit. This means that the student's grade stands as 50% until the lack of understanding is remedied. A similar principle was applied on this project since it served as a unit assessment: NYC conditions- Only secondary sources are used. Only a student's interpretation of the question is used. No citations are provided. Inaccuracies are frequent. Unfortunately, some students carried this as their score on this project as the calendar page flipped to fourth quarter. As an instructor, this is part of the eternal struggle; is it best to let unfinished work haunt a student for an entire grading period or to pinch a student's grade at the time of a grading period? Class-time work on this project concluded on March 28. Third quarter ended on April 4. Some students will opt to finish this project in a month that rhymes with "hey" for any number of reasons - just as is sometimes the case when a student is absent in the days prior to a test and postpones making it up until feeling completely ready.

This project provided many twists and turns for students and for the instructor implementing it for the first time. This wasn't the safest way to assess my students' understanding of the early stages of the Cold War. It wasn't the easiest way to determine the degree to which they grasped the struggle between the superpowers. This project didn't lead to a mundane weekend of correcting forty test questions. It stretched my students and me. It amplified the need to address supplementary skills over the course of the year. It showcased synthesis and rewarded persistence. It required students to tell a story anchored in historical documentation. As I reflect on it, it is essential to celebrate these victories rather than opting to take the beaten path of traditional assessment all of the time. I owe this to my strongest students and the ones who found ways to get lost on this winding path cannot be my impetus for selecting instructional methods. If I only act in accordance with the students who produce the least, I do a disservice to those who are willing and able to extend themselves. It is difficult to accept how often a desire to give all students a chance to succeed leads me to minimize my expectations.

 

 

March's Topic- How to Assess Historical Thinking

Based on this month’s poll, our theme for March is ‘How to Assess Historical Thinking’.  Since we all currently have students, this is a great time for us to discuss assignments, rubrics, and student work samples.

Here are some resources that, I think, connect to this prompt.

Writing w/ Evidence Rubric

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10hLKka0QjTd38yuAXRQYDSyFLrRNM_Gvd8jHqHjmmJ8/edit

Historical Thinking Skills (more rubrics)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG6cH7WOZRir59owB7Nnh_asvw6Par3Hei_dKELOAgM/edit

These two rubrics were shared by Stephen Lazar

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o1GxHRy2J93a6oxubDF40pUO4L0AC3siPyWcXsWtYHw/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xQt8UdpgM8n_K4CyXMoOJKpQwqj3vampnaheD4E9e84/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

@clclyne Colinda Clyne

In my response to Joe’s post, I outlined how I plan units using backward design, starting with the enduring understandings for the course, the exam and culminating assignment and a list of tentative assignments by unit. It took us a long time to flesh out the EUs, and they remain a work in progress since we have only had the new curriculum since September. Here is the link if you are interested https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UZJifkrX2E4KhErKIKhHIVGdFZzsORSbBMu5gYMRu0M/edit?usp=sharing The assignments are tentative as I like to have some flex (for reasons again explained in my response to Joe’s post). Each unit task uses the content of the unit as the vehicle through which students demonstrate their understanding of the historical thinking concepts. For example, the first assignment for the junior students is a personal time line. I like to start where they feel confident, knowledge of their own lives, and stretch them just a bit to try on historical thinking hats. So they choose an event for its historical significance, and analyse it using the criteria: well remembered, long-lasting, impact far reaching and reveals something. They then choose any one other of the Big Six, and explain how this one other thinking concept fits with a particular event. It is not earth-shattering, but a connection that I think is a nice segue into the critical thinking I am going to be asking them to do. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1VhUTdTRbhbZkxIcWJhX01nRFE/edit?usp=sharing For each big topic in the course, I pose a question that we will work to unravel. For the first unit which starts with the Great War, How did Canada change the war? How did the war change Canada? As we investigate the topics from specific battles to conscription to suffrage to seats at the Paris Peace Conference, students circle back to the essential question. The battle of Vimy Ridge is linked to Canadian pride and ingenuity on the battlefield, which led to the reputation as storm troopers, which led to international recognition separate from the Dominion, which led to increased autonomy. As much as possible, these little bits are gathered through inquiry and primary source investigation. This is still very much a work in progress for me. I am only back in the class since last year, having spent the last 10 years as a department head of Special Education (which has meant a guidance role for students with learning issues), and before that I mostly taught either congregated classes of special needs students or English. So much has changed, including my own perspective. And there is a real challenge in history, as the science curricula, of balancing the massive amount of curriculum with the time it takes to develop skilled investigative thinking and clear, concise reporting. I completely agree with Kaelyn that there is such a pressure of time, in the class, because inquiry takes longer, and on the teacher, because setting up inquiry takes longer. But every time through, it gets just a little bit better.

@PattiStrukel

Building Depth

Posted on February 23, 2014 by pstrukel

Reply

Whether or not I have designed meaningful learning activities determines the quality of my students’ learning, the energy of interactions in my classroom, and the depth of my students’ thoughts. The reality that hits me is that all of these components are – to some degree – controllable. Thus, I need to accept the responsibility for this mammoth task. What separates meaningful learning activities from those that are less fruitful is depth. Are students able to grow in their understanding? Are all students’ brains activated throughout the class period? Do students walk away from class feeling as though it was worthwhile to invest themselves in the work?

With apologies to James Carville, I offer this (to myself as much as anyone): it’s the depth, stupid. When a lesson has depth, it demands inquisitive thinking. In our recent unit on the 1920s, a handful of lessons achieved this. Prior to examining these, I should also mention that there are days as a history teacher in which the learning outcome demands exposure to an array of cultural figures and trends. One day of our 1920s unit bombarded students with names relating to art, literature, and music of the time. While these met the content needs, I had to make sure to offset the information overload with images from Georgia O’Keeffe and Frank Lloyd Wright, students being coached to swing eighth notes, and discussion about how playing rhythms that aren’t printed on the page are emblematic of other 1920s’ behaviors.

Although my last post shamed the textbook, it was invaluable as a resource for two of the activities we did as a way to streamline the information-gathering process. While students could have certainly used other resources to mine for ideas, it was convenient to use the predictability of textbook pages, especially when some of what they needed to gather was “hidden” in the plain black font of the book.
In “People of the 1920s” each student prepared to offer the perspective of assigned identity, visited with numerous other students, then completed a series of questions to reveal discoveries about the fears, changes, and consumer practices of the decade. When I designed this, it was necessary to select characters who offered perspectives on all of these topics and manipulate student interactions enough that I could feel assured that they would hear perspectives on all of these key ideas.

Using primary documents is a priority in my class. It requires students to construct meaning and offers them a more authentic feel for historians’ work. I modified Harding’s “Normalcy” speech, as presented through Teaching American History, offered some guiding questions for the document, and then asked students to compare Harding’s vision with what happened during his Presidency: Normalcy Activity . The culminating activity was a paragraph and directed students to use information about our foreign policy (specifically relating to tariffs) as well as the actions of Harding’s cabinet members.

Other activities offered insight on the 1920s and provoked student thought. When we examined racial discrimination of the 1920s, we watched this Twin Cities Public Television piece on the Duluth lynchings to discover the way that the Great Migration meant that racial cruelty sometimes moved north too.

The most challenging – and fun – activity aimed to demonstrate the broad spectrum of values that conflicted with each other during the 1920s. Prior to embracing historical inquiry methods, I would have been content to list these for students to record and share some examples of them. I probably would have been delighted to see them parrot my words on an assignment or test. The fact that I could write “1920s Speed Dating,” on the weekly calendar and draw a heart around it (on Valentine’s Day) made it even sweeter, but the activity offered a chance for students to uncover the clashes of the time. In working through these identities and knowing that they were going to converse with classmates, students needed to employ inference, apply personality, and even improvise a little during the activity. The result was a vibrant activity in which most students were able to uncover – for themselves – the diversity of ideas and people that emanated from this era. In future years, I would prefer to have students prepare their identities in advance so that the scaffolding of recalling the toxic and magical combinations they witnessed could be a more directed piece. However, 1920s Speed Dating, was a tremendous success in its ability to engage my sophomores and enrich their understanding.

When a teacher tosses students into inquiry activities, it seems as though students need to trust that the confusion they experience – and there will be confusion – will be short-term. With that in mind, a teacher needs to be content with letting this cloud of discomfort linger. Every student won’t feel like an ace right away, and some may only gain a surface understanding of the “punchline” in time. The payoff comes with the growth students experience, the interest that high-energy activities can generate, and the depth that offsets the zany pace of studying hundreds of years in 36 weeks.

http://mrsstrukel.edublogs.org/

@joetabhistory

Blog of Month February- Planning for Historical Thinking

Since the summer, I have spent many hours thinking about and discussing what I want to do more of in my history class. After thousands of tweets and many blog posts, now is the time for me to focus on specifics, to focus on what exactly I want to do in my classroom that is different from what I have done in the past. The History Blog Circle is an attempt to collaborate with others who are at various stages of a similar process, a process that at its core focuses on teaching students how to think like historians.

Starting last month and continuing indefinitely, I will continue to dig deeper as I explore what it means to think like an historian and how to set up a classroom that emphasizes this approach to teaching students about the past, present, and, I suppose, even the future.   

When I try to imagine change, I have found that sometimes it is helpful for me to start by defining what I don’t want to see. From there, I am often in a better position to conceptualize and articulate my vision, where I want to go and how I am going to get there. For the time being, that is going to be my approach with historical thinking. What are classrooms like where historical thinking is not occurring or only rarely occurs? And what can I do to avoid creating a classroom like this?

Students are quiet. Lots of teacher talk. 

I start with a basic assumption: When students are not writing or talking, I am severely limiting my opportunities to get them thinking about the past, to teach them specific historical thinking skills, and, in time, to assess their thinking, providing the feedback that is essential to help students become historical thinkers.

That is not to say that when I lecture students are not thinking. What, though, are they thinking about? I suspect that more often than not when we are talking, or ‘lecturing’, the chances that students are actually thinking about the topics we are discussing are often quite small.  If we cannot get students thinking aloud or on paper, then we cannot do much teaching. The best we can say that we are doing is talking; we are not teaching.

Assignments need to emphasize more than regurgitating content

Even a student with exceptional memory is not really learning much of value if all she can do is repeat what her teacher or her textbook says. As Grant Wiggins repeatedly reminds us, remembering is not understanding. Expecting and accepting recall of information as the main evidence of learning signals to students that the learning we value is primarily the learning associated with remembering, as opposed to understanding.

If superficial learning is the goal, then, indeed, little understanding is needed for students to demonstrate that they can remember content well enough to spit it back on a test. Knowing this, it is essential for me to consciously get students thinking on paper or out loud in class. Only then, can I push students to evaluate their thinking, the thinking of their classmates, their teacher, and all of the texts, written and unwritten, that we encounter in class.

Units and Lessons Need to Revolve around Questions

The Stanford Historical Education Group (SHEG) does this well. @William ABerry11 also discussed this in his post. I am still learning the best way to incorporate the SHEG model of lesson planning into my routine since the vast majority of the existing SHEG lessons do not connect to my Western Civ course.  When examining the SHEG lessons, you will notice that every lesson has a central question at the top the lesson plan. This approach, I think, is superior to structuring a lesson around a series of learning objectives, as many of us were taught in college when we first learned how to lesson plan.

I have noticed that the SHEG questions are usually fairly limited. They do not carry over into multiple lessons, the way that one of Grant Wiggins’ Essential Questions (EQs) does. I am also pretty sure that many of SHEGs questions revolve around why and how questions, as opposed to should or would questions.

As long as you are not attempting to build a lesson around a closed ended question, then this approach should work for you.  The bottom line here is that we set students up to construct a response to the lesson’s central question, requiring them to defend their position and support it with evidence derived from their analysis of primary and secondary sources.

How I have typically planned

Throughout my career, I have never planned my units and lessons in ways that are aligned with the best practices spelled out by Grant Wiggins and SHEG.

I like that Wiggins focuses on student understanding and transfer. He is eloquent in his articulation about why teaching discrete facts and isolated details is not meaningful. When I think about my history class, I have generally been content with teaching students information. When planning, I have typically started by making decisions about what I want to tell, or ‘teach’, students in class.

 In recent years, with the advent of department tests, my planning has revolved almost completely around the department tests. I have decided what to tell students by looking at the test. This is not what a good history teacher does. In fact, this is not what a good teacher does. What, then, do good history teachers do?

I have to decide what big ideas and essential understandings I am going to focus on in class.

I have been reading Grant Wiggins’ text Understanding by Design, where he discusses how teachers can teach students in a meaningful way, as opposed to providing them with superficial instruction that for all intents and purposes is a waste of time.

Wiggins emphasizes teaching for transfer, teaching students to use the concepts and skills they learn in your class in new and varied situations. Wiggins asserts, and I agree, that this type of deeper, lasting learning is not common.

Why? Wiggins premise is that it is not common because of how teachers teach. And, to tie these comments back to this month’s topic, how teachers teach is connected with how they plan their units and lessons.

If I am honest, I do not plan to teach for understanding, in the manner discussed by Wiggins. What do teachers who plan and teach using UbD principles do? What do they do that I do not do?

More to come…

@WilliamABerry11

Link to William's post.

@KaelynBullock

Challenges of Planning for Historical Thinking

This is my first year of putting Historical Thinking skills to the test. Now that students have turned in their National History Day projects, I have mixed results about how skilled they are at this point. You can read some of my thoughts on my blog.

In some ways, my quest for historical thinking is going reasonably well. This week I am looking forward to EdCafe's. Students picked up a short article about a war of religion from The Flow of History website. This weekend they are doing light research on a modern religious conflict. Wednesday they will lead small group discussions comparing the two religious conflicts.

Recently I set out to plan units on Reconstruction and Absolute Monarchs. In both classes I have decided to begin classes with “hooks” of primary sources to begin class and get students to explore the topic and a key question. The rest of class is spent digging into the content via lecture. On the assessment I am sure to include an overarching questions that  must argue something about the era. Not too bad.

I would criticize my own approach above by saying its too teacher-centric. As I went to plan these units, I wanted to find big, non-googleable questions. I wanted the students to work to find some sources and I wanted to introduce new sources that would challenge their thinking. I wanted them to create and present products.

Why does my reality fall short of my ideal?

As I plan, I run into some pressures and problems. First, I love these two eras. I think they are full of so much rich, interesting content. I don’t want leave anything out.  Second, I struggle with time. I think the scope of my courses are too big. I know Common Core standards alleviate the need to cover everything, but after teaching this content for eight years, it is hard cut things out. But how far will I really get if I start at the beginning of time and just barely make it to World War II. Third, at our school and in the media we are bombarded with messages that students are too stressed out. School work is a major contributor to that stress. From what I remember of my high school history classes there was little homework and very few projects. We mostly took notes, studied them, and took a test. That sequence of events is not very stressful. I strive for more than that in my classroom. I want deep thinking and rich projects. That can take up a lot of class time and/or a lot of home time.

I’m certainly not giving up on teaching historical thinking skills, simply acknowledging the many challenges that stand in the way. Do others of you feel those pressures? Have you found ways to overcome them?

Historical Thinking Planning

     Historical thinking: how can we get students to engage in it? How do we even plan for something that students have a hard time doing? Hopefully this entry and some experiences, both positive and negative in my years of teaching might help others on this issue. So here goes!
     The first thing I do is look at what standards I have to teach for that particular unit. I know there has been a lot of issues with the Common Core, but to be honest, standards are standards and as much change that I have seen in education with the content still does not diminish my ability to teach historical thinking. I usually take those standards and make them into learning goals with "I will be able to" statements. For example:


Content Statement: 19. The United States followed a policy of containment during the Cold War in response to the spread of communism.

Is turned into a learning goal:


I will be able to cite reasons for the Cold War and examine how the US responded.   

     Then I figure out what vocabulary I want the students to know and apply to that particular learning goal. Here is where your professional judgement kicks in: how much vocabulary do I include for each learning goal?? History has the pitfall of drowning students in vocabulary. I had my curriculum director who asked me this question: what vocabulary would you be embarrassed to find out that your students did not know after leaving your class? Now it does not mean you cannot work in the vocabulary during the unit. However I usually have 5-10 words per learning goal. I think if students are going to be engaged in historical thinking they have to know the people, places, events and content that is specific to that time period.
      While I am not the biggest fan of textbooks, I do believe they can add to your arsenal of tools to use when getting your students to think historically. First, you can use it to give them an idea of sequencing which is important in historical thinking. Second, reading that type of informational text is a part of the Common Core and will allow you to do good reading activities that will engage the students. For example, Stump the Teacher is one of my favorites! Have students read 5-7 pages and then try to stump you with questions on anything. It is great way to have your students dig into the content. But remember, historical thinking is not just the text. You have to get your students out of the book and have them engage in primary document reading.
     The second thing I look for are good primary documents. Reading, discussing, analyzing and sharing thoughts on these documents is one of the key features in getting students to think historically. They have to be able to look at the past through the eyes of people who lived it and these types of documents are truly invaluable to that process. A couple of pitfalls here. First, don't give your students lengthy documents that are overly complicated. Make sure to read the document first and if you have to, cut the document down to size. There is nothing wrong with selectively editing a document so your students get the main point of the author (s) without taking away from the meaning. Here is what I did for the Atlanta Compromise Speech by Booker T. Washington:
Atlanta Compromise Speech parts
     Secondly, don't let your students read these alone! Have them in groups to pull the collective genius together. They need to bounce ideas off each other and work through them no matter how difficult they are. You can mix ability group your students too so some of the better readers can contribute to the rest of the group. This has really worked well for me.
     Another tip for primary documents is to hand out note cards or post it notes so if students don't know a vocab word that is in the document, they can write it on the card/post it and you can define it for the whole class. Planning for this takes time and you really have to match the document (s) with your learning goal. Also, to get students to really think historically, using these documents takes a lot of time for them to process so you have to use your documents strategically. 
     I think writing and writing often is key in historical thinking for students. I always plan a lot of writing during my units. Now having said that, it does not mean that only lengthy essays are needed here. I do a lot of formative writing pieces: exit/entry slips, "answering" the learning goals, summarizing, etc. The more students learn how to incorporate "evidence" into their writing, even if it is a few vocab words here and there, the closer we can get them into the historical thinking mode. Incorporating this type of writing really helps you to show students that writing about history is key in historical thinking.
     Once I have most (if not all) of this planned out, assessing the students' historical thinking is next on the planning agenda. I have moved away from the traditional tests of MC, T/F, fill-ins etc in favor of short vocab quizzes with broader, more "historical thinking" type of assessments. What does that look like? Here is an example of our Take Home Open Note assessment for the 1920s:
20s Assessment
     I think the use of political cartoons and thesis defense (even if you give it to them) is very helpful in teaching historical thinking. I think giving students broader, less "this is the correct answer" type questions really adds to the historical thinking mindset. I pitfall of doing this, especially if it is a "take home" or "open note" assessment is the fear of plagiarism or cutting and pasting. However, if you frame your questions in terms of the learning goal and you write good questions, students still have to demonstrate knowledge of the material and you can (and really should) check for students copying, especially if you have your students turn things in digitally. 
  As history teachers, we naturally think historically and the difficult task is to transfer that natural ability to our students. Modelling, using a variety of sources (not just the text) and having the students will all help to engage your students in the historical thinking process. Here are some helpful resources in your journey to historical thinking:
Books 
Choices 
     If you have questions or comments, feel free to contact me:  
Twitter
+Michael Wolski