Ohio Social Studies Review
2015/2016 Advisory Council
Executive Editor
Victoria Stewart, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH
Associate Editor
Nancy Patterson, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
Editorial Assistants
Jennifer Fleck, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH
Yifei Li, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
Central Representatives
Johnny Merry, Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School, Columbus, OH
Steve Shapiro, Mosaic School, Columbus, OH
Northeast Representatives
Sara Leffler, Akron Garfield High School, Akron, OH
Matt Hollstein, Kent State University Stark, North Canton, OH
Northwest Representative
Adam Steinmetz, Fremont Middle School, Fremont, OH
Southeast Representative
Jennifer Hinkle, Ohio University, Athens, OH
Southwest Representative
Chris Prokes, Sinclair Community College, Dayton, OH
2015/2016 Peer Review Board
Brian A. Ahrns, Glass City Academy, Bowling Green, OH
Cheryl Ayers, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC
Catherine Baker, Maumee Valley Country Day School, Toledo, OH Nick Bardo, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Michael Berson, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Chara Bohan, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
Kristy Brugar, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Matt Carlstrom, Shared Service Center, Columbus, OH
Prentice Chandler, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
David Childs, Northern Kentucky University, Newport, KY
Steven Corbin, Consultant, East Rockaway, NY
Bob Dahlgren, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY
Scott DeWitt, Knox College, Galesburg, IL Frans Doppen, Ohio University, Athens, OH
Chris Dyer, St. Francis de Sales High School, Toledo, OH
Josh Feinberg, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
John Fischer, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
Anthony Francis, Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Lisa Handyside, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
Todd Hawley, Kent State University, Kent, OH
William Hilt, Perrysburg Junior High School, Perrysburg, OH
Jennifer Hinkle, Ohio University, Athens, OH
Matthew Hollstein, Kent State University Stark, North Canton, OH
Todd Kenreich, Towson University, Towson, MD
Jennifer Lawless, Toledo Public Schools, Toledo, OH
Sara Leffler, Akron Garfield High School, Akron, OH
Ashley Lucas, Towson University, Towson, MD
Brad Maguth, University of Akron, Akron, OH
Kaye Martin, Ohio University-Lancaster, Lancaster, OH
Jane Menzie, Sylvania Schools, Sylvania, OH
Johnny Merry, Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School, Columbus, OH
Thomas Misco, Miami University, Oxford, OH
Jeff Passe, Towson University, Towson, MD
Mark Pearcy, Rider University, Lawrence, NJ
Chris Prokes, Sinclair Community College, Dayton, OH
James Schul, Winona State University, Winona, MN
Brandi Sharlow, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH
James M. Shively, Miami University, Oxford, OH
Carey Smith, Waite High School, Toledo, OH
Josh Spiegel, Perrysburg High School, Perrysburg, OH
Adam Steinmetz, Fremont Middle School, Fremont, OH
Caroline Sullivan, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
Jennifer Summerlin, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
Ashly H. Ward, Swanton High School, Toledo, OH
Bethany Vosburg-Bluem, Otterbein University, Westerville, OH
Annie Whitlock, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI
Gloria Wu, Bowsher High School, Toledo, OH
Bruce Wendt, Billings West High School, Billings, MT
Paul Yoder, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Table of Contents
Editors’ Comments
1
Special Feature
Joe Boyle, When the Cure is Worse than the Disease: Applying New Cancer Therapies to School Reform
2
Social Studies in Practice
Jason Harshman and Tami Augustine, Using Informal Social Studies Education Spaces and Mobile Technology in Teacher Education
4
Lisa Kelly Pennington, The Tokyo Trial: Segue to the Cold War
17
Michael A. Kopish, A Treatise for Teaching Writing in Social Studies: Beliefs, Purpose, Instruction, and Design
31
David Jason Childs, Jordan River I’m Bound to Cross: Using Digital Sources to Teach about Slavery and the Underground Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio
42
Scott W. DeWitt and Maureen Andreadis, The Biography Blog Project: Using the C3 Inquiry Arc and Technology to Develop Students’ Historical Skills
52
Nathan R. Whitman: A Comparison of the Impacts of PQ4R and Mind Mapping
63
Social Studies in Research
Legislative Update
Brad Maguth, A Legislative Update for the Ohio Social Studies Community 73
Special Feature
Joe Boggs, One Teacher’s View: A Call to Reevaluate the Resident Educator Program
74
EDITORS’ COMMENTS
p
Civic discourse is essential to democratic citizenship, and the current issue of the Ohio Social Studies
Review offers readers examples of teachers’ engagement with such practice. The issue opens and closes
with special features that call for action. Joe Boyle’s piece opens the issue with a thought-provoking
perspective on the state of education in Ohio in When the Cure Is Worse than the Disease: Applying New
Cancer Therapies to School Reform. The issue closes with Joe Bogg’s commentary, One Teacher’s View: A Call
to Reevaluate the Resident Educator Program, describing his experience and appeals to us to learn more
about this topic. Brad Maguth’s legislative update raises our awareness of the Ohio SB3 as well as grant
opportunities in the Every Student Succeeds Act.
In between, the issue offers five practitioner articles and one research piece. Interestingly, all six
manuscripts have inquiry and academic challenge as their central focus. Using Informal Social Studies
Education Spaces and Mobile Technology in Teacher Education (Harshman and Augustine) describes an
innovative way to use museum field trips to support and extend social studies work in the area of critical
pedagogy and social justice.
Three articles address the development of students’ historical thinking skills through the use of
technology and historic documents, focusing on alternative historical perspectives that present challenge
and interest for students. The Tokyo Trial: Segue to the Cold War (Pennington) shares a valuable collection
of primary documents used in critical ways to teach a powerful and salient yet often overlooked historical
event. Jordan River I’m Bound to Cross: Using Digital Sources to Teach about Slavery and the Underground
Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio (Childs) offers another set of documents, most of which are available in
online archives. The Biography Blog Project: Using the C3 Inquiry Arc and Technology to Develop Students’
Historical Skills (DeWitt and Andreadis) describes how a blog project engendered student motivation and
interest in both research and world history topics.
Two articles address literacy strategies for accessing informational texts. In A Treatise for Teaching Writing
in Social Studies: Beliefs, Purpose, Instruction, and Design, Kopish and Stapleton propose evidence-based
principles as well as tools for social studies practitioners who struggle to teach writing. An Analysis of the
Effectiveness between PQ4R and Mind Mapping (Whitman) is the one formal study in this issue. It compares
the impacts of mind mapping strategies with the Preview, Question, Read, Reflect, Recite, Review method in
two 10th grade social studies classes.
We heartily thank all our talented authors and sincerely hope you enjoy the inquiry focus of this issue.
Please consider submitting a manuscript of your own at http://edhd.bgsu.edu/ossr/journal/index.php/
ossr/index.
Victoria Stewart, Executive Editor, University of Toledo
Nancy Patterson, Associate Editor, Bowling Green State University
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
1
WHEN THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE:
APPLYING NEW CANCER THERAPIES
TO SCHOOL REFORM
Joe Boyle, Toledo Public Schools
m
Editor’s note: The following is adapted from the keynote speech Mr. Boyle gave at the Ohio
Council for the Social Studies 2015 Conference Urban Summit.
For the last five years, teaching in Ohio has felt like a life or death struggle for many of us. The
problems currently facing education – literacy levels, graduation rates, and preparedness not just
for careers, but to understand and interpret a world changing faster than we can – are in many
ways like a cancer we must address before it kills us. While state policies have attempted to
treat this cancer, the policy ideas represent a 1950s approach to cancer treatment. Using radical
surgeries, indiscriminate radiation, and chemotherapy regimens kill the healthy cells along with
the weak, and the side effects leave the patient sicker than they were in the first place.
Over the six years since educational chemotherapy—new standards, new testing plans, OTES1,
TBTs2, EOCs3, PBAs4, growth targets, and dozens of other needlessly invasive policies—has
become the norm, leaving educators feeling listless and beleaguered and our vocation looking
sickly and weak, I’ve learned a lot about actual cancer. Through this experience, I have learned
that, our path forward asserting the importance of social studies can be found in the new ways
doctors attack cancer.
The week after OGTs5 in 2011, I was on top of the world personally and professionally. Under
the surface, however, something strange was happening. I had stomach pains and back pain for
a while, which I attributed to running 35 miles a week. Finally, I went to the emergency room,
hoping for a simple fix. Instead, my world crashed around me. I had metastatic kidney cancer.
My situation wasn’t entirely hopeless, but it sure felt like it at the time. I’d be lucky to live out the
year. It would be a miracle to make it five years. Everyone can imagine the reassessments of life
that happen when you’re told the clock is ticking toward midnight.
My anxiety over my health mirrored my anxiety over my profession. When I won a regional
Teacher of the Year award, the very kind nominations all centered on how I helped kids pass the
Ohio Graduation Test. As I sat recovering for days that turned into weeks, weeks that turned
into months, I wondered: Is this it? Is this what makes a teacher a “good” teacher? Getting kids
to achieve what is, essentially, a 50 percent on a mostly multiple-choice test? I came to the
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
2
understanding that my body wasn’t the only thing sick here. My profession was pretty sick, too.
A cancer diagnosis forces you to be a reflective practitioner on how you live your life. The fact is,
we are all dying. That’s a great equalizer, as is this: We all get to choose how to spend our time.
As social studies teachers, most of us came into teaching because we love how social studies
helped us make sense of the world. We love that feeling you get when in a historic place, that we
knew a little something about the place and could feel the past envelop us.
Thinking about this, who among us wants to spend our time on parlor tricks to beat a multiplechoice question?
The state’s efforts at treating our profession were, essentially, chemotherapy: Fire all the teachers!
Close the building! Make it a charter! Create more hoops to jump through to license new
teachers! Complicate the teacher evaluation process! Is it any wonder so many so-called reforms
make our schools look sick? We have been on chemo! If killing a few bad cells is good, killing
all the cells must be better!
These treatments were making us sick, and in social studies, arguably sicker than in other
disciplines. The treatments took us away from doing what we do best — mining our personal and
local history and tying it into greater narratives – and instead made history a paint-by-number. State
policies didn’t transform how we assess; they destroyed our soul.
To treat my personal cancer, I drive to the Cleveland Clinic every two weeks to get an infusion
of what looks like chemo but is really a new form of treatment called immunotherapy. In
immunotherapy, doctors don’t want chemicals to solve the problem; they want the body to solve
its own problems. Immunotherapies essentially take the brakes off the immune system and train
the body to attack the cancer itself.
It’s a powerful, incredible concept if we apply it to education. What if we trained ourselves – our
professional body – to take the brakes off, and attack the multiple cancers facing our schools and
communities in a targeted method, instead of the indiscriminate, kill-everything approach of chemo?
Let’s take the brakes off. Let’s get kids immersed in fun primary sources, in meaningful historic
debates that mirror present challenges. Let’s decide to make every moment in our classroom
count for something great, where every experience brings a kid that much closer to finding out
who they are, and how they connect to this world. That’s a life worth living, and a career worth
fighting for.
With targeted therapies, created by our professional bodies, we can save our profession, save our
students, and save our communities.
is a Social Studies Teacher at Morrison R. Waite High School, Toledo, Ohio. He can be
reached at [email protected].
Joe Boyle
1
Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
2
Teacher Based Teams
3
End of Course (exams)
4
Performance Based Assessments
5
Ohio Graduation Test
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
3
USING INFORMAL SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION SPACES
AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHER EDUCATION
Jason Harshman, University of Iowa
Tami Augustine, The Ohio State University
p
Abstract
This article details how two social studies methods instructors designed a museum visit to
support and extend work done on critical pedagogy and social justice in social studies teacher
education. We draw upon research on using museum field trips in teacher education (Kaschak,
2014) and informal science education institutions (ISEIs) (Kisiel, 2010) to discuss the relationship
between teacher education and informal social studies education spaces (ISSES). In addition
to discussion of course work and teaching materials used to prepare teacher candidates for
the museum visit—including work with mobile technology—this article includes methods used
before, during, and after a visit to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The strategies and resources discussed in this article align with state social studies standards
and Common Core State Standards, and are applicable to the work of social studies teachers in
grades 6-12 as well as teacher educators.
Thirty teacher candidates enrolled in middle childhood and secondary social studies methods
courses traveled with their instructors to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center in
Cincinnati, Ohio, to learn about and critically examine how slavery and abolition are discussed
in U.S. history and today. Drawing upon readings and learning exercises in courses that included
discussion of social (in)justice and analysis of the social studies curriculum, teacher candidates
entered the museum not as passive learners, but as critically minded students of history in search
of perspectives and information they could transfer to their respective classrooms as student
teachers.
Researchers have found that teachers recognize the value of public sites “as places that could
enhance their teaching, either by providing materials/resources for the classroom or by helping
them learn [content and pedagogy] as teachers” (Kisiel, 2013, p. 67). The methods and strategies
discussed in this article were informed by research-based best practices for using public spaces—
what we the authors call “informal social studies education spaces” (ISSES)—as instructional
resources in social studies and teacher education. Informed by our literature review, we designed
class sessions, learning exercises, and a museum visit to answer the following questions: Acknowledgment We would like to thank the Underground Railroad Freedom Center for offering a reduced admission rate for our
students.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
4
(a) How can social studies teachers and teacher educators use a museum visit to teach about
social (in)justice in a historical and contemporary sense? and (b) In what ways do teacher
candidates apply what they learn in teacher education courses about critical thinking, mobile
technology, and pedagogy to museum displays depicting historical and contemporary issues? In
this article we detail how we organized course work and facilitated the museum visit, including
how mobile technology was incorporated in social studies methods courses, followed by
discussion of how the museum visit can inform the work of preservice social studies teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Learning Before the Museum Field Trip
Recognizing that a field trip is not just for entertainment or to offer a change of routine, we
were intentional about how we prepared teacher candidates for the field trip, engaged them at
the site, and asked them to reflect on what they learned. During the course planning process,
we reviewed research and literature on the use of museums for professional development
(Riviera Maulucci & Brotman, 2010) and in teacher education (Baron, 2013; Baron, Woyshner,
& Haberkan, 2014; Kaschak, 2014; Kisiel, 2013). Because the course was framed by work on
critical pedagogy in the social studies (Evans, 2008; Friere, 1973; Ross, 2006; Stanley, 2001;
Zinn, 1999) and social justice education (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007; Kumashiro, 2009;
Rethinking Schools, 2007), the museum was discussed with teacher candidates as a space filled
with texts to be critically analyzed and used to teach about social (in)justice in U.S. history and
in relation to contemporary issues. Additionally, we draw upon Kisiel’s (2010) work on the use of
informal science education institutions (ISEIs) to inform our conceptualization of ISSES.
Informal educational sites “offer more to teachers than just field trip destinations—they have
the potential to provide ideas for pedagogy as well as support deeper development of teachers’
science knowledge” (Kisiel, 2010, p. 67). With science and social studies teachers facing a
reduction in time and resources due to assessments that emphasize literacy and math education
(Kisiel, 2010; Leming, Ellington, & Schug, 2006; Riviera Maulucci & Brotman, 2010; Wills,
2007), both see the value of using informal learning spaces to support their respective curricula.
Informal educational spaces that encompass concepts and content pertinent to the social studies
include, but are not limited to, museums, landmarks, monuments, and statues, as well as parks,
battlefields, and cemeteries (Baron, et al., 2014; Waters & Russell, 2013).
Quality instruction about the educative nature of museums in advance of a visit “strongly
influence[s] how much of an impact a field trip can have on participants’ information retention”
(Pace & Tesi, 2004, p. 31). In line with this recommendation, our social studies methods courses
were informed by the following research-based best practices:
• Preparation for a field trip cannot be approached as an “add-on” to course material but must
instead be integrated and discussed on more than one occasion so that teacher candidates
have “the knowledge and skills to be able to deconstruct historic materials and places prior
to their exposure as in-service teachers” (Baron, et al., 2014, p. 211).
• Course work “such as a prelesson on related material or a specific list of exhibits to be
viewed [is] correlated with an assignment to accomplish in the museum or directly after the
trip” (Falk, Moussouri, & Coulson, 1998, p. 32).
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
5
In the sections that follow, we detail how we integrated experiential learning, mobile technology,
and connections to curriculum that would be examined at the museum within our social studies
courses. Course Materials on Race and Slavery
Teacher candidates read a number of texts that required them to rethink what they had learned
about slavery and U.S. history. For example, we used chapter one of Derrick Bell’s (1987) And
We Are Not Saved about a fictional character, Geneva Crenshaw, who travels back in time to the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA, to warn the writers of the Constitution about the
problems that will remain in the United States if they do not abolish slavery. Class discussions
addressed the centrality of property within the U.S. Constitution and the motives of the white,
wealthy, land-owning men who determined, not only how the U.S. government would operate,
but also that men and women of African descent would be considered property.
The Ohio State University served as an ISSES during the courses as teacher candidates viewed
a short film about local history (WOSU, 2013) and completed a walking tour that included
reading five informational markers on campus that detail the history of the Underground
Railroad in Columbus. At the conclusion of their walking tour, teacher candidates met at a
branch of the Columbus Public Library to examine books and videos about slavery. Critically
analyzing the materials at the library for local connections and representative voices served as a
scaffolding exercise for teacher candidates to question what they had been taught about slavery
and abolition before visiting the museum.
Students were also required to view two feature films outside of class meetings prior to the
museum visit: 12 Years a Slave (2013) and Lee Daniels’ The Butler (2013). An exhibit about
Solomon Northup, whose life and writings upon which 12 Years a Slave is based, provided an
opportunity for teacher candidates to compare the film version of his life with what the museum
presented. This comparative analysis was designed to assist teacher candidates in thinking about
how they will ask students to not only examine perspectives of history, but also the value of
using different text types to foster critical literacy skills. Teacher candidates were required to view
The Butler, because despite the abolition of slavery they had learned about as students and would
revisit at the museum, Jim Crow, segregation, and intense racism continue to touch many corners
of the United States. This film prompted them to question the acts taken by the federal and state
governments of the United States between the end of the U.S. Civil War and the 1960s as part of
their ongoing examination of social injustice in the social studies curriculum. The books, films,
experiential learning exercises, and class discussions used in the methods courses informed
the questions that teacher candidates designed and used to guide their initial inquiries at the
museum (see Appendix A). The design of inquiry questions meant teacher candidates entered
the museum as active learners armed with mobile technology and a critical disposition toward
how history is constructed. Mobile Technology and Teacher Education
Despite our students being part of a generation that has grown up with unparalleled access to
mobile technology, we observed limits to how teacher candidates use technology. According to
the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for teachers, educators
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
6
and those who are learning to become professional educators should possess information and
communication technology (ICT) literacy skills that include using technologies “for accessing,
gathering, manipulation, and presentation or communication of information” (ISTE, 2012). How
and for what purposes teacher candidates use technology with their own students is directly
related to how teacher education courses “contribute to preservice teachers’ perceptions of the
value of technology” since “teachers often employ only the tools used by those who have taught
before them” (Kaufman, 2014, p. 3).
With a growing desire to incorporate technology in the K-12 classroom, teacher education
programs must do more to ensure teacher candidates and early career teachers possess
technology-related literacy skills (Maguth & Harshman, 2013; Stobaugh & Tessel, 2011).
Understanding that these responsibilities must be assumed by the course instructor, and in line
with research-based suggestions on the need for teacher candidates to have multiple opportunities
to work with technology and discuss the relevancy of technology to teaching, mobile technology
devices were used to access, evaluate, and create information prior to, during, and after the
museum visit. Students used smartphone and tablet apps such as Redlaser to scan quick response
(QR) codes that connected to videos, audio recordings, articles, and other web-based materials
that served as counterpoints to typical historical narratives. Teacher candidates also used mobile
technologies to create digital storyboards (ex., Animoto and Slidestory), interactive timelines (ex., Dipity and Storify), and social media platforms such as Tumblr and Twitter before and after the
museum visit. Teaching and Learning During the Museum Field Trip
All 30 undergraduate students enrolled in the two social studies methods courses had attended
middle school and high school in the state of Ohio, but none had ever visited the Underground
Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati. One goal of the museum visit was to help teacher
candidates understand how “educators can use museums to teach content that is squarely
situated within the curriculum, and they can do so in more interesting, authentic ways than in
the traditional classroom” (Brugar, 2012, p. 33). We also wanted to engage teacher candidates
in more critical thinking about the narratives they were taught as high school and college
students with regard to slavery, abolition, U.S. history, and contemporary issues such as human
trafficking. To achieve these goals, we asked teacher candidates to think of the exhibits, short
films, and primary and secondary sources they would interact with at the museum as texts and
models for differentiating how they can present information to students, and how the use of
technology can enhance inquiry and the educational value of museums. The literature recommends that students be provided with structured engagement activities such
as worksheets and scavenger hunts, as well as unstructured engagement that allows students
to develop their own questions and investigations (Riviera Maulucci & Brotman, 2010). The
handout that teacher candidates were provided upon arriving at the Freedom Center was
codesigned by the instructors to serve as both a tool for exploring the museum as well as a
model for teacher candidates to adapt when presenting their own students with multimedia
texts (Appendix B). The handout was provided to avoid repeating the missed opportunities
researchers had uncovered previously. They found that instructors rarely engaged the visiting
teachers in source analysis, but rather in “show-and-tell” sessions (Long, 2006; Pesick &
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
7
Weintraub, 2003) that relied on passive instructional methods, particularly lecture (Baron,
2013). Candidates in this case were not required to follow a single path through the museum
since the guiding worksheet was structured around concepts pertaining to social injustice and
history instead of a collection of facts. This was done to model that when educators design
activities in which students move from one “exhibit” to another, there must be a balance between
collecting information, reflecting on learning, and discussion of concepts.
After 90 minutes, students received a message through the texting service Remind to meet
with another student to discuss what they had learned since arriving at the museum and the
new questions they had developed. Bringing teacher candidates together to discuss concepts
pertinent to a critical reading of U.S. history rather than focusing on content information gleaned
from placards and exhibits illustrated how a “jigsaw activity” is more effective when it is not
used to save time, reduce how much students read during a class session, or simply share bits
of information to produce a more well-rounded understanding of an event or topic. Instead,
by using a jigsaw approach to focus on big ideas (in this case, critical readings of U.S. history
through a social justice lens) and allowing students to teach one another, a more meaningful
conversation between participants occurred before they returned to the self-guided tour. What
follows is a brief discussion of some of the exercises and resources students completed while
visiting the Freedom Center. Teaching About Slavery Today
Materials studied prior to and during the museum trip prompted examination of social
injustice across time and place, to include discussion of historical slavery, 20th-century civil
rights movements, and human trafficking today. According to a 2011 report published by
the Human Trafficking Commission that operates through the office of the State Attorney
General of Ohio, approximately 1,100 Ohio children are victims of human trafficking networks
(Human Trafficking Commission, 2011). The Freedom Center’s “Modern Abolition” exhibit
addresses issues of sex trafficking, labor abuses, and acts of resistance taken by individuals and
organization around the world (Freedom Center, 2013). To help students draw connections
between the exhibits about modern slavery on a global scale and local perspectives, the handout
included QR codes that students scanned to access resources about human trafficking in Ohio.
One QR code links to a Youtube video about Theresa Flores, a woman from Ohio who had been
trafficked, escaped, and who now works as an awareness advocate in the state (TEDXColumbus,
2011). A second QR code provided access to the report identified above that includes a list
of indicators that someone is being trafficked and how to assist in the elimination of human
trafficking in the 21st century.
Contemplative Practice
Contemplative practices can foster further exploration of our internal worlds, that involve critical
examination of information and experiences. Emerging research on contemplative practices states
that such pedagogy is important to course work focusing on social justice education (Berila,
2014; Kahane, 2009; Nepo, 2010) so that teachers and students understand that “oppression
does not operate on merely an intellectual level. It is painful and embodied” (Berila, 2014). Prior
to entering the slave pen that was built in the early 1800s and recovered from Mason County,
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
8
Kentucky (Freedom Center, 2013), students accessed a website via QR code that provided
slave narratives describing the cultural landscape of the plantation, specifically detailing the
living quarters of enslaved peoples. Upon entering the slave pen, students were encouraged
to sit silently as they reflected upon the slave narratives and classroom discussions around the
dehumanizing treatment of men and women of African descent as property. Making Connections to Previous Experiences
Students had access to a video about the Underground Railroad in Columbus to draw
connections to the other ISSES they had visited. The video included discussion of the Black
Laws—a topic they had not learned about previously—that limited the types of jobs African
Americans could hold. They learned that though Ohio was a free state, “freedom was a relative
term. While you are free here, the parameters around you are very, very tight” (WOSU, 2012,
0:37). The significance and irony of this point while visiting the Freedom Center that it sits in
full view of the Ohio River, a boundary between slave and free territory during the 19th century.
This informed our discussions about theory and practice around freedom, democracy, and social
justice at the museum and during the following class session. After four hours, students met with their respective instructors inside the museum to discuss
what they had learned with regard to social injustice in U.S. history (aside from slavery in
general), how they used their mobile technology devices as tools for inquiry, and how the
organization of the museum and the ways in which information was presented helped them
think about how they would organize learning activities for students. Students used the
information gathered on the handouts, resources accessed via mobile technology, and personal
reflections to inform the written response they completed at the conclusion of the experience.
Teaching and Learning After the Museum Field Trip
The class discussions that occurred during the subsequent class sessions revealed attitudinal
shifts and enduring understandings by the teacher candidates including: (a) the narratives of
slavery in the United States that have been constructed within curriculum and textbooks are
incomplete and do not include enough black voices and perspectives, (b) the ways in which
social (in)justice permeates U.S. history and is still an issue within U.S. society is too often
neglected, and (c) social studies teachers directly and indirectly teach critical literacy skills that
students can apply when they visit ISSES.
The class session immediately following the museum visit included analysis of the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) for literacy in 4th-10th grade history/social studies (CCSS, 2013), as well
as a revisiting of the state social studies curriculum for Ohio (ODE, 2014). Teacher candidates
were asked to identify the Common Core standards with which the museum exhibits aligned
and to provide specific examples of exhibits and information accessed to support their claims.
They noted that using a museum-based presentation of materials and information would align
with CCSS, because students would be required to use primary and secondary sources, compare
competing points of view on a similar topic, analyze the structure of a text, and use multiple text
formats, such as videos, photos, letters, and more to respond to text-based questions.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
9
While reviewing the state social studies curriculum, teacher candidates were asked to pay
particular attention to how slavery is discussed in U.S. history, the extent to which contemporary
issues pertaining to human rights such as human trafficking are included in history and
government courses, and to identify the materials they found using mobile technology during
and after the museum visit that would help them incorporate multiple and critical perspectives
in their social studies classrooms. Many students drew upon The Butler when reviewing the state
curriculum to point out that the tensions and intense racism that was discussed in the film was
largely absent from the “essentials to know” for 20th-century U.S. history.
Implications for Social Studies Teacher Education
Even though only a few student teachers ultimately would be responsible for teaching Ohio
history, these experiences provided teacher candidates with a new appreciation for the
importance of teaching local and state history. Additionally, there was consensus that the
use of mobile technology helped them think more creatively about how to use these tools
with students. Teacher candidates agreed, however, that the affordability of field trips for
K-12 students and schools, the availability of time to be away from school for such learning
experiences, and the reduction in instructional time for social studies makes field trips difficult
to implement. Partnerships, as outlined by the Institute for Museum and Library Services, are
needed to build a “fabric of social agencies that facilitates lifelong learning among learners of
all ages” (IMLS, 2004, p. 7). Moving forward, teacher education classrooms are encouraged to
deliberate the role that museums and other educative spaces can play in supporting citizenship
and history education.
One way to build bridges between the K-12 classroom, teacher education, and ISSES is to
design learning activities that require the integration of digital archives, museum websites, and
other online collections available to the public to create virtual field trips (Stoddard, 2009).
The resources teachers provide or students identify through their own research do not have to
be comprehensive, since students would have the tools at their disposal to find supplementary
resources that offer a range of perspectives as well as counter-narratives instead of relying on only
one version. For teacher education classrooms, designing lesson plans that can be made available
through a museum website is a good way to build a relationship between educational institutions
and provide teacher candidates with an opportunity to share their work with a wider audience.
As citizen educators, social studies teachers are charged with providing students with skills
and tools they can use regardless of where they are in the world. The current trends around
assessment and reductions in instructional time for social studies means that teacher educators
have to think creatively when preparing aspiring social studies teachers. Those who incorporate
ISSES and mobile technology are not only engaging in research-based best practices in teacher
education, but can inspire teacher candidates to be creative in how they think about creating
lifelong learners through social studies education.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
10
References
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Baron, C. (2013). Using inquiry-based instruction to encourage teachers’ historical thinking at historic sites. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 157-169. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.008
Baron, C., Woyshner, C., & Haberkern, P. (2014). Integrating historic site-based laboratories into preservice teacher education. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 38, 205-213. doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2014.03.003
Bell, D. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York, NY: Basic Books Publishing.
Berila, B. (2014). Contemplating the effects of oppression: Integrating mindfulness into diversity classrooms. The Journal of Contemplative Inquiry, 1, 55-68.
Brugar, K. (2012). Thinking beyond the field trips: An analysis of museums and social studies learners. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 32-49.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2013). English/language Arts standards history/social studies, grade 9-10. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELALiteracy/RH/9-10/ Daniels, L. (2013). Lee Daniels’ The Butler. United States: Laura Ziskin Productions.
Evans, R. (2008). The (unfulfilled) promise of critical pedagogy. Journal of Social Studies Research, 32(2), 16-24.
Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 106-120.
Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Seabury Press.
Human Trafficking Commission. (2011). Human trafficking commission of Ohio report. Retrieved from http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Individuals-andFamilies/Victims/Human-Trafficking-Commission
ISTE. (2012). ISTE Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf
Kahane, D. (2009). Learning about obligation, compassion, and global justice: The places of contemplative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118, 49-60. DOI: 10.1002/tl.352
Kaschak, J. C. (2014). Museum visits in social studies: The role of the methods course. Social Studies Research and Practice, 9(1), 107-118.
Kaufman, K. (2014). Information communication technology: Challenges and some prospects from preservice education to the classroom. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 2(1), 1-11.
Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing future teachers to science beyond the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 67-91. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9288-x
Kumashiro, K. (2009). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. London, England: Routledge.
Leming, J., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). The state of social studies: A national random survey of elementary and middle school social studies teachers. Social Education, 70(5), 322-327.
Long, K. A. (2006). Reflections on TAH and the historian’s role: Reciprocal exchanges and transformative contributions to history education. The History Teacher, 39, 493-508.
Maguth, B., & Harshman, J. (2013). Social networking and the social studies for citizenship education. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 9(1), 192-201.
Nepo, M. (2010). Foreward. In P. J. Palmer, A. Zajonc, & M. Scriber, The heart of higher education: A call to renewal, transforming the academy through collegial conversations (pp. v-xvii). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ohio Department of Education. (2014). Social studies standards. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Ohio-s-New-Learning-Standards/Social-Studies
Pace, S., & Tesi, R. (2004). Adult’s perception of field trips taken within grades K-12: Eight case studies in the New York metropolitan area. Education, 125(1), 30-40.
Pesick, S., & Weintraub, S. (2003). DeTocqueville’s ghost? Examining the struggle for democracy in America. History Teacher, 36, 231-
251. DOI: 10.2307/1555742
Pitt, B., Gardner, D., Kleiner, J., Pohland, B., & McQueen, S. (2013). 12 years a slave. United States: Regency Enterprises.
Rethinking Schools. (2007). Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice, volume one (new ed.). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Publications.
Riviera Maulucci, M. S., & Brotman, J. S. (2010). Teaching science in the city: Exploring linkages between teacher learning and student learning across formal and informal contexts. The New Educator, 6, 196-211.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
11
Ross, E. W. (Ed.) (2006). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities. (3rd ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Stanley, W. B. (Ed.) (2001). Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Stobaugh, R., & Tassel, J. (2011). Analyzing the degree of technology use occurring in preservice teacher education. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 23(2), 143-157. doi:10.1007/s11092-011-9118-2
Stoddard, J. (2009, December). Toward a virtual field trip model for social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 412-438.
TEDXColumbus (2011). Theresa Flores: Find a voice with SOAP. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QW_nsAjweE
Waters, S., & Russell, W. (2013). Monumental controversies: Exploring the contested history of the United States landscape. The Social Studies, 104(2), 77-86. doi:10.1080/00377996.2012.687409
Wills, J. (2007). Putting the squeeze on social studies: Managing teaching dilemmas in subject areas excluded from state testing. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1980-2046.
WOSU. (2012). Columbus neighborhoods: Downtown Columbus and Franklinton. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-LDJ4RiaY
WOSU. (2013). Columbus neighborhoods: The underground railroad. Retrieved from http://columbusneighborhoods.org/neighborhood/downtown/downtown-lesson-plan/the-underground-railroad/
Zinn, H. (1999). A people’s history of the United States, 1492-present. New York, NY: Harper Collins Books.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
12
Appendix A
Using ISSES in Social Studies Teacher Education
Before the museum visit
Research-based
Best Practices for
Visiting ISSES
Integrate content relevant to the museum into the course.
Discuss how museums serve as educative sites that can support and
extend classroom instruction.
Model best practices for using mobile technologies as educational tools
and resources.
Using ISSES in
Social Studies
Teacher Education
Identified the “grand narratives” that teacher candidates believe about
national and state history related to slavery, the Underground Railroad,
social (in)justice, human trafficking, and abolition.
Reviewed state curriculum pertaining to the content topics that teacher
candidates will be responsible for teaching and that are presented at the
museum.
Viewed the films 12 Years a Slave and The Butler.
Visited local sites related to the Underground Railroad and examined
resources to evaluate the way slavery and abolition are discussed in history
books.
Modeled strategies for using technology in the class to access, analyze, and
create information.
Read and discussed literature on social justice education and critical
approaches to reading and teaching social studies.
Teacher candidates designed questions that they would pursue answers to
while at the museum pertaining to content, curriculum, and social justice
in relation to history and contemporary issues.
During the museum visit
Research-based
Best Practices for
Visiting ISSES
Provide structured and semi-structured requirements for students to
complete.
Use mobile technology to engage in on-site research and inquiry.
Analyze the exhibits and information provided through a critical lens.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
13
Using ISSES in
Social Studies
Teacher Education
Used mobile technology to access pre-selected resources (i.e., QR codes).
Students designed questions based on coursework and knowledge of the
topics to critically examine what is presented in museum exhibits (i.e., point of view, missing perspectives, grand narratives, etc.)
Collect information around concepts related to course materials, individual
research, films watched prior to the museum visit, and meet with at least
one other student to discuss what they learned and are thinking about
based on the experience.
Held small group discussion with fellow students and instructors about
how information was presented in the exhibits and how such approaches
can be replicated in their own classrooms.
After the museum visit
Research-based
Best Practices for
Visiting ISSES
Reflect on the content and organizational nature of museum exhibits.
Using ISSES in
Social Studies
Teacher Education
Written reflections by the teacher candidates on how what they learned
about slavery in the United States relates to social justice education in the
social studies.
Discuss how to apply skills and concepts developed during the visit to
social studies lesson planning.
Written reflections on how information was presented in the exhibits
and design learning exercises that could be used to create a “museum
experience” in a classroom.
Class discussions on the new questions that teacher candidates developed,
as well as what they included in their written reflections about classroom
implementation.
Written and oral reflections on how the museum field trip, use of
technology, and analysis of information aligned with the Common Core
State Standards, state standards, and critical literacy skills in social studies.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
14
Appendix B
Handout Used During the Museum Visit
National Underground Railroad Freedom Center
Opening:
Your time at the museum will include opportunities for reflection based on the exhibits as well as
the information and resources provided below. Please use headphones as you move throughout
the museum as part of a self-guided tour. You may visit the exhibits in any order.
There is a free app available if you wish to add that to your self-guided tour: National
Underground Railroad Freedom Center (light).
Slave Pen:
Before entering the slave pen, use the adjacent QR code to view photos and read testimonials of what it was like to live in the slave quarters on a plantation.
Reflection Exercise: During your time at this exhibit, spend 5 minutes inside the slave pen in silence. While sitting in this space that served to hold men, women, and children as property, before moving them further south for sale, reflect, not only on your educational experiences, but also your emotional experiences in the museum thus far.
And Still We Rise: Race, Culture, and Visual Conversations:
Kumashiro does not include art in section two of his book on teaching for social justice. How does art aid in the teaching for social justice?
Solomon Northup Tour:
There are 7 stations throughout the museum dedicated to the life of Solomon Northup. As you move through the museum, draw connections to the film. What is missing? What new
understandings of Northup’s life and the institution of slavery does the exhibit provide that you
did not take away from the film? How do the film and the museum help you think about why we use multiple narratives when we teach social studies?
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
15
Columbus and the Underground Railroad:
At any point during your time at the museum, view this video and reflect
on the new perspective(s) you have about Columbus and the importance of
place/location when teaching students about history.
Slavery Today:
Read the report on human trafficking to help stop the trafficking of human beings in the 21st century.
Watch the testimonial of a survivor in Ohio and find out what to look for of sex trafficking in the United States.
Closing:
Reflect on your experience at the museum. How did this experience aid in your development
as a social studies educator? As an educator for social justice? How does the setup of a museum
help you think about how to present information to students about a complex topic in history?
What else did you think about during your time at the museum? The notes you collect here can
inform your formal response. Your notes and this packet will be submitted with a hard copy of
your formal response.
is an Assistant Professor of Social Studies and Global Education at the
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Jason Harshman
Tami Augustine is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Social Studies and Middle Childhood
Education at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. She can be contacted at
[email protected].
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
16
THE TOKYO TRIAL:
SEGUE TO THE COLD WAR
Lisa Kelly Pennington, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
f
Abstract
In the wake of World War II, the trials that occurred in the Pacific Theater are often underemphasized relative to the Nuremberg Trials that occurred in Europe. The Tokyo Trial, however,
offers insight into not only the horrors that Allied soldiers experienced in the Pacific, but also
demonstrates how quickly tensions arose between the United States and the Soviet Union
after the conclusion of World War II. Introducing students to the Tokyo Trial not only provides
closure to that arena of war, but shows students the immediate strain between the world’s two
superpowers and provides a segue into a study of the Cold War. Additionally, the Tokyo Trial
provides a platform for classroom discussions on a variety of topics, including human rights
violations, wartime responsibilities, and international law. This article provides brief background
information on the Tokyo Trial as well as discussion questions and activities suitable for
classroom use.
The recent 70th anniversary of the end of World War II saw various ceremonies commemorating
the Allied victory. Once the war ended, however, the work was not complete. As Europe and
Japan rebuilt, post-war trials took place in both locations to try those responsible for planning
and committing war crimes. Much of the focus in the post-war era understandably was on
the Nuremberg trials after the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed; however, the trials in
the Pacific, most notably Tokyo, also sought to punish wartime leaders such as Hideki Tojo for
their actions during the war. Though several of those involved in the trial, such as American
prosecutor Solis Horwitz and Tribunal President Sir William Webb, considered the Tokyo Trial
to be “one of the most important trials in world history,” (Horwitz, 1950) scant attention was
paid to it, even as it progressed. Today the trial is almost forgotten and rarely taught, even
though it clearly demonstrates the immediate tensions that existed between the United States
and the Soviet Union in the post-war world. The Tokyo Trial offers a segue from World War II
to the Cold War; opportunities for classroom discussions of human rights violations, wartime
responsibility, and international law; and the occasion for students to practice historical thinking
skills as they examine the trial.
Author’s note: I would like to thank the MacArthur Memorial Archives and archivist James Zobel for providing copies of the primary
source documents included in this article.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
17
Discussion in the Classroom
Discussion lends itself to the topic of the Tokyo Trial by providing a platform for “the exchange
of information about a topic” (Hess, 2009, p. 14) in which students may construct knowledge
by “expressing their ideas on a topic and listening to others express theirs” (p. 14). Hess (2009)
advocates in particular for incorporating controversial topics within classroom discussion in order
to build political tolerance and to aid students in learning more information about important issues.
Furthermore, Hess describes discussion of controversial topics as a “proxy for democracy itself”
(2009, p. 15), since discussion implies that all participants are equal in their ability to contribute
to the conversation. Classroom discussion also exposes students to differing opinions and helps
students become familiar with rationales for opposing viewpoints (Hess, 2009). Additionally,
participating in discussion may help students to reflect on and refine their own arguments while
learning how to engage in a civil manner with others with whom they may disagree.
The Tokyo Trial presents two clearly opposing viewpoints that may be explored through
discussion. The United States and the USSR differed on a number of issues, several of which are
highlighted below. The most notable disagreement was over whether to try Emperor Hirohito
as a war criminal. After examining the evidence, some students in a discussion may decide to
side with the United States and refuse to try Hirohito in the interests of maintaining peace in
Japan, while others may feel the Soviet Union was correct in arguing to try him, since he was the
leader of Japan during the war. Though the issue has long been settled, students are likely to be
unfamiliar with the Tokyo Trial, which presents an opportunity to discuss ideas such as the guilt
and potential punishment of Hirohito as the content is taught, while helping students to identify
and present arguments over the controversies presented through the trial.
Some suggested discussion questions are:
1.How did the United States and its allies hold Japan responsible for its actions during World
War II? What charges were brought against Japanese wartime leaders?
2.Was Emperor Hirohito a war criminal? Why or why not?
3.Why do you think the United States chose to withhold information about Japanese medical
experiments conducted on American Prisoners of War POWs? What does this decision
suggest about the mindset of the United States directly after the end of World War II?
4.What is your opinion of “should have known” wartime responsibility? Is it plausible for
wartime leaders to know about the actions of their subordinates in various locations and to
control those actions?
5.Should Japanese wartime leaders have been charged with conspiracy regarding their wartime
actions? What does the opinion of the justices who did not think the defendants should be
charged with conspiracy suggest about the trial?
Historical Thinking Skills
While examining controversy and engaging in discussion with classmates may help students
increase their political tolerance and learn to participate in civil discourse, students must be
equipped with the historical thinking skills to make sense of the content in order to determine
their own positions and create arguments to support them. Wineburg (2001) works under the
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
18
assumption that “history teaches us a way to make choices, to balance opinions, to tell stories,
and to become uneasy—when necessary—about the stories we tell” (p. ix). Focusing on the
Tokyo Trial brings up choices made by the United States, such as the decision to go against its
Allies and keep Hirohito from trial. It also may lead to uneasiness, as students discover that
justice for (POW) was ignored in favor of keeping experiment data a secret, or that charges of
conspiracy brought against the defendants did not even exist prior to the trial, but were applied
retroactively. Students, however, do not naturally examine primary source documents with
a critical lens and reach these conclusions without guidance. Instead, it is helpful if teachers
provide “big ideas and essential questions” to accompany primary source materials, which may
help students to bridge group discussion and historical thinking skills (Viator, 2012).
When working with primary sources to consider multiple perspectives, evaluate credibility,
and construct their own interpretations, students are “doing history” (Monte-Sano, 2012).
Like Viator, Monte-Sano suggests presenting students with essential questions, which may be
answered in multiple ways, allowing for students to create their own arguments. For example,
teachers could pose the question, “Was Emperor Hirohito a war criminal?” and allow students to
reach their own conclusion. Reading several sources about the Hirohito debate enables students
to work with different types of documents and cite textual evidence to support their conclusion.
See the following links for documents that may be used when referencing Hirohito: http://www.
nytimes.com/1989/01/22/world/post-hirohito-japan-debates-his-war-role.html, http://www.
pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/USWarCrime_Coverup.html, http://www.japanfocus.org/herbert_p_-bix/2741/article.html. Appendix A contain primary source documents concerning
the Emperor’s importance to the Occupation. Using a variety of sources, both primary and
secondary, engages students in inquiry rather than relying solely on a textbook approach, forces
students to grapple with conflicting opinions and opinions generated in another time and place
(Monte-Sano, 2012), and aids students in developing their ability to think historically.
Punishment in the Pacific
The goal for holding war crimes trials in the Pacific was set in the Potsdam Declaration in July
1945. The United States, Great Britain, and the Republic of China stated that while they did
not intend to enslave the Japanese or destroy them as a race, “stern justice shall be meted out
to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners” (Potsdam
Declaration, 1945). In order to punish those who committed wartime atrocities according to
the severity of their crimes, the Allies divided war crimes into three classes. Class A crimes, or
crimes against peace, constituted the “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a declared
or undeclared war of aggression.” Class B crimes, or conventional war crimes, concerned
the violations of the rules or customs of warfare. Class C crimes, or crimes against humanity,
were defined as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts
committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political
or racial grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the Tribunal, whether
or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated” (CINCAFPAC, 1945).
As Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), General Douglas MacArthur organized
the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) (1946) in order to try defendants
charged with these war crimes.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
19
Judges from 11 countries would ultimately sit on the bench at the IMTFE, representing the
United States, Great Britain, France, China, Australia, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, the
Netherlands, Canada, India, and the Philippines. Disagreements and tensions began to arise
almost immediately between the United States and several other nations, most notably the
Soviet Union. One of the most prominent disagreements concerned Emperor Hirohito. The
United States refused to try the Emperor as a war criminal, even though several nations included
Hirohito in this category. MacArthur in particular was worried that trying Hirohito as a war
criminal would cause Japan’s government to collapse and result in an uprising requiring a larger
expeditionary force and prolong the occupation (MacArthur, 1945). MacArthur’s military
secretary, Brigadier General Bonner F. Fellers, also stated that “American long-range interests
require friendly relations with the Orient based on mutual respect, faith, and understanding.
In the long run, it is of paramount national importance that Japan harbor no lasting resentment”
(Memorandum to Commander in Chief, 1945). This statement suggests that the United States
was more concerned with the Occupation than the punishment of war criminals and that the
United States counted on Emperor Hirohito to ensure the Occupation ran smoothly. It indicates
the United States’s desire to contain Communism was prominent shortly after the conclusion of
the war, and that Japan might play a role in that containment. Actions such as these may help
students realize that the United States was focused on potential conflict with the Soviet Union
immediately after the conclusion of the war, even as the two collaborated in the punishment of
their common wartime aggressors.
To help students grasp the purpose of the Tokyo Trial and the classes of war crimes, it is helpful
to examine the Potsdam Declaration and the September 22, 1945 memo to MacArthur from
Washington, D.C. By examining these primary source documents, students not only practice
historical thinking skills as described by Wineburg (2001), but they also work to develop
compelling and supporting questions as suggested in the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)
Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013) as they examine the topic. For
example, after being introduced to the Tokyo Trial, students could develop the questions, “What
was the goal of the Allies during the Tokyo Trial?” or “What was the purpose of the Tokyo Trial?”,
which would guide them through their examination of the Potsdam Declaration and the 1945
memo as they seek to understand why the IMTFE was created. See Appendix B for a graphic
organizer to aid students in taking notes and creating a question for the Potsdam Declaration and
1945 memo. The 1945 memo may itself be found in Appendix C.
Human Rights Violations
Students are familiar with the crimes against humanity committed in Europe during the
Holocaust. They may not be aware that human rights violations also occurred in the Pacific
Theater against American troops as well as local populations. The manner in which the United
States handled some of these human rights violations during the Tokyo Trial was an indicator
that the Americans were planning for another conflict.
The United States avoided several issues during the trial, including Japanese experiments with
bacteriological and biological warfare. Unit 731, the Japanese organization that focused on
developing bacteriological and biological weapons during the war, carried out experiments on
civilians to test their creations. Experiments were also conducted on American (POWs). The
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
20
Americans were well aware of Unit 731 and its activities during the trial, but United States
officials chose to withhold this information, in light of their own desire to gain the biological
warfare technology before the Soviet Union. Subsequently, no Japanese were ever tried for
conducting biological warfare experiments on American POWs (Totani, 2008).
In addition to medical experiments, physical abuse was inflicted upon Americans, and Red Cross
supplies were withheld from POWs. Prisoners of war found themselves on forced walks, such
as the Bataan Death March. Those transported on ships faced not only abysmal and crowded
conditions but also the possibility of Allied attacks. Civilians in the Pacific, particularly in
China and the Philippines, also faced ruthless attacks by the Japanese, as demonstrated during
the Rape of Nanking and the Rape of Manila (Maga, 2001; Totani, 2008). The fact that Japan’s
wartime leaders were charged with acts such as these leads to questions regarding wartime
responsibilities, which were ultimately tied to crimes against humanity, particularly in the
Philippines.
Armed with this knowledge, students could discuss the implications of the United States
withholding information about bacteriological and biological weapons and the refusal to bring
up evidence concerning experiments against American POWs, and examine what those decisions
suggest about the mindset of the United States directly after World War II and its working
relationship with the Soviet Union. Students could also consider subsequent American actions
during Vietnam, and how the decision to keep evidence of Japanese experiments secret could be
connected to the later war.
Examining primary source documents related to human rights violations could help students to
determine for themselves that the United States withheld the information prior to discussing the
reasoning behind the decision. The University of Virginia Law Library (n.d.) offers more than
4,000 digitized documents related to the Tokyo Trial online, with the exhibit related to biological
warfare accessible via http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/exhibit/biological-warfare. Examining these
documents corresponds with Common Core standards that focus on students citing specific
textual evidence to support source analysis, determining central ideas of primary sources, and
determining which explanations are most likely given textual evidence (Common Core ELA,
2010). It also supports dimension three of the C3 Framework, as students can evaluate sources
and use the evidence to develop claims. For example, item six in the biological warfare exhibit, a
questionnaire with a former Japanese chief medical officer, would provide students with evidence
that the Japanese were conducting research into contagious diseases, and were engaged in the
study of bacterial warfare. The most relevant information from this document is found on pages
one, four, and five. When paired with item five, students discover information about a plague
outbreak in China in 1940. Item eight in the collection discusses affidavits from Japanese military,
who confirmed the existence of units that had secret responsibilities to research viruses for
potential wartime use. Finally, item 12 lists the symptoms of six patients with bubonic plague,
while item 15, an interview with General Ishii, who was in charge of Unit 731, discusses in more
detail the facilities and activities of the unit. These items aid students in determining there was
evidence of Japanese experimentation with biological warfare.
Item eight also introduces students to the idea that the information about biological warfare
experiments was withheld from the court by the United States. This item mentions the evidence
is not sufficient to bring the suspects to trial. Item 11, particularly paragraph three, discusses the
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
21
“disturbing” fact that evidence provided by the Russians was not used to bring the topic to trial.
Finally, item one advises that evidence regarding biological warfare will not be heard because it is
insufficient and the chance of successfully charging suspects is slight.
By examining this set of documents, students use multiple sources to determine relevance,
corroborate evidence, and ultimately determine whether there was sufficient proof to try the
Japanese for biological warfare. After reaching their own conclusions, the class can discuss the
reasons for the decision to withhold the evidence from the court, linking to the tensions between
the United States and the USSR, the show of authority by the United States, and potential
reasons why the United States did not want the Soviet Union to gain experiment data.
Wartime Responsibility
The Tokyo Trial, which tried defendants for Class A war crimes, also charged defendants with
Class B and C crimes. The Tokyo defendants were therefore also charged with conventional
war crimes and crimes against humanity, although even the justice from India admitted that
the Class A defendants likely did not personally commit atrocities against civilians or prisoners
of war. They were, however, considered to be responsible for the actions of their subordinates
during the war. A similar situation preceded the Tokyo Trial in the Philippines, when General
Tomoyuki Yamashita was tried for the actions of his subordinates during the Rape of Manila.
Essentially it was argued that Yamashita, as the commanding officer, “should have known” about
the actions of his subordinates and was therefore responsible for the atrocities committed against
Filipino civilians. As Japan’s wartime leaders, Yamashita and the defendants at Tokyo were held
responsible for the actions of their subordinates. This presents an opportunity for discussion
on wartime responsibility. When perpetrators of crimes were soldiers, guards, or everyday
citizens, should those in charge be held responsible for the actions of subordinates with whom
they never have contact? Students could consider the chain of command in this instance, and
whether wartime leaders such as Yamashita or Tojo could have known about the actions of all
their subordinates and if and how they could have controlled those actions to prevent atrocities
from occurring. It could be pointed out to students that hundreds of Class B and C trials were
held in the Pacific to try actual perpetrators of conventional war crimes and crimes against
humanity, furthering discussion of whether wartime leaders such as Tojo could have controlled
subordinates across such a wide field of battle.
Though General Yamashita was not tried at Tokyo, the precedent set during his trial impacted
the IMTFE. To further investigate the charges against Yamashita, as well as the verdict that
influenced the Tokyo Trial, students can access a primary source activity at http://www.
macarthurmemorial.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1369. After determining whether the
guilty verdict against Yamashita, a general who was in the field, was fair, students discuss if the
“should have known” clause was applicable to high-ranking officials who were stationed in
Tokyo, and if it was therefore relevant in the Tokyo Trial.
International Law
Many criticisms surround the Tokyo Trial. One of the most frequent criticisms is found in
international law and focuses on the idea of conspiracy. In order to try suspects for crimes
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
22
against peace, the prosecution had to argue that certain international conventions such as the
Kellogg-Briand pact established the accountability of leaders for actions of their country in
international law. Therefore, charges of conspiracy were included in the indictment against
the Tokyo defendants (IMTFE, 1946). Japanese defense lawyers argued that conspiracy was a
product of English legal history, and even IMTFE Justice Pal and President of the Tribunal Webb
felt that the court did not have the authority to charge for conspiracy, as it did not already exist
under international law (Minear, 1971; Totani, 2008). This suggests the Allies were loose in their
interpretation of the law, which allowed the tribunal successfully to carry out its responsibility
to punish those responsible for waging aggressive warfare, even if there was no real precedent.
Critics argue that the trial was based on ex post facto law, and defendants were charged with
crimes that did not exist at the time they were committed. This interpretation of the law raises
multiple questions for students to consider, such as whether the IMTFE should have been able
to charge the defendants with conspiracy based on the lack of precedent; why English law
superseded during the trial; and how the criticisms surrounding the question of international
law, and several dissenting opinions by justices who question whether it was right to charge
defendants with conspiracy, has shaped the legacy of the trial.
Segue to the Cold War
Highlighting these tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the trial
demonstrates the rapid transition from World War II ally to Cold War enemy that took place
almost immediately after the conclusion of the war. It is clear that the United States refused to
place Hirohito on trial because of its long-range interests in rebuilding Japan, and as the SCAP in
Japan overseeing the Occupation and the trial, General MacArthur was within his right to refrain
from charging the Emperor. In addition to the Soviet Union, Australia and the Philippines
also wished to try Hirohito as a war criminal. For the United States, it was imperative that the
Occupation of Japan run smoothly, as it realized early on the potential for Communism to spread
throughout Asia. Japan could ultimately act as a buffer in East Asia against this threat; therefore
MacArthur, with Washington’s support, used his role as the leader of the Occupation to keep
Hirohito from being tried. Though this position resulted in ignoring requests by close Allies
Australia and the Philippines, it also demonstrated the power of the United States as the leader
of the Occupation, and showed the Soviet Union that the United States did not have to bend to
the will of its Allies in the post-war world but was strong enough to dictate how the recovery of
Japan would progress. As tensions increased between the two countries, this display of authority
demonstrated that the United States was capable of directing the outcome of the trial and
pursuing its own agenda, whether or not it received support from its Allies.
Additionally, by refusing to try the Japanese for biological and chemical warfare, the United
States prevented the Soviet Union from gaining access to the information discovered through
experiments conducted on POWs throughout the war. The United States interrogated Japanese
military leaders from Unit 731 and had evidence of their experiments, some of which were
conducted on American soldiers. When the Soviet Union requested interviews with members
of Unit 731, the Joint Chiefs of Staff listed several conditions that had to be met in order for
the interviews to take place. The United States first had to interview the members; if any
information was disclosed that the United States did not want the Soviet Union to possess, the
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
23
members would be instructed not to share that information with the Soviet interrogators. The
Japanese were also instructed not to reveal their prior interview with the United States. And
finally, it was to be made clear that permission for the interviews was granted as an “amiable
gesture toward a friendly government” (CINCFE from JCS, 1947), which again situated the
United States as the authority and allowed them a display of power over the Soviet Union.
These two examples of conflict between the United States and Soviet Union during the trial
in particular demonstrate that the focus was not entirely on punishing Japan for its wartime
actions. The United States displayed more interest in creating an ally in Asia to curb the spread
of Communism, while preventing the Soviet Union from gaining potentially deadly information
regarding bacterial and biological weapons, even if it meant hiding the fact that there were
American victims of such experiments. While the conflicts in Japan were not as explicit as those
in Europe, the actions the United States took to assert its power and conceal information on
weapons experiments indicate that it was focused on future interactions with the Soviet Union
and the Tokyo Trial acted as another venue for those tensions as the two superpowers moved
into the Cold War.
Conclusion
The Tokyo Trial is a large and complex topic that is surrounded by a legacy of criticism and is
generally viewed as an example of “victor’s justice.” However, introducing students to the topic
and even just scratching the surface of the many issues involved in the Tokyo Trial can help
students understand the dramatic shift toward the Cold War that occurred immediately after the
conclusion of World War II. Exploration of these topics reveals the tensions and disagreements
between the United States and the Soviet Union in carrying out the post-war trials, and actions
of the United States, such as avoiding charges of bacteriological and biological weapons against
the defendants, demonstrate that focus was on future potential conflicts almost immediately after
the conclusion of World War II. The Tokyo Trial can therefore provide students with closure for
the Pacific Theater of the war, while revealing that even as they attempted to work together, the
United States and Soviet Union were already positioning themselves for conflict.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
24
Appendix A
Memo to MacArthur From Joint Chiefs of Staff Concerning Hirohito
Memo to the Commander in Chief From Fellers, 1945
25
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
Appendix B
Graphic Organizer
The Potsdam Declaration and Classes of War Crimes
(The relevant section of the Potsdam Declaration may be accessed at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html#1)
When was the Potsdam Declaration written?
Who signed the Potsdam Declaration?
•
•
•
What was the stance of the Potsdam Declaration toward Japan?
What is a war crime?
Class A war crimes:
Class B war crimes:
Class C war crimes:
For each of the following, determine which category of war crime is represented:
•
Execution of prisoners of war
•
Murder of civilians in the Philippines
•
Medical experiments on prisoners of war
•
Pearl Harbor
Write one question you would like to have answered about the information above:
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
26
Appendix C
1945 Memo to MacArthur From Washington, D.C.
An additional activity focusing solely on the Potsdam Declaration with accompanying questions
may be found at http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/potsdam.pdf.
27
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
Appendix C
1945 Memo to MacArthur From Washington, D.C.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
28
Appendix C (cont)
1945 Memo to MacArthur From Washington, D.C.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
29
References
CINCAFPAC ADV (Commander in Chief Armed Forces Pacific). (1945, September 22). MacArthur Memorial Archives (Record Group 9, Box 159, Folder 1, “12 September 1945–21 June 1946”), Norfolk, VA.
CINCAFPAC ADV, CINCAFPAC . (1945, November 30). MacArthur Memorial Archives (Record Group 9, Box 159, Folder 1 “12 September 1945–21 June 1946.”), Norfolk, VA.
CINCAFPAC (Commander in Chief Armed Forces Pacific) ADV (MacArthur). (1946, January 24). MacArthur Memorial Archives (Record Group 9, Box 159, Folder 1 “Radiograms 12 September 1945–21 June 1946.”), Norfolk, VA.
CINCFE (Commander in Chief Far East) (MacArthur). (1947, March 21). MacArthur Memorial Archives (Record Group 9, Box 159, Folder 2 “Radiograms 25 June 1946 - 17 November 1948.”), Norfolk, VA.
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Horwitz, S. (1950). The Tokyo trial. International Conciliation, 457, 475.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East. (1946). Indictment. Harry S. Truman Presidential Museum and Library. Retrieved
from http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/nuremberg/documents/index.php?documentdate=0000-0000&documentid=18-2&pagenumber=1
MacArthur Memorial Education Programs. (n.d.). Who is responsible for war crimes?
Retrieved from http://www.macarthurmemorial.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1369
Maga, T. (2001). Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese war crimes trials. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Minear, R. H. (1971). Victor’s justice: The Tokyo war crimes trial. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Monte-Sano, C. (2012). Build skills by doing history. The Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 62-65. doi:10.1177/003172171209400314
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
Potsdam Declaration. (1945). Proclamation defining terms of Japanese surrender: Article 10.
Retrieved from http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html#1
Totani, Y. (2008). The Tokyo war crimes trial: The pursuit of justice in the wake of World War II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.
University of Virginia Law Library. (n.d.). The Tokyo war crimes trial digital exhibition: Biological warfare.
Retrieved from http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/exhibit/biological-warfare
Viator, M. G. (2012). Developing historical thinking through questioning. The Social Studies, 103(5), 198-200. doi:10.1080/00377996.2
011.606438
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Lisa Kelly Pennington is
a doctoral candidate in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at
Virginia Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
30
A TREATISE FOR TEACHING WRITING IN
SOCIAL STUDIES; BELIEFS, PURPOSE,
INSTRUCTION AND DESIGN
Michael A. Kopish, Ohio University;
Jenna Stapleton, Hopkinton Middle/High School
F
Abstract
Writing is a powerful and transformative act. There is great potential for social studies educators
to improve the quality of instruction and writing opportunities offered to young people.
Presented here are the discoveries of a two-year reflective inquiry between a social studies
teacher educator and a writing specialist who endeavored to support and develop competence
among social studies practitioners who struggled to teach writing. Yearlong high school and
middle school professional development programs with practicing teachers and university-level
academic courses with teacher candidates serve as the contexts that inspired this inquiry. The
authors share: a) evidence-based principles to change writing beliefs and empower social studies
educators to teach writing more effectively; and b) a tool created for and used with practitioners
to design narrative, expository, argumentative, and inquiry writing opportunities for inclusive
social studies classrooms. Given the influence on social studies from new standards that stress
writing across disciplines, high-stakes tests, and the promotion of college and career readiness,
this paper provides necessary and timely support for social studies practitioners who endeavor to
teach writing more effectively.
To meet the literacy demands of the 21st century, how should social studies practitioners teach
writing? This question emerged with some frequency in our independent work with social studies
teachers. Initial conversations exposed gaps in our pedagogical knowledge and distance in our
perspectives on teaching writing. Adding to the confusion, research on the topic of writing in
social studies education is limited. To help overcome these shortcomings, a partnership emerged
between the authors—a social studies teacher educator and a secondary school writing specialist.
Together we began a two-year reflective inquiry to learn from our attempts to teach the practices
and principles of writing in social studies. Inspired by previous reflective inquiry projects
(Parker & Hess, 2001; Ross, 1993), we observed ongoing problems with how to teach writing
effectively in social studies. This central issue kept emerging in both professional development
and teacher preparation courses. The audiences to whom we are teaching writing include social
studies practitioners (teacher candidates and current teachers) along with those involved in the
instruction, training, and/or support of these practitioners.
In the discussion that follows, we posit that literacy instruction, with an emphasis on writing,
supports the current state of social studies instruction along with future professional needs.
We stress that practitioners need a supportive environment and a professional network in
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
31
which to develop student writing and enhance differentiated literacy instruction (De La Paz
Malkus, Monte-Sano, & Montanaro., 2011; King-Shaver & Hunter, 2009). The outcome of this
reflective inquiry will give flight to the critical potential of social studies education through the
transformative act of writing. In this paper, we offer an evidence-based set of guiding principles
for teaching writing in social studies and a tool for designing writing opportunities for inclusive
social studies classrooms.
Challenges of Writing Instruction in Social Studies
For many of the social studies educators with whom we have worked, writing was given short
shrift in favor of other classroom activities. This was particularly true for novice teachers—
those who were either in teacher preparation programs or practicing teachers who were
unfamiliar with effective practices to teach writing in social studies. Through conversations with
practitioners, the authors uncovered a host of impediments to teaching writing in social studies
that were present across teacher candidates and practicing educators. These challenges are also
reflected in the literature base: a) Most had minimal exposure to writing instruction in teacher
preparation programs (Romine, et al., 1996); b) There was a pervasive belief that teaching
writing was someone else’s responsibility (Fisher & Frey, 2008); and c) Few instructional
materials were available outside of the discipline of history (Fang, 2014), which contributed
to “negative capability” as teachers attempted to teach writing in other disciplines (Grossman,
1990).
In addition, through analysis of candidates’ work samples and practicing teachers’ writing
assignments, a fourth challenge emerged: When writing was taught, teachers often incorporated
a content-driven approach (Nelson & Hayes, 1988), which required students to find and
assemble information on a given topic. With few exceptions, writing was incorporated in social
studies classes at the end of units and almost exclusively for assessment purposes. Little to no
attention was given to the writing needs or interests of students; assignments emphasized content
knowledge inclusion and accuracy of information.
Addressing the Challenges of Writing Instruction in Social Studies
Given these challenges, a parallel effort was made to train teacher candidates and current
teachers in social studies who were novice writing instructors. As Coker and Lewis (2008)
recommend, “Any comprehensive effort to strengthen writing instruction must include attention
to the training of preservice teachers and the continuing education of teachers” (p. 246). To help
create change, our work was guided by a set of aims that were responsive to the challenges and
adaptable for academic and professional development contexts. Across the contexts we sought
to: a) create opportunities to expose practitioners to writing practices and experiences; b) change
beliefs and empower social studies teachers to teach writing; and c) create tools and materials
that are easy to use to scaffold repertoires for writing instruction. In the following sections, we
discuss the ways in which we actualized these aims.
Create Opportunities
If writing instruction in social studies is to improve, then practitioners and teacher candidates
need greater exposure to writing practices and more experiences with writing. We found
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
32
professional development and academic courses as two contexts where fertile space was available
to create unique opportunities and experiences for social studies educators.
During the 2011-2012 school year, a social studies
department at a large urban high school in New England began using heterogeneous grouping
for their ninth-grade U.S. history classes. This pivotal moment marked the end of tracking for
the entry-level social studies course and the beginning of a yearlong professional development,
led by the lead author, to train teachers in the principles and practices of differentiation for social
studies. The focus of the professional development was to create common assessments that
involved students; a) analyzing primary and secondary sources, b) following an inquiry process
for original research, and c) writing analytical essays.
Professional development settings.
The emphasis on common assessments provided an opportunity to involve teachers in
workshops that demonstrated a writing process approach. The process we demonstrated was a
layered cycle that passes writers through phases of collection, planning, development, revision,
editing, publishing, and reflecting. We asked teachers to use the writing process approach as the
spine of a unit with a common assessment and guided teachers to create formative assessments
and provide ongoing feedback at the different phases. Importantly, this moved analytical essays
from one-shot writing assignments to writing that developed through deliberate practice.
In 2012-2013, a yearlong professional development at a rural Title 1 middle school began.
These trainings focused on improving writing in social studies to better meet diverse student
abilities and align writing with Common Core standards. We quickly noticed two key issues that
required attention in order to improve writing instruction: assignments poorly communicated
expectations to students, and assessment tools were not valid. For example, assignment
prompts were often vaguely worded and failed to provide students with adequate information to
successfully complete writing tasks. In addition, teachers used holistic rubrics with broad criteria
that emphasized completion rather than attributes of quality writing.
While the teachers demonstrated intent in providing students with details and information,
the prompts and rubrics created confusion and caused frustration. We developed tools and
workshop activities to help teachers unpack writing assignments and prompts with guided
questions that helped teachers modify writing assignments to include the following details for
students: central idea, role, audience, purpose, skills, and knowledge. Assignments then included
more information to guide students’ writing and with improved writing prompts, practitioners
were able to customize analytical, holistic, and hybrid rubrics to better reflect expectations.
Running concurrent to the professional development, the lead author taught
social studies methods courses for teacher candidates at a regional comprehensive university. The
work of the professional development teachers inspired the curriculum of the methods course,
and a powerful synergy emerged as both groups employed principles of writing to design and
enact lessons. Inspired by recent attempts to address the shortcomings of literacy education
offered in traditional social studies methods courses (Bain, 2012; Marri, et al., 2011), the two
authors revised an advanced social studies methods course to focus extensively on writing.
Academic settings.
The course required students to complete a 40-hour practicum experience and teach a
minimum of four writing-focused lessons. Coursework mirrored the professional development
workshops, and to the extent possible, candidates were placed with mentor teachers involved
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
33
in the professional development programs. Candidates placed outside the professional
development sites were invited and encouraged to attend the afterschool workshops. In class
and at professional development sites, teacher candidates shared resources and gained valuable
first-hand experience in differentiated lesson design. They learned directly from the real-world
challenges the practicing teachers faced. A chief challenge they faced was how effectively to teach
writing in inclusive social studies classrooms. The focus on candidate placement at professional
development sites helped forge greater consistency between teacher education and authentic
work occurring in classrooms (Zeichner, 2010).
Changing Beliefs
Changing beliefs and empowering practitioners to teach writing in social studies was challenging.
Dissonance was prevalent and clarity of purpose and guidance were needed. However, we were
able to reframe the purpose of writing and create a set of commitments to empower social studies
teachers to teach writing.
Among novice practitioners, the pervasive
belief about the purpose of writing was for assessment—for students to demonstrate what they
know. This perspective was often sanctioned by the absence of writing among classroom teachers
and among candidates whose experiences in social studies did not involve writing. To initiate
an alternative perspective, we argued that writing occurs for a variety of purposes and requires
writers to employ different cognitive strategies (e.g., planning, developing, revising, editing,
and publishing) to accomplish a variety of goals such as effectively communicating ideas on a
report or expressing an argument with supporting evidence. We advocated for writing as a tool
for learning and based this proposition on research that asserts writing extends and deepens
students’ knowledge, increases learning, and promotes higher order thinking (Nagin & National
Writing Project, 2006).
Writing is a tool for learning and problem solving.
To further change beliefs, we argued the purpose of writing is for students to solve a set of
problems as writers. Positioning writing as problem solving required teachers to consider new
perspectives for designing and teaching writing-related activities. Specifically, writing requires
young people to solve: a) a content problem (“what to say”) and b) a rhetorical problem (“how
to say it”) (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). As indicated earlier,
writing assignments in social studies were often limited to opportunities for students to express
what they know. These limited opportunities positioned writing as “one shot” occasions where
students only addressed the content problem of what to say. In order to move students as
writers from a beginning stage of knowledge telling to an intermediate stage of knowledge
transformation (Kellogg, 2008), practitioners were encouraged to focus instruction for students
to generate multiple texts and focus on changing representation of ideas (i.e., the rhetorical
problem of how to say it).
Empowering Practitioners: Three Commitments for Teaching Writing
In our work, we also found success among practitioners who were willing to commit to a set of
guiding principles for teaching writing in social studies: a) create opportunities for students to
write with extensive practice; b) meaningfully integrate all instruction and activities; and c) teach
a writing process. By reframing the purpose of writing, we changed beliefs, and by offering a set
of commitments, we facilitated practitioners’ development for how to teach writing.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
34
For practitioners, teaching writing effectively requires time and commitment.
It requires educators to facilitate student skill development and content learning along with
helping students learn how clearly to communicate ideas through written expression. Several
studies reveal the limited nature of writing in social studies (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Gillespie,
Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert, 2014; Kiuhara, Graham & Hawken, 2009). From teacher work
samples and assignments created for the classroom, we found writing activities in social studies
classes often were limited or routinized to writing for assessment, which differed by goal (e.g.,
persuade or defend a point of view, write about cause and effect, compare and contrast), and
genre (e.g., research report, DBQ, five-paragraph essay). Moreover, we found the most common
writing activities assigned in social studies were note-taking, short answer responses, filling out
worksheets, and making lists—all activities that involve writing without composing. Developing
writers learn from extensive practice, sustained effort, and writing extended texts (Graham &
Perin, 2007; Nagin & National Writing Project, 2006). Writing also involves learning the content
and the discourse of the discipline of study. We encouraged teachers to build in time for writing
and create space for students to practice writing extended texts.
Extensive practice.
Deep understanding and connectedness to writing evolves from
teaching practices that integrate writing in meaningful ways (Smagorinsky, 2008). Decisions
to incorporate writing should involve special consideration of how the activities relate to
the course’s purposes and meet diverse students’ needs (King-Shaver & Hunter, 2009;
Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Turnbull, 2007). For instance, studies on effective practices to teach
argumentative writing in diverse history classes include modeling and a balance of studentcentered and explicit instruction (De La Paz, 2005; Monte-Sano, 2008, 2010, 2011). These
studies are grounded in a cognitive apprenticeship perspective (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989) that posits the use of modeling, explicit instruction, scaffolding, coaching, and feedback.
Meaningful integration.
The goal of instruction with cognitive apprenticeship is to verbalize clearly and make explicit
particular ways of thinking so students are clear on how to complete tasks. For example,
argumentative writing assignments should involve structured opportunities for students to learn
how to evaluate sources and write arguments. Furthermore, teachers should guide students
through writing exercises that break down writing into manageable pieces and independent
practice for students to compose written pieces with feedback. We found practitioners were
able to use explicit methods of instruction during mini lessons to teach strategies that addressed
writing conventions and more complex processes such as planning and revising drafts. The
principle of meaningful integration was adapted to teach other modes and genres of writing, as
practitioners were encouraged to have instructional commitments that include focused writing
time and a purposely integrated and managed writing process.
Writing requires transitions among multiple cycles of planning, generation, and
reviewing as the author works through an iterative process to solve the content and rhetorical
problems. Teaching a writing process with multiple cycles helps students develop an awareness
of how to represent texts for specific audiences. While there is not one writing process, research
shows training students to use strategies for planning, revising, and editing produces large gains
in learning (Graham & Perin, 2007). Practitioners should help students recognize that writers
pass through a process once or many times and often emphasize something different with each
passage. For example, at early points of time in writing, students may emphasize planning more
Writing process.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
35
than revising or editing, both of which are inevitably stressed at later times in one’s writing. By
teaching students a writing process, one-shot writing opportunities are reduced and students
become capable of enacting a writing process across different modes and genres of writing.
Designing Writing Opportunities in Inclusive Social Studies Classrooms
To address the need to create instructional materials that are easy to use, we produced a tool
to scaffold repertoires of practice for writing instruction. In the example provided we highlight
four modes of writing that are taught in social studies: narrative, expository, argumentative, and
inquiry. Due to economy of space, we did not include four additional modes (i.e., descriptive,
exploratory, action/advocacy, or reflection) from the original tool in this manuscript.
Our choice to include certain modes was intentional. First, narrative,
expository, and argumentative writing are the modes of writing most often used to assess
writing proficiency in high-stakes assessments (Jeffey, 2009). Second, writing in different
modes is challenging for young people. Research demonstrates students have difficulty with
narrative, informative (expository), and argumentative writing (Harris & Graham, 1999).
Third, the practitioners with whom we worked de-emphasized certain modes of writing and
aspired to create large inquiry-based writing projects. Therefore, it was important to design a
tool that helped practitioners understand the attributes of and pedagogy for different modes of
writing from a developmental perspective. It stands to reason that students who have difficulty
in narrative, expository, and argumentative modes would also have difficulty with inquiry
writing, which involves higher order cognitive challenges. Thus, we accounted for cognitive
and pedagogical challenges associated with each mode and structured the tool to demonstrate a
progression of writing opportunities that build to inquiry writing.
Selecting modes.
Using the tool. Row
headers were included to outline different characteristics associated with
each mode of writing. For example, we began with the purpose/goal for each writing mode;
this prompted practitioners to keep in mind that writing is for many purposes and involves
representing texts for specific audiences. To scaffold the principle of meaningful integration
for instruction, we included critical attributes that made the different modes distinct and aided
practitioners’ pedagogical decisions for modeling and explicit instruction. Cognitive challenges
were also essential to include and demonstrated the developmental nature of writing across
different modes. Practitioners were clearly able to see differences in thinking associated with
different modes. As a way to facilitate practitioners moving beyond conventional writing
assignments, we provided examples for teachers to consider as text forms, mentor texts, or
assignment ideas. Finally, we included teacher roles and student/classroom considerations to
offer practitioners additional pedagogical support and help anticipate the potential hurdles of
teaching writing in different modes.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
36
Conclusion
Few people, especially students, enjoy writing for empty purposes. Writing is labor intensive; it
is immensely challenging to produce texts that express ideas and thoughts clearly to audiences.
We see our evidence-based framework for purpose of writing, commitments to teaching writing,
and tool for designing writing instruction as a study aid that supports the development of
competence among social studies practitioners who endeavor to teach writing in social studies.
In conclusion, we would like to plant two additional seeds for consideration. First, our actions
were not random or haphazard. This work required authors from separate disciplines of expertise
to collaborate, communicate effectively, explore creatively, and experiment. Most importantly, it
required explicitly planned opportunities for reflection. Both authors were able to draw upon
classroom teaching experience, which at times humbled us and often sparked greater innovation
for making writing in social studies more accessible to novice practitioners. We learned from
constantly constructing, revising, and reconstructing knowledge, and challenging previously
held beliefs to form new frameworks for understanding. We strongly encourage social studies
practitioners to collaborate and be reflective.
Second, we believe strongly that teaching writing in social studies is commensurate with the
democratic aims and social justice potential of social studies. Writing is not simply mastery of
discrete skills. In social studies, writing can empower individual and collective voices and foster
the development of enlightened and engaged citizens. Social studies educators should design
writing activities to be authentic and focus on personal aspects of writing such as instruction
that emphasizes developing and extending the identity of writers, increasing students’ comfort
with writing, facilitating authors’ identity, agency, and voice, and connecting learning to personal
experiences. Writing allows students to express beliefs, values, and ways of viewing and
interacting with the world. Young people live in epochal times as powerful social, economic,
political, technological, and cultural forces compete with democratic education and the exercise
of citizen powers. Encourage writing to stimulate authentic voice and expression and inspire
action and engagement in young people.
Table 1
A Tool for Writing Instruction and Design
Purpose
/Goal
Narrative
Expository
Argumentative
Inquiry
Tell a structured and
meaningful story or
account of a series of
events.
Inform others by
explaining, rethinking,
or expanding insight on
a concept not previously
understood.
The writer aims to get
the reader to accept a
perspective or truth
through well-reasoned
proofs and counter
proofs to change and
play with the reader’s
intelligence and ways
of understanding
knowledge to build a
sound conclusion.
Develop a question to
guide and structure the
writing process and
quest for knowledge,
while synthesizing
information, data,
and personal interest
into new constructed
understandings and
future actions related to
the world.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
37
Table 1 (cont)
A Tool for Writing Instruction and Design
Cognitive
Challenge
Critical
Attributes
Narrative
Expository
Argumentative
Inquiry
Use the elements and
details of story to
skillfully recall, tell,
and create fictional/
nonfictional extended
personal (real self or
imagined self) thinking
leaps and connected
world of meaning.
Process and form factual
texts, while creating
distance, taking on an
expert role, and keeping
the audience informed
and engaged, not bored
or overloaded with
information.
Develop and utilize
inductive and deductive
reasoning skills, while
structuring a clear,
human, and new stance
that draws on ethos,
pathos, and logos.
Shape significant,
exciting, and relevant
inquiry work, while
learning how to form
a question, research
effectively, and
synthesize essential
concepts from their
learning quest to create
new insights and greater
understanding
of the world.
Narrative
Expository
Argumentative
Inquiry
Attention to common
emotions and
connections to form new
meaning.
Practical writing that is
to the point and factual.
Introduces controversy and
debate about facts, beliefs,
or values.
Questions, explores, and
researches for answers/
responses using a
variety of technologies,
resources, and sources.
Each element works
together to form or build
toward conflict.
Careful selection of
multiple details to
advance points and
progression within the
work.
Pays close attention to:
Plot
Insight
Image
Senses
Tension
Bits
Beats
Scenes
Character
Time/space
Flashback
Flash forward
Clear, concise, and
reader appropriate, with
a built-in purpose.
The writing is devoid of
descriptive detail.
Highlights and explains
why the controversy or
conversation exchange
within the work is
significant.
Specialized presentation
of knowledge through
concrete examples, facts,
and evidence to prove
its point.
Takes a stand.
Definition of key terms.
Uses opinions, reasons,
and evidence to illustrate,
support, and develop the
writer’s position.
Thought-out
descriptions of a
process, an object, or
an idea.
Writing can seem distant
or very mechanical.
Includes definitions,
instructions, directions
and other basic
comparisons and
clarifications.
Identifies the
crucial points to
be addressed.
Includes ideas by discussing
and discrediting the
counterarguments or
opposing viewpoints.
Analyzes and reflects on
evidence and claims.
Often the thesis is made
near the start of the essay to
clearly hook the reader into
the argument’s importance.
Analyzes patterns and
meanings that are not
obvious.
Demonstrates
engagement and indepth knowledge of
their fields.
Knowledge pieces are
accessible, transferable,
and applicable to a
variety of situations.
Evaluates the quality
and application of
information.
Overall, all results are
composed in a final
composition that is
shared with others and
expanded on.
The ending tends to be
forcefully concluded.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
38
Examples:
Text Forms
Mentor Texts
Narrative
Expository
Argumentative
Inquiry
Fiction
Technical and scientific
reports
Speech
Inquiry-based projects,
proposals, or papers
Personal essays
Autobiography
Biography
Writing
Assignments
Novels
Oral history
Short story
Encyclopedia entry
Declarations
Opinion blog
Types of research papers
Job evaluation
Three search paper:
Narrative of three
sources formed by a
personal concern and
question investigation.
Job application letter
QUEST papers
Definitions
Letter of
recommendation
Research conference
News articles
Letters to the editor
Personalized research
paper
Service manuals
Textbooks
Illustration essays
Process analysis
Travel guides
Critical review
Editorials
Teacher’s Role
Guide students to
uncover the central
idea, life details, and
deeper meaning that
make the experience
of the narrative matter
and connect to a bigger
picture. Investigate
how human desire and
interests play a role
in the classroom and
getting to the personal
stories of your students.
Provide time, models,
and active scaffold
experiences for the
students to collect
information to create
a summary of the
steps, do or do not
components, and topic
territory related to the
essence of what they are
explaining.
Teach and give students
examples of how to
avoid logical fallacies
(i.e., post-hoc reasoning,
false analogies, hasty
generalizations/
oversimplification, non
sequitur thought…etc.)
and create diagnostic
questions that take
into account the
opposition’s argument
and experiences.
Provide students with
a conceptual context,
framework, and different
level focus for inquiry
questions in order to help
students write, transfer,
and apply students’
accumulated knowledge.
Teachers should keep
in mind that assigning
inquiry questions takes
away part of the cognitive
work and personal
engagement of the inquiry
process.
Student/
Classroom
Considerations
Students need time and
assistance figuring out
why they are telling
their story and deciding
what to leave out.
Students need to
learn how to read,
understand, and
use illustrations and
imperatives. Think
about how handson demonstrations,
experiments, and
changes in environments
help expand students’
insights, investigation,
and engagement with
informational tasks.
Students need time
to write, think, and
ask questions before
they argue. They also
need guided assistance
examining their
assumptions and the
consequences of their
argument. Examine
how classroom debate
or oral argument
practice helps or hinders
written arguments and
persuasion.
Students need to learn
how to construct
interesting and relevant
questions that are not
too large or minute.
Also, students must
know that inquiry is not
about seeking the “right”
answer, but finding and
composing appropriate
works to respond and
further investigate
issues. Think about best
teaching, technology,
and research practices
as inquiry is modeled
developed and applied
within the classroom.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
39
References
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle and high schools. English Journal, 100, 14–27.
Bain, R. B. (2012). Using disciplinary literacy to develop coherence in history teacher education: The clinical rounds project. The History Teacher, 513-532.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032
Coker, D., & Lewis, W. E. (2008). Beyond writing next: A discussion of writing research and instructional uncertainty. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 231-251. doi:10.17763/haer.78.1.275qt3622200317h
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139
De La Paz, S. D., Malkus, N., Monte-Sano, C., & Montanaro, E. (2011). Evaluating American history teachers’ professional development: Effects on student learning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(4), 494-540. doi:10.1080/00933104.2011.10473465
Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 444-
448. doi:10.1002/jaal.269
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Student and teacher perspectives on the usefulness of content literacy strategies. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 246-263. doi:10.1080/19388070802300330
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers’ use of writing to support students’ learning: A national survey. Reading & Writing, 27(6), 1043-1072. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262. doi:10.2307/1511259
Jeffery, J. V. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in U.S. state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14, 3–24. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.002
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). The training of writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1-26. doi:10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
King-Shaver, B., & Hunter, A. (2009). Adolescent literacy and differentiated instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136. doi:10.1037/a0013097
Marri, A. R., Perin, D., Crocco, M. S., Riccio, J. F., Rivet, A., & Chase, B. J. (2011). Content-driven literacy: One approach to urban secondary teacher education. The New Educator, 7(4), 325-351. doi:10.1080/1547688x.2011.619948
Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045-1079. doi: 10.3102/0002831208319733
Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539-568. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.481014
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond Reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212-249. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00547.x
Nagin, C., & National Writing Project. (2006). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Nelson, J., & Hayes, J. R. (1988). How the writing context shapes college students’ strategies for writing from sources. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing. Technical Report 16. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/602
Parker, W. C., & Hess, D. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 273–289. doi:10.1016/s0742-
051x(00)00057-3
Romine, B. G., McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1996). Reading coursework requirements for middle and high school content area teachers: A U.S. survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40 (3), 194-198.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
40
Ross, K. (1993). The world literature and cultural studies program. Critical Inquiry, 19, 666-676.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson and J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits, (pp.172-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). Alternatives to teacher-led discussions. In Teaching English by design: How to create and carry out instructional units (pp. 32-43). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Turnbull, A. P., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Turnbull, H. R. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus course and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671
is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at Ohio University in Athens,
Ohio, 45701. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Michael A. Kopish
teaches middle school English/Language Arts teacher at Hopkinton Middle/High
School, Contoocook, NH 03229. She can be contacted at [email protected].
Jenna Stapleton
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
41
JORDAN RIVER I’M BOUND TO CROSS: USING
DIGITAL SOURCES TO TEACH ABOUT SLAVERY
AND THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD
David Jason Childs, Northern Kentucky University
p
Abstract
There are many secondary sources written on the topic of the Underground Railroad; however,
there are only a limited number of primary sources about the Underground Railroad, as it was
kept secret during its operation to avoid detection. Therefore people did not write about it in any
significant way until slavery was fully outlawed in 1865. Students obtain a more sophisticated
understanding of history by learning about significant events that took place in the region where
they live (Aktekin, 2009; Marvin, 2013). The author has found resources in his own region
for historical study that are easily accessible, including slave letters, narratives, spirituals and
newspapers that shed light on slavery and the Underground Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio. He
includes an example unit plan incorporating several digital primary and secondary sources for use
in social studies classrooms.
Jordan river I’m bound to cross. Jordan river I’m bound to cross.
Jordan river I’m bound to cross,
I’ve got one more river to cross.
Mother will be waiting, mother can’t help me to cross.
Mother will be waiting, she can’t help me to cross,
Mother will be waiting, she can’t help me to cross,
I’ve got one more river to cross.
Jesus will be waiting, Jesus’ gonna help me to cross.
Jesus will be waiting, He’s gonna help me to cross.
Jesus will be waiting, He’s gonna help me to cross.
I’ve got one more river to cross
—Traditional Negro Spiritual
The Ohio River was important for African Americans in the antebellum era, as it was a significant
geographical boundary between Kentucky, a slave state, and Ohio, a free state (Inscoe, 2013).
It served as an important symbol of freedom for slaves in that when they crossed the river into
Ohio, they were then on free soil. In primary sources, African-American slaves often identified
with the Israelite slaves of the Old Testament. Thus (as indicated in the spiritual above) they
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
42
sang of crossing the Jordan River (a metaphor for the Ohio River) onto the free soil of the Old
Testament Canaan land (Bigham, 2006; Inscoe, 2013; Salafia, 2013; Trotter, 1998).
Ohio and Kentucky are important states when it comes to the study of slavery and the history
of the Underground Railroad in the United States. This manuscript highlights primary and
secondary sources available online that can assist social studies teachers in exploring the history
of slavery and the Underground Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio. The first section consists of an
analysis of several digital primary sources on slavery and the Underground Railroad in Kentucky
and Ohio. The last section outlines a unit plan that incorporates several primary and secondary
sources that teachers can use in their social studies classrooms.
Digital Primary and Secondary Sources Available to Teachers
An 1860 slave advertisement from the Daily Louisville Democrat, a Kentucky newspaper, showed
the reality of slavery in Kentucky. A slave master placed a want ad for a $100 reward for the
return of his escaped male slave, with this description:
About five feet four or five inches high, weighs about 120 or 150 pounds, has long, light,
bushy hair, blue eyes, and is slow spoken; very much resembles a white man. Had on
brown jeans pants and a sack coat of the same texture, with pockets in the sides, and an
old black wool hat; had on coarse boots with holes cut in the tops of the legs to draw on
them (1860).
Primary source documents of this nature allow students of history to understand better the
reality of slavery in Kentucky, a border state adjacent to the free state of Ohio. One can note a
number of things that stand out from this document. The ad was from 1860, three years before
the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the states that were a part of the rebellion. The
ad also offered interesting historical and cultural details. The slave had on brown pants made
from jean material, a fabric that dates back to the 17th century. The runaway slave’s clothes and
shoes seemed to be quite tattered. The slave was also likely biracial since he was so fair-skinned
that he could pass as being white—thus he may have been difficult to identify and capture.
Biracial slaves were often a product of a liaison between a slave master and a female servant.
While in most cases the interaction was rape, many scholars argue that some slaves had romantic
relationships with their slave masters (Blassingame, 1972, Fox-Genovese, 1988, Gutman, 1977,
Hodes, 1997, Bourke, 2007 & Foster, 2011). In rare cases white women had relationships with
enslaved men. In his article entitled Sexual Relations Between Elite White Women and Enslaved
Men in the Antebellum South: A Socio-Historical Analysis, Allain (2013) offers a comprehensive
discussion of this little-known historical phenomenon.
The advertisement mentioned above is indicative of the many digital sources that are available
to educators today. Many of the resources can be accessed through the Internet at schools,
universities, or at home. In recent history, even as little as 20 years ago, researchers had to travel
to libraries and university archives to access historical documents that are now available through
digitized archive collections. An entire world has opened up in terms of historical resources.
Primary Source Analysis on the Underground Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio
There are many secondary sources written on the topic of the Underground Railroad. However,
there limited primary sources about the Underground Railroad, as it was kept secret during its
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
43
operation to avoid detection. Therefore, people did not write about it in any significant way until
slavery was fully outlawed in 1865 (Franklin, 1999). This manuscript highlights primary and
secondary sources available to social studies teachers online that can assist them in exploring the
history of slavery and the Underground Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio.
A well-known figure in Kentucky Underground Railroad history is former slave Henry Bibb
(1849), who successfully escaped from a Kentucky plantation in 1837. Bibb was a son of slave
parents who made several failed escape attempts. However, he was resilient and persistent, and
ultimately made it to Canada on the Underground Railroad.
Bibb’s (1849) successful escape was detailed in his slave narrative, offering insight into the
nuances of slavery and giving details about the Underground Railroad. Bibb states he made his
final escape “in December of 1837.” Further, he intended to make it all the way “to Canada, for
[his] Liberty.” Bibb’s narrative demonstrates the many challenges slaves had when they made
escape attempts. He had very few resources, stating that he had no more than “two dollars and
fifty cents, and a suit which I had never been seen or known to wear before.” He had the clever
idea of wearing an outfit no one had ever seen before so that he was not easily detected.
One insightful aspect of Bibb’s (1849) narrative was that, like many slaves, he had to separate
from his family. He states that he had to leave his “affectionate wife, who stood before me on my
departure, with dear little Frances in her arms, and with tears of sorrow in her eyes as she bid me
a long farewell.” He went on to say that “it required all the moral courage that I was master of to
suppress my feelings while taking leave of my little family” (p. 47). Historians such as Gutman
(1977) and Blassingame (1972) have outlined the impact slavery had on black families, and
Bibb’s (1849) narrative is a direct illustration of the negative effective on families.
Henry Bibb’s (1849) narrative indicates that his wife did not realize that he planned to escape
because had she known, he would not have been able to do so. In fact, he states that if she had
found out, “I might have this day been a slave” (p. 48). In addition to the hardship of being
separated from his wife and children, Bibb also had a host of friends and relatives that he had to
leave behind. Leaving loved ones and the constant fear of being killed or sold to the deep South
made escape a daunting emotional and mental challenge in addition to the physical and material
obstacles. But Bibb had already determined that he was up for the challenge stating, “I had
counted the cost, and was fully prepared to make the sacrifice. The time for fulfilling my pledge
was then at hand. I must forsake friends and neighbors, wife, and child, or consent to live and
die a slave” (p. 48).
Bibb’s (1849) narrative speaks of the important role the Underground Railroad played in his
successful escape to Canada. In speaking of his escape he goes on to say, “These kind friends gave
me something to eat, and started me on my way to Canada, with a recommendation of a friend
on my way. This was the commencement of what was called the under ground [sic] rail road [sic]
to Canada” (p. 52). Henry Bibb’s slave narrative allows middle and secondary students to see
an authentic document written during the time of slavery that discusses the importance of the
Underground Railroad to a real life in history.
John Rankin: Rhetorical and Biblical Arguments Against Slavery
Another important historical figure related to slavery and the Underground Railroad in Kentucky
and Ohio was John Rankin (1823). John Rankin was a Presbyterian minister from Tennessee who
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
44
moved to Ripley, Ohio, in 1822 to join the fight against slavery. It is said that Rankin and his son
had such an impact on the antislavery movement and the Underground Railroad that Harriet
Beecher Stowe credited them with abolishing slavery. Ripley, Ohio, is bordered by the Ohio River
and Kentucky, thus Rankin’s home (being in the free territory of Ohio) became an important
stop in the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves for many years (Hagedorn, 2002; William,
1890). Being a minister, Rankin boldly highlighted the evils of slavery from a theological
standpoint in public letters and sermons. In a series of published letters entitled, “Letters on
American Slavery Addressed to Mr. Thomas Rankin, Merchant at Middlebrook, Augusta County,
Virginia,” Rankin carefully outlined his opposition against slavery from a rhetorical and biblical
perspective. These primary source documents can be used in social studies as well as language
arts classrooms to help students engage in higher order thinking. Examples include an analysis of
primary sources as well as a synthesis of historical ideas with contemporary ones. In arguing that
slavery was not God’s will, Rankin (1836) states that:
The Creator is infinitely wise, and consequently must have created every being in his
universe for occupying some particular station in the scale of created existence. To
suppose him to create without design, is to suppose him unwise. . . . We conclude that
if the Creator formed the Africans for slavery, he has suited their nature to the design of
their creation, and that they are incapacitated for freedom. This would be according to
the whole analogy of creation, in which every creature has a nature suited to the station
for which it was intended. But we find that the Africans are rational creatures, are of the
human species [slavers were rejecting that Bible doctrine / science fact], possess all the
original properties of human nature, and consequently are capacitated for freedom; and
such capacity shows the design of their creation. (p.15)
Here Rankin argues that if God created Africans to be slaves, then their nature and physicality
would reflect that. However, it is apparent that he created them to be fully human and rational
and therefore capable and deserving to be free. This countered the popular theological argument
of pro-slavery proponents that Africans were pre-ordained by God to be slaves (Noll, 2006). In
another letter, Rankin argues against involuntary slavery. Stating that although the Bible discusses
slavery, it was not involuntary in the case of biblical patriarchs like Abraham. Rankin’s works
are another example of incredible primary sources on slavery and the Underground Railroad
in Kentucky and Ohio, which are readily available through digital media on the Internet for
classroom teachers.
Runaway Slave Ads and Political Cartoons in Kentucky Newspapers
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
45
As in the example mentioned earlier, runaway slave advertisements were commonplace in
southern states. It was not uncommon to see runaway slave ads like the one of above next to
other items in newspapers such as product advertisements or updates on elections. Kentucky
was no exception. This advertisement was posted in 1838 in Louisville, Kentucky. There was
a $150 reward offered for the slave mentioned above known as “Henry May.” The newspaper
gives a detailed description of him. He is 22 years old, about 5’6” and has a “chunky build”
(Author unknown, 1838). Teachers can help students take on the role of the historian, analyzing
the content of the advertisement and exploring how it may have affected the African-American
community and Henry May’s family.
Another useful type of primary source documentation similar to runaway slave ads are political
cartoons. Political cartoons shed light on the political ideology of a certain time period. In other
words, they offer insight into how people may have felt about certain political issues of the day.
The illustration below of Henry “Box” Brown from The Underground Rail Road: A Record of Facts,
Authentic Narratives, Letters, Etc is an example of this. Brown escaped from slavery by arranging
for himself to be mailed to a free state, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Still, 1872). What follows
are practical examples of how social studies teachers can use digital sources available to them
through the Internet in their classrooms.
Unit: “Racial Stereotypes, Slavery, and the Underground Railroad”
Below I have included an overview of a sample unit demonstrating how teachers might integrate
primary and secondary historical sources into their social studies classrooms. The lessons
call for a variety of cultural artifacts such as letters, video clips, political cartoons, and slavery
advertisements to gain more insight into slavery and the Underground Railroad in the northern
Kentucky and southern Ohio areas. The unit also focuses on American slavery, detailing how
the slave identity was socially constructed in such a way that racial stereotypes have persisted
from antebellum times to the present. This material can be easily embedded and interwoven into
broader units including the study of Colonial America, the early republic, the War of 1812, Civil
War, Reconstruction, and even can be integrated into the Civil Rights Movement. One could even
integrate the material into discussions about the public use of the Confederate flag.
Unit Objectives Aligned With National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) and Common Core
Standards
This unit aligns with multiple NCSS standards including: a) Standard One: Culture, b) Standard
Two: Time Continuity and Change, c) Standard Four: Individual Development and Identity, and
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
46
d) Standard Five: Individual Groups and Institutions. I have also made it a practice to align my
lesson plans with the Common Core standards for language arts and social studies. Further,
the unit aligns with Kentucky’s eighth-grade history standard as it focuses on American history
through Reconstruction. It also aligns with Ohio social studies standards as well (Kentucky Core
Content for Assessment, 2006).
This unit draws from history to help students understand how various issues and historical
events have impacted their world today and even their local neighborhood. It will also shed
much light on societal perceptions of African Americans and negative attitudes about race. The
objectives listed below have been aligned with NCSS standards.
• Students will understand the major events and history surrounding slavery and the
Underground Railroad in Kentucky and Ohio (NCSS Time Continuity and Change; Individual
Groups and Institutions).
• Students will recognize the social construction of racial slavery and the demonization of
African Americans in the 17th through 19th centuries and understand how it connects to
contemporary racial stereotypes (NCSS Time Continuity and Change; Individual Groups and
Institutions).
• Students will recognize that the media advances a particular lifestyle and shapes their ideas
about racial identity (NCSS Culture; Identity and Development).
Unit Procedures and Activities
The unit focuses on the legacy of slavery in America, looking especially at Kentucky and Ohio.
Understanding the foundations of slavery can help students comprehend the contemporary
struggle today for racial equality. Blacks came to the United States in the early 17th century
as indentured servants, a status that was markedly different from the slaves of the 18th and
19th centuries. By the early 1700s, blackness was criminalized and demonized, and through
an evolution of various laws, miseducation, and misuse of religion, the American chattel slave
system was born (Franklin & Higginbotham, 2009). Students will be able to critically analyze
digital primary and secondary sources by drawing their own conclusions from the artifacts, a
process Zarillo (2014) calls the “doing of social studies” (p.7).
Days One and Two
The unit begins by leading students through a series of activities exploring traditional AfricanAmerican spirituals, including the song “Jordan River.” In my own teaching, I often play
recordings or sing spirituals when the students walk into the classroom and throughout the
lesson. This sets the atmosphere for a rich discussion of African-American history and culture.
I have found that introducing popular cultural and other historical artifacts into the classroom
makes for a meaningful student experience. A treasure trove of primary musical resources can be
found on YouTube, free of charge; this is the primary website where I find various renditions of
spirituals and other historical songs and videos.
I ask students to perform textual and historical analyses of Negro spiritual lyrics, which lays
a foundation for further exploration of slavery and the Underground Railroad. Some other
meaningful examples of spirituals include: “Go Down, Moses,” “Deep River,” “Buked and
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
47
Scorned,” “Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen,” and various renditions of “Jordan River.”
The instructor should integrate other sources and materials with the lesson on spirituals to help
contextualize the songs. Teachers might include reading material and articles about spirituals,
paintings, documentaries, or poetry, and even the course textbook. Meaningful primary and
secondary source materials can be found easily on the Internet.
Another activity consists of students being assigned a partner and given a certain spiritual
to interpret and put into a historical context. They explore the song’s meaning and what it
might have meant to slaves. Students then share responses with the whole group. In addition,
students read primary and secondary accounts of the Underground Railroad in Ripley, Ohio, and
Kentucky, and discuss how they are connected to spirituals. Stemming from the music, digital
primary sources, and discussion, the teacher lectures on American slavery and the Underground
Railroad. My lecture style is interactive in that I have both prepared and impromptu questions
and activities integrated throughout so students stay involved, ending with a brief summative
assessment such as an exit slip.
Days Three Through Five
The class builds upon the theme of slavery, escape, and the Underground Railroad. The
instructor should open with a clip from Alex Haley’s mini-series Roots (1977) that graphically
portrays the escape of the slave character Kunta Kinte. This can also be juxtaposed with several
runaway slave ads from Kentucky. I have found it even more meaningful if the instructor can find
ads from or near the students’ hometowns. Students will then take a few moments (3-6 minutes)
to answer the following questions:
a. What are your initial thoughts or reactions after viewing the film clip?
b. What connections can you make between what you have learned so far and the film clip?
c. Do you think a slave would have experienced this in antebellum Kentucky?
d. What connections can you make between the film and the newspaper clippings?
Students are placed in small groups based on an activity called “corners of the room.” In
this activity, several spaces of the room are labeled with topics relevant to slavery and the
Underground Railroad. The teacher provides writing prompts based on various primary sources
including song lyrics, slave ads, the video clip, slave letters, children’s literature on slavery, and
political cartoons (Zarillo, 2014) at each station. Each group is responsible for answering their
writing prompt based on their assigned primary or secondary source and the material learned
in class. I have had more success with smaller groups, and with each student being assigned
a specific role. The students are given 10 to 15 minutes to complete this task. Afterward, each
group takes turns in round-robin style sharing their findings with the whole group. The corners
of the room activity can merge right into a lecture to offer further direct teaching for the unit.
Days Six and Seven
The unit concludes by showing the impact history and slavery have had on contemporary society
by examining media and popular culture. It is helpful for teachers to begin by showing clips
of 20th-century performers in black face and/or minstrel shows to offer a further context for
discussion. In the past, I have shown early 20th-century film clips or cartoons that contain blatant
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
48
stereotypes, demonstrating how these ugly mischaracterizations still persist today. The discussion
questions I provide below are a response to the cartoon entitled Black Sambo (1935). I am careful
not to point stereotypes out initially, as I want to get students’ initial reactions. It is important to
let students know that cartoons such as this were once socially acceptable.
After the video is shown, the teacher displays discussion questions that students explore in small
groups, within a think, pair, share format, where they respond to a prompt, then share with their
partner (Zarillo, 2012). Afterward, each group shares its findings and responses with the entire
class. I have used questions similar to the following to invoke open discussion:
• In what ways were African-American physical features and personalities exaggerated? How
do you feel about that?
• In what ways are these racial stereotypes connected to slavery?
• What impact have cartoons and films like these had on societal views of African Americans?
• Did people in Kentucky feel this way about African Americans during slave times? How do
you know?
• Do you think early cartoons and performances such as those done in black face help set the
stage for contemporary stereotypes of African Americans? Why or why not?
After the think, pair, share discussion, the instructor prepares a lecture that shows the impact the
legacy of slavery and racial prejudice have had on society today, asking questions such as:
• How has popular media played a role in contemporary times in perpetuating stereotypes
about African Americans (Childs, 2014)? (This helps contextualize the specific discussion
about Kentucky and Ohio, and the Underground Railroad.)
• What aspects of slavery still affect us today?
• What is visible evidence of the lasting legacy of slavery in our hometowns?
Social studies educators can further draw upon the materials available online, including
song lyrics, letters, and records from local historic churches, graveyards, slave folktales, birth
certificates, plantation records, slave narratives, and feature-length films. We have already
mentioned Alex Haley’s Roots (1977). Other films include Twelve Years a Slave (2013), Dog
Jack (2009), and Django Unchained (2012). Teachers can also use historical fiction novels to
supplement textbooks and lectures. Good examples include Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Stowe, 1852),
Night John (1993, Paulsen), Roots: The Saga of an American Family (Haley, 1976), and Copper Sun
(Draper, 2006). These texts add more depth to the unit.
Throughout the lecture, instructors should help students understand how history has impacted
their lives and shaped their communities. In the last few days of the unit, the instructor should
focus on review of the material and larger summative assessments, which may include final exams,
oral presentations, digital projects, or portfolios. The suggested assessments for the unit are:
1. Writing and discussion: Writing is integrated throughout much of the unit, along with
discussion. This is designed to keep students reflecting and engaging with the material, in an
effort to see how it is relevant to their world.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
49
2. Essay exam: Students take an essay exam focused on the material they have learned about
American slavery and the Underground Railroad. They should know the impact of slavery
on Kentucky and Ohio, and the impact the legacy of slavery has had on racial perceptions
overall today.
3. Research paper on the Underground Railroad in Kentucky and/or Ohio: Students have the
opportunity to pick from several topics on which to write a research paper focusing upon
a particular aspect of the Underground Railroad in Kentucky or Ohio. This may include
a paper on John Rankin, the significance of the Ohio River, slaveholders in Kentucky,
Underground Railroad sites in Kentucky and Ohio, or the impact of the Fugitive Slave Act
on Ohio.
4. A creative historical presentation: The students will present the information by producing
a creative artifact as the end result. For example, students may develop an antislavery
advertisement, a fictitious slave narrative, a documentary about a slave such as Henry “Box”
Brown, a letter as if they were writing back home to their family in the South that were still
enslaved, or write a spiritual about slavery and freedom to teach their classmates an aspect
of the history they have learned.
Conclusion
In light of the United States becoming an increasingly more racially and ethnically diverse
society, it is vital that young people understand the impact slavery and the Underground Railroad
have had on their communities. Racial stereotypes are prevalent in popular culture and can often
be traced directly back to legacy of slavery (Balkran, 1991). These prejudices serve to reinforce
old ideas about how individuals from certain groups should behave or think (Stanley, 1977;
Turner, 1977).
Social studies classrooms can be sites where students can engage in issues surrounding race.
Popular cultural artifacts and media can facilitate conversations about how old racial stereotypes
and prejudices still affect students in contemporary times (Childs, 2014). Young people can
recognize their history and become more self-reflective about their own ideas about race.
Understanding their own history can help them become more empathic learners, growing as
humans to make their world more tolerant.
References
$100 Reward. (1860, April 17). Daily Louisville Democrat. Retrieved from http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282964&p=1885441
$150 Reward. (1838, September 3). Newspaper unknown. Retrieved from
http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=rbpe&fileName=rbpe02/rbpe022/0220120 /rbpe0220120b db&recNum=0.
Balkaran, S. (1991). Mass media and racism. The Yale Political Quarterly, 21(1).
Bibb, H. (1849). Narrative of the life and adventures of Henry Bibb, an American slave. NY: Author, 1849.
Bigham, D. E. (2006). On Jordan’s banks: Emancipation and its aftermath in the Ohio Rivervalley. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Blassingame, J. W. (1972). The slave community: Plantation life in the antebellum South. NY, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bourke, J. (2007). Rape: Sex, violence, and history. Great Britain: Virago Press.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
50
Childs, D. J. (2009). The black church and African American education: The African Methodist Episcopal Church educating for liberation, 1816-
1893. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=miami1250397808.
Childs, D. (2014). Let’s talk about race: Exploring racial stereotypes using popular culture in social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 105(6) 291-300, DOI:10.1080/00377996.2014.948607
Foster, T. A. (2011). Sexual abuse of black men under American slavery. Journal of History and Sexuality 20, (3), 445-464. doi:10.1353/
sex.2011.0059
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth (1988). Within the Plantation Household: Black and White Women of the Old South. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Franklin, J. H., & Higginbotham, E. (2009). From slavery to freedom: A history of African Americans. NY, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Franklin, J. H., & Schweninger, L. (1999). Runaway slaves: Rebels on the plantation. NY, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Gutman, H. (1977). The black family in slavery and freedom, 1750-1925. NY, NY: Vintage Books.
Higginson, T. W. (1867, June). Negro spirituals. The Atlantic Monthly, Retrieved from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/TWH/Higg.html.
Hodes, Martha. (1997). White women, black men: Illicit sex in the Nineteenth-Century South. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Inscoe, J. C. (2013). The Ohio River was not the river Jordan: A review of Matthew Salafia’s slavery’s borderland. Southern Spaces. 25. Retrieved from http://southernspaces.org/2013/ohio-river-was-not-river-jordan-review-matthew-salafias.
Lemons, S. (1977). Black stereotypes as reflected in popular culture, 1889-1920. American Quarterly 29.(1), 102-116. doi:10.2307/2712263
Noll, M. (2006). The Civil War as a theological crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Rankin, J. (1823). Letters on American slavery addressed to Mr. Thomas Rankin, merchant at Middlebrook, Augusta County, Virginia. Retrieved from http://medicolegal.tripod.com/rankin1823.htm#p94
Salafia, M. (2013). Slavery’s borderland: Freedom and bondage along the Ohio River. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Still, W. (1872). The Underground Rail Road: A record of facts, authentic narratives, letters, etc. Philadelphia, PA: Porter and Coates.
Thomas, T. N. (1979). Using popular culture in the social studies: How to do it series. NCSS.
Trotter, J. W. (1998). River Jordan: African American urban life in the Ohio Valley. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Zarillo, J. (2012). Teaching elementary social studies: Principles and applications. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
is an Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education at Northern Kentucky
University, Highland Heights, KY 41099. He can be contacted at [email protected].
David Childs
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
51
THE BIOGRAPHY BLOG PROJECT: USING THE
C3 INQUIRY ARC AND TECHNOLOGY TO
DEVELOP STUDENTS’ HISTORICAL SKILLS
Scott W. DeWitt, Knox College
Maureen Andreadis, Cincinnati Public Schools
p
This article provides teachers and teacher educators with an innovative way to engage students
with world history through a biography blog project. Student skills demonstrated in the project
are linked to the National Council for the Social Studies College, Career, and Civic Life Framework
(2013). While this project involved student research, the description in the study emphasizes the
technological and pedagogical elements of the project that extend beyond a traditional research
paper. Students’ words illustrated their engagement with people from the past.
Often students need to be practically dragged kicking and screaming through the “research
paper” process that is a required part of the ninth-grade world history curriculum in the
Cincinnati public schools. The resulting paper tends to read as though the writers were bored
throughout the process of writing the paper, probably because they were. The Guess Who’s
Coming to Dinner (GWCTD) biography blog project described here was conceived as a way to
use students’ individual interests and computers to meet the goals of the traditional research
project. In the project, students found and evaluated sources, synthesized material into a
coherent whole, and developed writing skills. The project fired up students’ imaginations and
promoted active involvement in historical thinking.
This article is intended to provide teachers and teacher educators with a way to engage students
with world history through an “inquiry arc” as described in College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)
Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013, p. 16-19). Engagement here is defined
as both student interest and as deepening students’ understanding of the complexities and
contextualized nature of history. While the project involved student research, the description in
this paper emphasizes the technological and pedagogical elements of the project. The research
aspects, i.e., instruction on finding and using sources, on evaluating evidence, etc., were
implemented in “traditional” ways in the classroom. What sets the biography blog project apart
is the addition of perspective taking and student-to-student asynchronous communication that
computer tools facilitated.
This article describes the goals and objectives for the project in the context of the literature by
discipline, the school context in which it was implemented, and provides step-by-step guidelines
for implementation. Each of these aspects is framed by and tied directly to the College, Career,
and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013). In addition,
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
52
excerpts from student work provide examples of their responses and experiences as a result
of participating in the project. The article’s conclusion highlights lessons learned during
implementation of the project and provides suggestions for those considering implementing a
biography blog assignment with their students.
The C3 Framework
The C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013) identifies an “inquiry arc”
that is useful as an organizing tool for social studies instruction. It has four components:
• Developing questions and planning inquiries
• Applying disciplinary concepts and tools
• Evaluating sources and using evidence
• Communicating conclusions and taking informed action (p. 17)
Within this overarching framework, the four “dimensions” include learning standards for the
social studies disciplines of civics, economics, geography, and history. Specific standards were
provided for each dimension, creating a “K-12 pathway” (NCSS, 2013, pp. 23-62). These four
dimensions provided a framework for organizing, planning, and instruction. They were the
basis for the description of the biography blog project, with specific standards from the history
standards applied to particular aspects of the project.
Project Goals
A goal for the project was to challenge what Wineburg describes as “ ‘presentism,’ the act of
viewing the past through the lens of the present” (Wineburg, 2001, p. 19). By requiring the use
of two “voices” in the project, their own and the artist they focused on, students were encouraged
to consider and describe the world in their subjects’ terms, rather than exclusively in relation
to the modern world. Admittedly, this strategy did not entirely eliminate presentism in student
thinking. This project, though, provided an opportunity and encouragement for students to
better understand views and customs that were “unnatural” (Wineburg, 2001) for them. This
goal addressed the C3 dimension, “analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape
people’s perspectives” (NCSS, 2013, p. 47).
Emphasizing the role of context in historical thinking was thus another goal of this project.
Students may recognize particular historical figures, but rarely, if ever, make connections between
the actions and accomplishments of those people and the historical and social environment in
which they acted. To address this issue, students were organized into conversation groups within
an era to promote understanding of the relationships within a time frame and of the nature
of influences on individuals’ decisions/actions, i.e., the role of context. The C3 Framework
required students to “analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of
people during different historical eras” (NCSS, 2013, p. 47).
Instructional Objective and Outcome
The objectives for students included having them demonstrate identification with a particular
historical figure (Bruger, 2013). That is, “to affirm that their lives in the present mirror elements
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
53
of the past in at least some important respects” (Barton & Levstik, 2004, p. 45). Additionally,
students were required to create a research project that was not a traditional research paper.
Dissatisfaction with such papers is widespread and has a long history in schools. Consistent
with our experience, other teachers report that research papers generally show a “lack of
engagement with the subject, lots of cutting and pasting of others’ ideas without any synthesis,
lack of creativity or personal investment, [and] lots of poor writing” (Dickson, DeGraff, & Foard,
2002, p. 83). Using the possibilities afforded by computer technology seemed to be well worth
a year’s experiment if it had the possibility of both increasing student interest and decreasing the
number of “traditional” papers that needed to be read at the end of the project. After all, “few
would disagree that history is best taught when students have regular and varied opportunities to
engage in active learning” (Thaler, 2013, p. 270).
Blogs were chosen as the vehicle for communication research because blogs can facilitate
student-to-student and public-to-student dialogue. “Each blogging assignment provides an
avenue for students to use technology in the classroom, as well as an avenue to hold critical
discussions with each other” (Wilson, Wright, Inman, & Matherson, 2011, p. 66). In addition,
the use of blogs and other writing structures in the project promote “deep learning” by requiring
students to complete “assignments involving summarization, analysis, and argument” as well
as including “multimedia and visual content in their writing” (National Survey of Student
Engagement, 2008, p. 22).
Context
The lesson was taught in two sections of regular ninth-grade world history. The students at the
School for Creative and Performing Arts (SCPA) are drawn from the entire city, with smaller
numbers commuting from nearby suburbs. Student demographics are provided in Table 1.
Table 1
Percentage of SCPA Students by Race/Ethnic group and Free/Reduced-price Lunch Eligibility
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2012)
Asian/Pacific
Black
Hispanic
White
2 or More Races
Islander
5
59
1
32
8
Free/Reduced- Lunch Eligible
52
SCPA students gain entry to the school by auditioning in their chosen artistic field. Students
spend approximately one-half of the school day in traditional academic classes and one-half of
the school day studying their chosen art form, e.g., dance, instrumental music, vocal music, etc.
C3 Inquiry Arc: Planning the Inquiry
The project began with an overview about the activity, including an outline of the project steps,
the objectives and rationale for the project, a timeline for all activities, assessment criteria,
and expectations for the project (academic integrity, timely completion, and best writing and
presentation practices). Figure 1 outlines the sequence that each activity was introduced during
the Blog Project. Copies of the project introduction and Internet and blog protocol forms were
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
54
sent to parents for a signature, whereby parents acknowledged that they had been informed of
the guidelines and expectations. Students were expected to complete this project both during
class time and independently, either at school or home. One day each week for three months
(February through the first week of May) was spent working on the project in the computer lab.
This timeline was consistent with research projects in this course in prior years.
Figure 1
“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” Blog Project Activity Sequence
[In the order given to students, not necessarily completed in this sequence.]
1
Choosing an artist/research subject
2
Choosing an icon to represent the artist/research subject
3
Introducing the artist/research subject
4
Interviewing the artist/research subject
5
Collecting artifacts for the blog
6
Creating the blog
7
Communicating with other artists/research subjects from the same era
8
Reflecting on the project
The course instructor, Maureen, created the blog using the free public blog website,
http://blogspot.com. Students then created individual blogs using the name of their research
subject to post their work. Maureen linked the individual blogs to the main project blog site so
that students and others could see and comment on students’ work while preserving student
anonymity. The organization of the blog and documents providing instructions and assessment
guidelines for each step in the process can be found at http://guesswhoiscoingtodinnerartists2.
blogspot.com (see Important Links/Documents on the website).
C3 Inquiry Arc: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools
Much of the student research work was no different from a traditional research paper, in that
students did library and Internet searches for information about their subjects, took notes, and
synthesized the information to create their own explanation of events. This aspect of the project
reflects the inquiry arc’s dimension of “developing questions and planning inquiries” (NCSS,
2013, p. 17). The teacher set the central question of the inquiry, “What accounts for the success
of this individual in the context of his/her time and place?”
Students chose an era (Enlightenment, Revolutionary, Industrialism,
Imperialism, World War I, and Era Between the World Wars) with the caveat that each of the
eras needed to have an equal number of students. Each student selected an artist in his or her
major area to research. While this caused some concern (“I don’t know any ballerinas from the
Enlightenment era!”), it was a first step in getting students to think outside of that with which
they were familiar. The focus on artists addressed the school context, i.e., a performing arts
magnet school. The subjects chosen by the students were important to the project, because
Choosing the subject.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
55
these students felt an affinity to artists. The nature of the project itself, however, focused more
on the interactions of individuals and movements in society and on historical context than it
did on a particular profession. Having students select political leaders, judges, social reformers,
journalists, or some combination of these occupations (and others) would address these same
goals for students for whom art is not of particular interest.
Initially, most students chose European, white men as their subjects. Students were encouraged
to look beyond the easiest choice (at first, seven of the nine Enlightenment-era students wanted
to do Mozart) and explore possibilities that might be more meaningful to them as individuals,
e.g., women and persons of color. These were not necessarily the easiest choices and did require
some digging, but ultimately, in their reflections, students expressed satisfaction with the more
difficult choices.
Placing student research efforts in the context of a particular era specifically addresses the
change, continuity, and context aspect of the history area in the C3 disciplinary concepts and
tools dimension. The rubric for this section includes an expectation that students will “evaluate
how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place
as well as broader historical contexts” (NCSS, 2013, p. 46).
C3 Inquiry Arc: Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence.
Steps three, four, and five (see Figure 1 above) involve students in evaluating sources and using
evidence.
The first written assignment required students to compose and post
a short paragraph of introduction for their subject. Along with giving the student an initial
opportunity to speak in the “voice” of their person, it showed what the students found intriguing
about their chosen individual. Here, the technology changed the nature of students’ investment
in their writing, as they knew that all of their classmates and even strangers would read their
work on the Internet.
Introducing the subject.
At this step, students began to go outside of their comfort zones to express themselves. The
following introductions were written by two students who tended to be quiet in class (one very
shy) and were in no way known for their dramatic expression.
Top of the mornin’ to ‘ya, neighbor! My name is Henry Thomas Alken. Fancy meeting
you here, I was just on the way to the ‘ol art shop. I need some supplies to be makin’
me newest paintin’. ‘Ya see, I’m a pretty famous painter back in Britian [sic]. One of my
most famous paintings is “The Progress of Steam”… Well, I better get a move on ‘fore I
miss the early bird specials! Toodle doo!
Bonjour, mon cher! Je m’appele Kiki de Montparnasse! Oh excuse me, you speak
English? Well, my name is Kiki. I was born in Eastern France, so it is only instinct for
me to speak French . . . I love the liberated culture of Paris! I was born in October of
1901, called Alice Prin, but what a boring name! I had to change it, right away. So many
exciting things have filled my life—I worked in bakeries and shops as a teenager, but by
the time I was fourteen, I was posing nude for sculptors! Let’s just say, my mother wasn’t
very happy with me. Since then I have posed for many artists, like Alexander Calder and
the ever-talented Man Ray. I am the Queen of Montparnasse! Au revoir!
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
56
All students were required to read each of the intros and start thinking about any commonalities
between their subject and others in the same era and across eras. This introduction and
assumption of the subject’s perspective began the process of addressing the C3 history
disciplinary concepts and tools dimension that requires students to “analyze complex and
interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras”
(NCSS, 2013, p. 47). As each student delved deeper into their subject’s life, s/he was required to
“interview” them.
Interviewing the subject.
Students constructed an interview with their subject based on the
questions in Figure 2. They posted those interviews on their blogs, as well as reading and
commenting on the interviews posted by their classmates.
Figure 2
Questions for the interview (All project questions adapted from or inspired by Kettle, 2005)
1. What events in your early life made you get interested in [insert field]?
2. What role did mentors play in helping you develop the interests and talents you have for your
work?
3. What was the world of art like in your particular field when you entered it?
4. How did the major cultural, economic, and political situations of the time impact your work?
5. What were your major accomplishments and the methods you used in your field?
6. What were the key opportunities you had that led to turning points in your life and work?
7. What personal choices did you make to become successful?
8. What hardships or roadblocks did you have to overcome in order to be successful in your
field?
9. What kind of limitations did you run into in your work life and as a person?
10. What personal stories (anecdotes) best illustrate how you became successful?
Two separate voices were required for the interview: the student’s own as the interviewer
and their subject’s. They were permitted to reword the questions to fit their interviewing
style. Students who were outgoing and had a knack for dramatic flair tended to rewrite these
“supporting questions” (Grant, 2013, p. xx) to fit into their style. However, when it came to the
“voice” of their artist, students across the board engaged with the role play. Every student was
animated and clearly “speaking” to his/her audience. It was as if they had channeled each of
their subjects and were pouring out the information. The following is an excerpt from Moliere’s
interview:
I: Who or what caused you to be the funny and successful actor and playwright you are
today?
M: Well, while I was working with my father and going to see shows, I usually watched
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
57
comedies and farces and all types of things that would make you laugh. I remember that
I went to go and watch the King’s Players, a famous and wonderful acting troupe, and
they performed a few romantic tragedies and some well-known farces. That was one
main cause of my success.
Also, as a kid, my mom was very religious, although I wasn’t. For some reason I could
never figure out why I always have, and still do, love making fun of the clergy. It’s just
something that I didn’t like or trust about the clergy, and I found and still find it quite
amusing.
While there was repetition of ideas, students did show that they were creating a cohesive
discussion (Coleman Hawkins: “Well, like I said before, joining Mamie Smith’s Jazz Hounds
was a huge opportunity for me.” Mozart: “I did a lot of traveling, as I’ve already told you.”).
Students selected a wide range of imagery and performances
as artifacts for their blogs: musical scores from Bach, poetry from Phyllis Wheatley, a video of
Verdi’s “Triumphal March” from “Aida,” Lewis Hine photographs of child labor, video of Anna
Pavlova dancing the Dying Swan with the Kirov Ballet, pictures of Samuel Hanneford architecture
(that we could see from our schoolhouse windows in Cincinnati), blueprints of Lloyd Loar
mandolins, as well as portraits, performances, film clips and a variety of other artifacts that spoke
to individual achievements. Selecting these artifacts started students on the process of addressing
the C3 history disciplinary concepts and tools dimension of “analyz[ing] the relationship between
historical sources and the secondary interpretations made from them” (NCSS, 2013, p. 48).
Collecting artifacts for the blog.
C3 Inquiry Arc: Communicating Conclusions
Students communicated their ideas and conclusions about their research subjects through their
blogs. This involved both writing their own posts and commenting on others’ writing,
in particular addressing those within the same historical era. See Figure 1 above.
Initially students had to respond to others in their era, but no
specific guidelines for discussion had been given and it quickly became necessary to spell
out criteria. For example, when the Brazilian guitarist started virtually hitting on the Russian
ballerina, we had to have a very clear talk about the fact that this was not Match.com.
Communicating with others.
To promote greater awareness of the full scope of the time periods, students responded to a
series of questions designed to start conversations and discover the cultural events and societal
influences that their subjects experienced. The questions required students to consider
similarities and differences between their person and others; analyze each other’s work; explain
how the era they lived in influenced their work; and address what political, social, and economic
issues affected them. These online conversations provided opportunities for students to “analyze
multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past” as required in the C3 rubric
(2013, p. 49).
Students were given a series of questions to respond to at the
conclusion of the project (see Figure 3). The questions were designed to promote reflection and
metacognition by the students. They wrote answers to these questions on their blogs.
Reflecting on the project.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
58
Figure 3
Biography Blog Project Reflection Questions (Adapted)
1. How do you think the time period in which a person lives affects their ability to make a
difference?
2. Name one person from this year’s project (other than your own) whose work struck you in
some way. Explain what it was about their work that surprised you/caused you to think.
3. Name the single most important thing your subject did (in your opinion). Explain your
answer.
4. How did using biography to do research help you to understand the society and culture
where people live and work?
5. What did you learn about yourself (as a burgeoning contributor to society) from doing this
project?
6. What other comments do you have?
The first question got to the heart of the social studies lesson for the project—taking it past the
information in a traditional research paper and pushing students to make connections within
eras and to their lives. Again, while these comments focused on subjects’ influence on the art
world, students could just as easily be making observations about contributions to diplomacy,
business innovation, or governing. This question allowed students to begin to demonstrate
their ability to meet the first part of the C3 standard of “construct arguments using precise
and knowledgeable claims, with evidence from multiple sources, while acknowledging
counterclaims and evidentiary weaknesses” (NCSS, 2013, p. 60).
Students made astute connections between the eras they explored and the ability to be able
to produce art. They answered based on the experiences of their own subjects as well as
the others they had read about. They acknowledged and considered gender discrimination,
entitlement, luck, poverty, effects of living through wars, and societal values that they
themselves didn’t always understand.
I believe that an artist’s time period greatly affects their work. In a period where there
are different genres of art that are [more] popular than other time periods, the artist is
more likely to make the art that is popular then . . . However, if an artist strives to go
against the norm and create work that is different than what one usually saw during
that time, that artist leaves a greater impression in people’s minds. After all, there are
many artists that were in poverty most of their lives or their artwork simply wasn’t that
popular when they were alive, but their art was later celebrated when people realized
how beautiful it was. Or an artist’s gender or social status may prevent them from
being popular as much as possible. My artist, Rosa Bonheur, broke away from what
women were expected to act like and did many things that were restricted only to
men, such as smoking in public or wearing trousers . . . [She] and her paintings and
castings were greatly celebrated both in her life and after she died.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
59
What was most interesting about students’ responses to the second question was how many of
them were intrigued by disciplines other than their major area. Visual artists acknowledged
musicians, dancers were enamored by vocalists, and theatre tech students were excited about
writers. This was gratifying, because these students generally do not study across arts disciplines
(for example, a student who comes into the dance program at grade four has never taken a music
or visual arts class—only dance). By putting them all together in a group, they had developed
a greater understanding and appreciation of other major areas of study. They also saw that in
many cases, their own area of expertise was interdependent with other art forms.
In choosing the most important contribution created by their subject, students demonstrated
that they considered not only their own opinion but a larger view of where their subject fit
historically in the world in general. Responses reflected sophistication in their analysis of their
artist’s work. One student wrote about architect Victor Louis:
I feel that the most important work created by my artist was the Bordeaux Theater in
France. It is probally [sic] one of Victor Louis’s works that he is most renowned for . . . I
think that because he is not renowned all over the world like some artists (for example,
Mozart, Beethoven) that the Bordeaux Theater draws attention to the architect who
created it. I also think that the Bordeaux Theater is important because it is a place for
performing, and I feel that it might help keep the arts flourishing in France, especially the
city of Bordeaux in which it is located. And maybe because the theater is so fabulouslooking in the style of architecture it was constructed from, that it might also draw
attention to the beautiful styles of art and architecture and the skillful architects of the
Revolutionary era. I think the Bordeaux would be a contributing factor in showing the
citizens and tourists of modern-day France what the styles of art and architecture were
like back in 18th-century France.
By and large, students found creating this biography to be a meaningful way to learn about an
individual and different historical eras. Many stated that this process required them to think
like their subject, making them more open to understanding all influences, both personal and
societal. Further, the students wrote in a way that showed depth and a multifaceted awareness
of their subjects that they themselves had not expected to discover. This aspect of the project
allowed students to demonstrate their ability to “integrate evidence from multiple relevant
historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past” (NCSS, 2013,
p. 49). Each student starting with his/her own research and then integrating their classmates’
observations of their particular era created a level of understanding that clearly pushed beyond
the level any had reached in his/her own work.
The final question was an opportunity for them to add anything else they might want. On the
whole, comments were positive. Even given the chance to anonymously respond, none of the
comments were negative or thoughtless. Students expressed pride in their work and excitement
that this project was something that would be shared publicly. They also appreciated studying
within their majors and that the project was rigorous. There were numerous statements attesting
to the fact that the project had been “way more fun” and meaningful than a traditional research
paper. Getting to use technology was also a plus as this was something not afforded to them in
their other academic classes. On the other hand, some found the whole project stressful and
overwhelming.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
60
Conclusions
The students met the original objectives for the project: addressing presentism through
identification with a particular historical figure and using technology to communicate research
findings. Students’ written work illustrated an understanding of their subject’s thinking and
the degree that students were able to move beyond historical presentism. This was especially
true in the interview section of their blogs as students switched between their voice and their
representation of the artist’s voice responding to questions.
Connecting to the social context was perhaps the least successful aspect of the project. In
the next incarnation of the project, directly adding discussion questions in each era will more
pointedly address this objective. See Figure 4 for suggested discussion question examples.
Figure 4
Proposed Discussion Questions Example—Industrialization Era (Adapted)
1.The Industrial Era was a time of changing societies. How did you use conflict or cooperation
to extend your creative process? In what ways did that speak to the many changes that were
taking place in your world?
2.Industrialization brought great wealth to some and absolute poverty to many. How did having
a background of financial stability help people across fields in your era (politics, technology,
art, economics, etc.) to make contributions? Was financial security necessary to make those
contributions? Explain.
3.The Industrial Era was a time of technological change that in turn caused citizens to have to
participate in new ways. People began to interact with members of their communities in new
ways as well. Explain how people across fields showed their awareness of these changes or
used these changes to their advantage. (See question 2 for ideas about fields).
The students appreciated that this research project was more flexible and creative than a
traditional paper. From a teaching perspective, the project was not simpler in terms of research
or writing, but it was significantly easier from a motivation standpoint. Students still needed
structure and guidance, but they were much more interested and willing to put in the necessary
work for this project than previous classes when doing research.
While reading the blogs took just as much time as traditional research papers, the writing was
more personal and creative, so the reading was not a chore. The students showed fascinating
insights and personal touches in their blogs and written responses.
The “communicating and critiquing conclusions” dimension of the C3 Framework includes a
standard that asks students to:
Present adaptations of arguments and explanations that feature evocative ideas and
perspectives on issues and topics to reach a range of audiences and venues outside the
classroom using print and oral technologies . . . and digital technologies (e.g., Internet,
social media, and digital documentary). (2013, p. 60)
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
61
This project was evocative for students and required them to provide explanations and
arguments. The blogging aspect of the project brought those explanations and arguments to
their classmates, to students in other sections of the same course, and to the public outside of
their school building.
The biography blog project provided students an opportunity to address controversy and
convention, encouraged viewing historical figures within their historical context, contributed
to understanding social contexts of history, and made students’ research and writing available
to their peers and others. As such, it met and went beyond the requirements of the traditional
research paper, as well as provided an opportunity for students to develop and demonstrate
important skills highlighted in the College, Career, and Civic Life Standards.
References
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruger, K. (2013). Power of one: Using biographies to investigate an individual’s impact on the past and present. Ohio Social Studies Review, 50(2), 8-14.
Dickson, R., DeGraff, J., & Foard, M. (2002). Learning about self and others through multigenre research projects. English Journal, 92(2), 82-90. doi:10.2307/822230
Grant, S. G. (2013). From inquiry arc to instructional practice. In Social Studies for the Next Generation: Purposes, Practices, and Implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards (pp. xvii-xx). Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
Kettle, K. (2005). Science with a human touch: Historical vignettes in the teaching and learning of science. In S. B. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing Exemplary Science Teaching (pp. 38-45). Maidenhead, England/New York: Open University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Common core of data. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2008). Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within, 2008 results. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Thaler, V. S. (2013). Teaching historical research: One instructor’s approach. The History Teacher, 46(2), 267-281.
Wilson, E. K., Wright, V. H., Inman, C. T., & Matherson, L. H. (2011). Retooling the social studies classroom for the current generation. The Social Studies, 102, 65-72. doi:10.1080/00377996.2010.484445
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
is an Assistant Professor of Educational Studies at Knox College, Galesburg, IL
61401. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Scott W. DeWitt
is a history teacher at Cincinnati Public Schools, Ohio. She can be contacted
at [email protected].
Maureen Andreadis
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
62
A COMPARISON OF THE IMPACTS
OF PQ4R AND MIND MAPPING
Nathan R. Whitman, Bowling Green City Schools
i
With standardized scores among American students falling behind their peers internationally
year after year, a new interest in learning methods has seen a re-emergence among educational
researchers. Two of these methods, which have continued to receive interest from the
educational and cognitive processing fields, have been the mind mapping strategies (also
known as concept mapping) and the Preview, Question, Read, Reflect, Recite, Review (PQ4R)
method of reading. This study examined which method is more effective at raising academic
performance in two separate, similarly achieving 10th-grade social studies classes in a single
unit of study over the Great Depression. Using data deriving from results of formative and
summative assessments throughout the unit, this study provides preliminary evidence to
educators on which method is most impactful in helping their students comprehend academic
content more efficiently.
It has been suggested that America’s public school system is failing its students. Research
(Goodman, Sands, & Coley, 2015) has indicated that our current generations of students in
public education are lagging severely behind their international peers on a variety of academic
subjects. According to Goodman et al. (2015), millennials, defined as anyone born after 1980,
scored near or at the bottom in every category in international tests. “In literacy, U.S. millennials
scored lower than 15 of the 22 participating countries. Only millennials in Spain and Italy
had lower scores” (p. 4). Even though Americans attain higher educational levels, they still
consistently score the lowest on standardized international tests. These results suggest that
providing more education may not be the solution to America’s problem. Instead, we need to
look at the quality of instruction given to our students and the methods and tools we give them
in order to think more critically in the classroom.
Reading comprehension consistently has been a weak spot for many of my students in my 10thgrade American history class. Students complete a variety of assignments throughout each unit,
some of which require students independently to read and analyze text from their textbook. To
be a proficient student in social studies, one needs to be able to analyze and comprehend written
text. A problem with many students, however, is switching from a passive reader to an active
reader. Reading actively enables deeper comprehension and better understanding of the text.
After assessments have been administered to the students over the selected reading, I find that
without teacher guidance and direct instruction, many students are not capable of independently
reading and fully comprehending the material assigned to them. So I began to research two
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
63
comprehension strategies to assist students: mind mapping and the PQ4R method, with the goal
of finding out which one is more effective at promoting student learning and achievement in my
classroom.
Literature Review
Two methods to improve academic performance that have continued to receive interest from
educational and cognitive processing fields have been mind mapping and the Preview, Question,
Read, Reflect, Recite, Review (PQ4R) approach.
Mind Mapping
Mind mapping (Buzan, 1976) draws from Paivio’s dual coding hypothesis (1971) of integrating
both a visual image and a verbal label, which facilitates the encoding of information into longterm memory and retrieval of that information (Paivio, 1990, p. 53). Mind mapping as defined
by Davies (2011) is any “visual display of information, concepts, and relations between ideas”
(p. 279). The purpose of mapping techniques is to have students constructively organize
complex information visually in an easy-to-view manner. According to Davies (2011), “Maps
allow the separate encoding of information in memory in visual as well as propositional form
. . . allowing for enhanced learning [and] if students can represent or manipulate a complex set
of relationships in a diagram, they are more likely to understand those relationships, remember
them, and be able to analyze their component parts” (p. 280).
Mind mapping works because it involves a hands-on learning approach that “uses both sides of the
brain, letting them work together and thus increases productivity and memory retention” (Tsinakos
& Balafoutis, 2009, p. 56). It is these uses of artistic creativity and the use of logic to make
connections between complex ideas used in mind mapping techniques that creates deeper schemes
to enhance learning. When students make mind maps, they are creating relationships between
new knowledge and their prior knowledge, which is an integral part of the learning process.
PQ4R
Reading comprehension and analysis is an essential skill for the social studies classroom; yet
many students struggle with learning from the text. Kiewra (2002) asserts that many students
are ineffective learners in the classroom because “students are rarely instructed how to learn
(p. 71). As individuals become more aware of the processes that are involved in the act of
reading, they can begin to understand how to learn better (Sanacore, 1984). This is the goal of
the PQ4R method: to get students to take more time thinking about how they learn and applying
that to their reading. The PQ4R method evolved from the SQ3R method and added an extra
step for the reader to complete while reading. The purpose of the extra step is to help readers
internalize information better (Williams, 2005). Researchers commented that SQ3R was lacking
the necessary research to truly determine its worth in terms of improving reading comprehension
in general or social studies in particular (Pelow, 1983). PQ4R emerged from the work of
Robinson (1961), who demonstrated its effectiveness from an experiment he conducted with
undergraduate students. In order to show growth, Robinson administered to students a pretest
before the beginning of a new unit to establish a baseline for learning. He had them practice
the PQ4R method throughout the unit and then administered the post-test. The results were
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
64
quite conclusive: students’ scores increased on both comprehension and reading rate (Johns &
McNamara, 1980).
Pelow (1983) suggested that the PQ4R reading-study skills technique improved the
comprehension of sixth-grade social studies students. He compared the results of the control
group of the study, who used the traditional textbook method, including workbook assignments,
and oral and written reports, to those students who practiced the PQ4R method. Pelow’s
research showed a significant advantage for those students who were engaged in the PQ4R
method. Pelow’s research further explained the advantages of the PQ4R method in learning
comprehension in that it gave the reader a purpose in his/her reading and encouraged active
rather than passive learning.
PQ4R consists of different activities the reader must complete in order to engage in more
active rather than passive reading. The “P” stands for preview, where one scan over the chapter
before one even begins reading it, paying close attention to section headers, pictures, quotes,
introductory statements, etc., to get the reader’s mind ready and prepared for the information
to come. The “Q” stands for question, which is where the reader creates questions based off of
the section headers. These questions can be created simply by including the “who, what, when,
where, why” qualifiers to the section heading, or students can create original, organic questions
they had while doing the previewing of the chapter. The first “R” is read, whereby the reader
begins to look for the answers to the questions that were raised in the questioning portion. If
the reader is taking notes, these notes should be a summary of the material in the readers’ own
words. Next is to “reflect,” where the reader thinks about the main points of the chapter and
the answers to the questions created. In the “recite” step, the reader orally recites the questions
and answers in his or her own words. The reader should also go back through the notes and
underline or highlight important points. Lastly, the reader then “reviews” the answers to the
questions created. It is important that this review takes place between 12 and 24 hours after the
initial introduction to the material (Pelow, 1983).
Much research has been undertaken to help further explain why PQ4R works. It is based on
the information processing theory of learning (Tadlock, 1978). First, the reader takes in the
information using sensory organs. Next, the reader tries to accommodate new information using
pre-existing knowledge to process that information via their memory systems. Then the reader
is able to structure, categorize and assimilate new information from the reading in the most
meaningful manner possible. The biggest advantage to PQR4 is that it promotes active reading.
When we recite, we slow down the input of information, since information is only in short-term/
working memory for about 5 seconds unless we attend to it deeper. The more a reader attends
to the information, as the PQ4R method is intended to promote, the easier it will be to encode,
and the more meaningful the information will be, thus making it easier to retrieve from one’s
long-term memory storage.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine which method is more effective at raising student
performance from pretest to post-test results: PQ4R or mind mapping students in my classroom
had not been exposed to either approach prior to this study.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
65
Method
Participants
The two classes were chosen based on their similarities in academic performance during the first
semester as well as their class size. One was designated as the mind mapping class (Class A), and
the other used the PQ4R method for their reading assignments (Class B). The average score for
Class A for the first semester was 85%, while the average Class B semester grade was 83%. Class
A has 23 students total, with three students who were on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs),
primarily regarding accommodations for reading and writing. Class B had two students on IEPs,
both of whom required accommodations for math. The assignment of either mind mapping or
PQ4R methods was random. Class A had 9 females and 14 males, while Class B had 13 females
and 14 males. Class A had 21 students identified as Caucasian, one student identified as African
American, and one student identified as Hispanic/Other on their school records. Class B had
25 students identified as Caucasian and two students identified as Hispanic/Other. The school
district is primarily rural. All students at the time of the experiment were in their 10th-grade
year, and all were either 15 or 16 years of age. Class A had one student on free/reduced lunch,
while Class B had 2.
Measures
Students’ academic achievement was assessed formally through a pretest, two quizzes, and a
summative exam over the unit in focus—the Great Depression. The results of the summative
exam on the Great Depression unit allowed for latitudinal analysis between the two classes
and their respective method, and longitudinal analysis allowed for measurement of growth
and academic achievement from the previous unit’s summative exam and the unit of study’s
summative exam. The students primarily read out of their standard issue textbook, Holt’s
American Nation (Boyer, 2005) and received direct instruction content generated by me.
Students took two formative quizzes, which had seven multiple-choice questions and three short
answer questions, totaling ten items. The summative exam at the end of the unit was comprised
of 40 multiple-choice questions, 15 true/false, 10 matching, and an essay response. The
summative exam was the same for both Class A and B. For both groups, testing occurred in
one 50-minute session.
Procedure
I spent the first lesson of the unit administering a pretest, and then began by introducing to the
students the method that they would be using for the unit. I gave a brief presentation to each
class of the method and the research behind their assigned technique, and how it could possibly
help them retain more information to better prepare for the upcoming end-of-unit exam. I then
modeled for them the appropriate technique for their assigned method. I gave them their first
book assignment and walked around the classroom to observe students, provide guidance, and
answer any questions regarding the method if they needed it. For students using the mind
mapping method, I introduced them to the website, www.popplet.com, where they could use
the classroom set of laptops to make digital, interactive individual mind maps (see figure 1).
For students using the PQ4R method, I provided them with a guided worksheet that took them
through the steps one by one, showing on how to preview, question and so on (see Appendix A).
The next class, students came in and were able to use their mind maps or PQ4R notes for use
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
66
on the first formative quiz. I allowed each group to use their respective notes to give them
an indication on the effectiveness of note-taking techniques. If they did not perform well on
the quiz, then they would need to adjust their note-taking accordingly. I graded the tests and
checked their notes/mind maps, and returned the results to the students, asking them to write
exit slip (five sentences) on their reaction to their score, and whether or not they would change
anything and why. It was important that assessments were returned to students in a timely
manner so that they could reflect on the outcome of the test and accommodate their learning
style immediately in preparation for the next assignments.
The unit went on, and I continued assigning mind mapping and reading assignments, and
continued modeling the proper technique each time. After five days of instruction, students
were given another summative, open-note quiz over the content learned. Once again, students
were given the opportunity to reflect on their proficiency with their respective method and were
asked how they could improve for the next assessment.
Lastly, students were given the final summative exam for the unit. Students in both classrooms
were given a study guide in their Google classroom and then participated in a review day.
Students who could not access the study guide from home were given a copy of the study guide
and could use the entire class period to fill out the study guide, ask any questions, and receive
clarification over unit material. Students were then given their summative exam. The test was
comprised of multiple choice, true/false, matching questions, and one essay question. The same
test was given to both classes.
Figure 1
Example of Mind Map
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
67
Results
Students in both Class A and Class B scored similarly on the pretest with the average score at or
around 20%, with the low score in both classes being 10% and the high being 40%. Students in
Class A scored an average score of 79% on their quiz 1 (Q1) score. Students in Class B scored
an average score of 81% on their Q1 score—a 2% difference in favor of PQ4R. Students in class
A scored an average of 76% on quiz 2 (Q2). Students in Class B scored an average score of 85%
on Q2 (see figure 3). Results indicated that the averages between Class A and Class B showed
that the PQ4R method was most effective at increasing student achievement and academic
comprehension. The difference between the two methods was quite considerable when it came
time to take the summative exam: students in Class A who engaged in mind mapping had an
average score on the summative exam of the unit at 81.5%. The average of class B was lower,
registering at 71.1%. This was by far the largest disparity between the two classes throughout
the unit.
Figure 3
Analysis of Performance over the Course of the Unit
Looking at the data over time, the average score for students in Class A on the previous unit’s
summative exam (PSE), which was set up similarly and at a comparable difficulty level, was
73.3%. So, Class A had approximately an 8% increase from their previous unit’s summative
exam, which had no implementation of either method to the current unit’s summative exam.
Class B had an average score of 76% on their previous unit’s summative exam resulting in a
5% decrease in academic proficiency once the method was implemented.
Looking at individual students’ achievement before and after implementation of either method
provides dramatic results as well. I chose three students from both classes who represented
varying levels of student academic performance based on their current grade for the course
at the time of the study. Student 1 (S1A) in Class A is typically in the lower third of her class
academically. On the previous unit’s summative exam, she scored a 42% on her test. On the
unit with implementation of the mind mapping methodology (CSE), she scored a 69% showing
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
68
a 27% increase. S1A had scored a 30% on Q1, a 60% on Q2, and a 69% on CSE. Student 2
(S2A) in Class A, who is in the midrange of his peers in terms of academic performance in my
classroom, scored an 82% on the previous unit’s summative exam, and an 88% on the current
unit, with implementation showing a 6% increase. S2A scored an 80% on Q1 and 100% on
Q2. Student 3 (S2A), who is considered the top of his class academically, had a zero net gain or
loss as he scored a 96% on the previous unit’s summative exam and a 96% on the current unit’s
summative exam. This student scored 100% on both of the quizzes of the unit.
The same pattern is present in Class B with the PQ4R method implemented. Student 1 of
Class B (S1B), who is typically in the lower third of her class academically, scored a 64% on
the previous unit’s summative exam, prior to implementation of the PQ4R method, and an
84% on the summative exam of the unit after implementation, showing a 20% increase of
academic performance. S1B also showed improvement as the unit went on, scoring a 50%
on Q1, and a 70% on Q2. Student 2 of Class B (S2B), who is in the midrange of his peers in
terms of academic performance, scored a 76% on his exam from the previous unit without
implementation, while scoring an 80% on the current unit’s exam, showing a 4% increase. This
student scored 80% on his two quizzes of the unit. Lastly, student 3 of Class B (S3B) had a net
loss of 2% after scoring a perfect score on the previous unit’s exam without any implementation
and a 98% on the current unit’s summative exam (see figure 4). This student had scored a 90%
and 100% respectively on the unit’s two quizzes.
Figure 4
Analysis of Student Achievement before and after Implementation of PQ4R Method
Group data were then collected regarding raw scores, means, variances, and standard deviations.
A statistical analysis was conducted using the test for independent samples to determine whether
there was a significant difference in achievement scores between the two groups: that is, group
A (M=80, SD = 14, N= 23) using the mind mapping method and group B (M=74, SD=14 N=27)
using the PQ4R method. Because of the short amount of time that was available to conduct this
study, significance was established at the 0.05 level. The test of independent samples showed
that students who received the mind mapping treatment approached significance t(48) = 1.51
p= 0.069 two-tailed (see table 1).
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
69
Table 1
Summary statistics for the two methods
Variable
N
Mean
Variance
Standard
Deviation
Standard Error
Median
Range
Class A
23
80
209.818
14.485
3.020
82
56
Class B
27
74.81
212.1567
14.565
2.803
80
67
Discussion
It should be noted that this research is based on limited data, with a small sample size. These
results should not be considered conclusive by any means. One limitation is the length of time
over which the study was conducted. It may be difficult to get conclusive results after only one
unit of study and three data points. Students had barely enough time to become acquainted
with the method before the final exam was upon them. By stretching out the training and use of
either technique for a longer length of time (e.g., semester long), more data can be collected to
better understand which method is more effective at promoting academic achievement, especially
as compared to a class that was not taught either method previously. Another limitation that
must be considered is the role technology played in motivating students to putting more effort
into mind mapping. Students may be more compelled to participate in the mind mapping
technique because of the user-friendly website that was used as compared to the paper and
pencil tendency of the PQ4R method.
The results of this study are still intriguing. I initially felt that the PQ4R method would be
most successful in generating positive results for all students in Class B. This was based on
my observations that students have had very little exposure to mind mapping techniques and
were already familiar with various note-taking techniques. That is why it was surprising to see
not only did the mind mapping technique outperform the PQ4R method, but did so by a 10%
margin on the summative exam. It was understandable that the results and scores would be
similar between the two groups going into the final summative exam at the end of the unit, as
during both of the quizzes the students were able to refer back to either their mind mapping or
PQ4R notes respectively. However, to see such a jump on the final exam was unexpected.
Another interesting statistic is how the academic achievement of Class B actually regressed on the
summative exam for the Great Depression unit in comparison to the previous unit’s summative
assessment, where no academic intervention was implemented. A possible explanation for this
might be that because of the inclement weather that closed school, more students in Class B
might have been unable to access the study guide at home or online due to inaccessibility to the
Internet.
The results of mind mapping “outperforming” the PQ4R method on the summative exam
support Davies’s (2011) assertions that mind mapping requires the student to use different
abilities, including visual, logical, reasoning, and abstract thinking skills, which enables
greater encoding and retrieval of that information. Mind mapping works, because it promotes
“meaningful learning” (Davies, 2011, p. 290). He also states that mind mapping is effective,
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
70
because it allows the presentation of new material to build on existing knowledge: “Having a
source of prior knowledge that is well-structured and retrievable allows students to scaffold new
learning” (p. 291). To create a mind map, students needed to make connections to previous
learning which, according to Fasko (2015), is attributed to various information processing
theorists. Meier (2007) also notes that the free-flow design of mind mapping eliminates the
boundaries often associated with more traditional note-taking strategies and actually follows
more closely with how the brain naturally functions, in a “random and nonlinear way” (p. 1).
According to information processing theory, how the brain receives, organizes, processes,
stores, and retrieves information is what differentiates what stays in short-term memory or can
be integrated into an individual’s long-term memory. Both PQ4R and mind mapping force
the learner to use abstract thinking. By having learners use the PQ4R and visual and creative
techniques of mind mapping, they are developing deeper levels of processing into their longterm memory (Fasko, 2015). According to Dhindsa, Makarimi-Kasim, and Anderson (2011),
techniques like these work, because they help it “helps students organize their knowledge and
make it more salient in long-term memory compared to the more traditional lecture-centered
format of teaching” (p. 188).
While the results still prove inconclusive, a lot can be gleaned from this work. The most
important take-away is the indication that utilizing of these learning techniques had the biggest
and most positive impact on the lower achieving or “at-risk” students. The PQ4R and mind
mapping provided structure and purpose to students when approaching a new unit of study, and
it is this structure that acted as a foundation of learning to help them on the summative test. In
the future, I will introduce these techniques to my students earlier in the year and reinforce them
throughout the course. This research confirmed my belief that it is not only important to teach
what students should learn, but also we as educators need to teach how students how to learn so
that they can be successful in our social studies classrooms.
References
Boyer, P.S.A. (2005). Holt American nation. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping, and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41477852. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
Dhindsa, H. S., Makarimi-Kasim, X., & Anderson, O. R. (2011). Constructivist-visual mind map teaching approach and the quality of students’ cognitive structures. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 186-200. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9245-4
Fasko, D. (2015, March 5). Cognitive development [Powerpoint]. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/pgdbpry
Goodman, M. J., Sands, A. M., & Coley, R. J. (2015). America’s skills challenge: Millennials and the future. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/s/research/30079/index.html
Johns, J. L., & McNamara, L. P. (1980). The SQ3R study technique: A forgotten research project. Journal of Reading, 23, 705-708. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40009142
Kiewra, K. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 71–80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477458. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_3
Meier, P. S. (2007). Mind mapping: A tool for eliciting and representing knowledge held by diverse informants. Retrieved from
http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU52.pdf
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780195066661.001.0001
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
71
Pelow, R. A. (1983). PQ4R as it affects comprehension of social studies reading material. The Social Studies Journal, 12, 14-22.
Robinson, F. P. (1961). Study skills for superior students in secondary school. The Reading Teacher, 15(1), 29-33.
Sanacore, J. (1984). Metacognition and the improvement of reading: Some important links. Journal of Reading, 27(8), 706-712. Retrieved from http://0www.jstor.org.maurice.bgsu.edu/stable/40032625
Tadlock, D. F. (1978). SQ3R—Why it works, based on information processing theory of learning. Journal of Reading, 22, 110-112.
Tsinakos, A., & Balafoutis, T. (2009). A comparative survey on mind mapping tools. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(3). Retrieved from www.jstor.org.
Williams, S. (2005). Guiding students through the jungle of research-based literature. College Teaching, 22(4), 137-139. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559243. doi:10.3200/ctch.53.4.137-139
Appendix A
Example of PQ4R Guided Worksheet
Step 1 Preview: Write down all of the main headings of your text (in Red)
I. _____________________________________________________
II. _____________________________________________________
III. ____________________________________________________
IV. _____________________________________________________
Step 2 Question: Using those headings, create questions to answer while you are reading that
section in the space below.
Step 3 Read: Read the chapter.
Step 4 Reflect: Think about the main points of the chapter and what are the most important
aspects which help answer the questions you created.
Step 5 Recite: Write down your answers to the questions and read them over.
Step 6 Review: Review over these answers within 12 to 24 hours after completing the chapter.
is a graduate student in the Educational Foundations, Leadership and
Policy Studies program at Bowling Green State University. He can be contacted at nwhitman11@
gmail.com.
Nathan Richard Whitman
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
72
A LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FOR
THE OHIO SOCIAL STUDIES COMMUNITY
Brad Maguth, PhD, Associate Professor, The University of Akron
i
Lawmakers and our State School Board are hard at work proposing changes and updates to policies
and procedures in social studies education and teacher education. As these changes and updates are
proposed, be sure to stay in contact with your representatives in order to advocate for a strong social
studies curriculum and resources. Recently, there are two legislative matters we have been following and
encourage members to discuss with their representatives:
1. Senate Bill 3: While we applaud this legislation’s provisions that reduce the exhaustive amounts of
testing Ohio’s students and teachers experience, we are concerned with other provisions that failed to
ensure all of Ohio’s students receive social studies instruction from a highly qualified and licensed social
studies educator. A provision in Senate Bill 3, which has passed the Senate and is before the House
Education Committee, would allow unlicensed teachers as full-time classroom teachers.
2. In December, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Acts (ESSA). This
legislation reduces the U.S. Department of Education’s authority over state curriculum frameworks and
standards testing decisions, gives states the power to use “evidence-based” models when investing in
the lowest-performing 5% of schools, and curtails the Secretary of Education’s authority over state and
local policy making. In regards specifically to social studies, the legislation proposes two types of grants
available in the social studies:
i. Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants: These grants are aimed at supporting
local school districts targeting federal resources on local prioritizes to better serve disadvantaged
students. The goal is to ensure a well-rounded education (which may include social studies,
civics, technology, arts, etc.) for low-income students.
ii. Federal Competitive Grants: These competitive grants are in three areas:
•
Presidential Academies for American History and Civics teachers and Pk-12 students (establish and implement)
•
National Activities in Social Studies (Based on Sandra Day O’Connor Act)- promotes new and existing evidence-based strategies to encourage innovative American history, civics and government, and geography instruction, as well as learning strategies and professional development, in particular, to benefit under-served populations.
•
Competitive grants for innovation and research in instruction and curriculum
While these priorities are outlined and requested in ESSA, it is important members contact their U.S.
representatives to secure funding and enable social studies educators to apply. For more resources and
information on ESSA and advocacy steps see http://www.socialstudies.org/advocacy/advocacy-legislativeupdates/social-studies-every-student-succeeds-act-where-do-we-go-here
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
73
ONE TEACHER’S VIEW: A CALL TO REEVALUATE
THE RESIDENT EDUCATOR PROGRAM
Joe Boggs, Penta Career Center
u
“The whole program is a problem. This is [exactly] what we had to do in college. Why are we
doing it again?”
“This program leads to burn out in teachers; do I really want to continue in this field?”
“I feel the questions are very repetitive. Many times the answer I have for #2, for example, is the
same for #8…the actual work seems to be ‘busy work’. Really, as a first year teacher trying to
figure everything else out, I don’t need more busy work.” (Smith, 2014, p. 2-3)
These are just a few of the grievances my colleagues have voiced regarding Ohio’s relatively
new Resident Educator Program. In stark contrast to these comments, the Ohio Department of
Education maintains that the ResEd Program “can be envisioned as the first years of a journey or
the first steps on a path of continued professional learning, leading educators to more effective
practices and excellence in teaching” (Ohio Department of Education, 2015). Despite these
disparities in language, my personal experiences as a resident educator and collaboration with
fellow new teachers reveal legitimate issues and concerns with Ohio’s Resident Educator Program.
Perhaps one of the most prominent criticisms about the Resed program is that it closely
resembles the University program from which almost all of the resident educators just graduated.
To summarize the four-year Resident Educator program briefly, the first two years are devoted to
frequent meetings with an assigned mentor and documentation of differentiation, analysis, and
improvement of assignments in the classroom. The Resident Educator Summative Assessment
(RESA) constitutes the all-important third year. Finally, the fourth year is set aside for engaging in
professional development at the local level and, for many resident educators, retaking “deficient”
areas on their RESA. For the most part, the first, second, and fourth years are beneficial, not too
burdensome, and truthfully what new teachers should be doing already.
In my experience, resident educators’ complaint about the ResEd program is in reference to the
third year, the RESA, as it mimics activities and assignments already completed during the state
mandated professional education sequence, which includes courses in content specific methods
and teaching experiences. To obtain licensure, the vast majority of teachers in Ohio completed a
rigorous professional education program, including student teaching experiences during which
they had to develop countless in-depth lesson plans, thoroughly explain their rationale for the
classroom decisions they made (differentiation of assessments, selection of learning strategies,
etc.), analyze student work, and more. As is common practice across professional education
programs, while a student in an accredited social studies education program, I did all of this and
more on numerous occasions with professors who purposefully scrutinized and provided tailored
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
74
feedback for every instructional decision. Many of my fellow education majors dropped out at
this stage due to these difficult but essential demands. Those who “survived” truly demonstrated
their pedagogical prowess and felt a true sense of accomplishment. The RESA—which essentially
determines whether you deserve to be an educator in Ohio—disregards the rigor and true
preparation University education programs provided their students. Just a couple years after
finishing their college experience, the RESA repeats the same tasks that new teachers already
proved they could do while still students.
Another major concern with Ohio’s Resident Educator Program is that it actually drives good
teachers away from the profession. The ResEd program claims that it prepares instructors for
a “path of continued professional learning” and “teaching excellence” (Ohio Department of
Education, 2015); yet, instead of motivating new educators to advance their careers, I have
watched several highly qualified colleagues who were in the midst of the Resident Educator
program completely give up on the profession. Each of them had differing circumstances, but
a common theme has emerged: the stress of passing the ResEd contributed to their decisions.
I am not alone in this observation. Karen Mantia, superintendent of Lakota Schools in Butler
County, shared similar concerns with the House Education Committee (March 11, 2015). In her
testimony, Dr. Mantia stated that “Instead of sheltering teachers from inappropriate workloads,
one of the most important goals of the Resident Educator program, the work now required by the
program actually takes time away from their classroom,” and that the “well-intentioned program
is now helping to drive great young teachers right out of the profession” (House Bill 74 House
Education Committee, 2015).
Of the 6,292 new teachers in Ohio who took the RESA in 2014-2015 for the first time, 3006
failed at least one portion of the assessment (Smith, personal communication, October 29,
2015). Those numbers may seem alarmingly high, but within the context of new teachers who
are juggling lesson planning for new classes, crafting classroom structures, preparing for OTES
evaluations and standardized testing, grading extensively, regularly communicating with parents,
getting used to their new school district’s culture and more, the ResEd program adds stress to
novice teachers, rather than supporting their development as professional educators.
When finished with all of the Year 3 tasks, my written materials amounted to over twenty pages
single spaced, and I had devoted over thirty hours to work that had little bearing on what I did
in the classroom. One of the resident educators who recently left the profession plainly stated,
There is an overwhelming amount of work with very little impact on my actual ability
to teach. This program has probably led to me being a worse teacher as my focus has
been on completing paperwork for outside of the classroom…. It leads me to question
whether I could not use my talents and abilities in a different direction. (Smith, personal
communication, 2015)
Similarly, Jeff Price, Superintendent of Ohio Hi-Point Career Center in Bellefontaine, Ohio,
described his concern regarding the time required not only to complete the assessments, but
also to upload required components to a website, as well as the wait time between submission
and dissemination of results (Resident Educator Summative Assessment (RESA) for CareerTechnical Educators, 2015). An important factor identified by both Price and Mantia is the lack
of feedback provided Resident Educators when they fail a component, which is incongruous with
the expectation of Resident Educators when assessing their students.
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
75
In summary, while there are portions of the ResEd that are useful, in its current form, it is an
onerous task for Ohio’s newest teachers. Especially troublesome is the RESA, which based on
current test scores, is preventing nearly half of the resident educators in Ohio from earning a
professional teaching license. As a recent resident educator, it is my opinion that the Ohio’s
Resident Educator Program places unnecessary burdens on the state’s newest teachers and I
concur with others across the state, calling for reconsideration of the RESA. Hence, I recommend
educators and other stakeholders learn more about the Ohio ResED and RESA, and support
proposed bills in the Ohio House Education Committee that call for replacing the RESA with the
OTES evaluation system that is already in place. Passing this proposed bill and maintaining the
other elements of the Resident Educator program would certainly be a step in the right direction
in supporting, preparing, and retaining professional educators in Ohio.
References
Ohio Department of Education. (2015, November 18). Resident Educator Program: Program Overview. Retrieved from
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Resident-Educator-Program/Resident-Educator-Overview
Ohio House Bill 74: Testimony before the Ohio House Education Committee, 131st General Assembly (March 11, 2015) (testimony of Karen Mantia).
Resident Educator Summative Assessment (RESA) for Career-Technical Educators: Testimony before the Ohio
House of Representatives Education Committee, 131st General Assembly (May 19, 2015)
(testimony of Jeff Price).
Ohio Social Studies Review, Winter 2015/2016, Volume 52, Issue 2
76