Social Studies Lesson Plan

Evaluating Primary Resources

Objective: Social Studies: Students will…

  • Analyze information about major historical developments by
        a. Iinterpreting documents
        b. Identifying and comparing experiences and perspectives,
        c. Assessing credibility of sources (primary and secondary sources, biased and objective accounts.
           (Grade 10, Citizenship #1)
  • Recognize that historical issues can raise more questions than they answer.

Procedure:

  1. Set up the scenario for the students.
    “You are the editor of a book about the history of Chicago. One main event in that history was the Great Chicago fire of Oct. 11, 1871. You have read two historical accounts written by reporters from the Chicago Evening Post and by the Chicago Tribune. You must decide which article you are going to include in your book.”
  2. Divide the class into groups of two or three.
  3. Students will go to the Internet and read the two accounts of the fire.

    http://www.chicagohs.org/fire/conflag/carter.html

    http://www.chicagohs.org/fire/conflag/tribune.html

    These are two newspaper accounts of the Great Chicago fire of 1871. They are very different in approach.

    There is a Web site that tells about many aspects of the fire. It is http://www.chicagohs.org/fire/intro/gcf-index.html

  4. Students will go to the site http://www.nara.gov/education/teaching/analysis/write.html and print out two copies of this “Written Document Analysis Worksheet”  and fill out the information asked for. A map might be helpful to the students. This can be obtained by going to http://www.chicagohs.org/fire/conflag/pic0369.html.

    (Another approach is that the teacher can print these documents ahead of time and have it ready for the groups to use.)

  5. In their groups, they will analyze these two newspaper reports. Then, as a class, students can group their information by using a computer or the board and labeling two columns — one for each article. They can compare as a class, the following items:
    1. What questions did they come up with that the authors of the article left out?
    2. Do the facts agree in the articles?
    3. Have they mentioned the same landmarks?
    4. Is the focus the same? (i.e. Do they look at the same human interest elements? Do they use the same type of vocabulary?
    5. What would account for the differences? (Could it be that the audiences are different or that the author is trying for a certain effect?)
    6. Is the message the same in both articles?
    7. What can be deduced about the perspective of the writer of oral history?
    8. How might this knowledge be used when you do your own oral history interviews?

  6. Students must then determine…
    1. If there would be value in using both articles or at least excerpts from both articles.
    2. If they should be combined or kept as separate accounts.
    3. If these stories should be considered objective accounts of the event or accounts of personal experiences.
    4. What place personal accounts have in history.

 

Materials:

  • Computer with Internet access OR articles printed out from the Internet and available to the students.
  • If a presentation is being done, supplies for poster or software for presentation.

Enrichment:

Rather than doing a report or a presentation on the Great Chicago Fire,  students should find two articles of their own and compare and contrast the content as was done with the Great Chicago Fire.  Some topics that could be used are…

  • Sporting events — The accounts in the newspaper of two competing schools
  • A public celebration 
  • A local natural disaster   
  • Some new technology

Evaluation: After class discussion, students can either write a report about which article they would choose and why or groups could make a PowerPoint or HyperStudio presentation about their selection and the reasons for it.

Sample Presentation Rubric

Process

Below Avg.

Satisfactory

Excellent
Has clear vision of final product 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Properly organized to complete project 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Managed time wisely 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Acquired needed knowledge base 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Communicated efforts with teacher 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9

Product (Project)

Below Avg.

Satisfactory

Excellent
Format 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Mechanics of speaking/writing 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Organization and structure 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Creativity 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Demonstrates knowledge 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9
Other: 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9

Total Score:__________________________


Teacher Comments:

 

 

 

Sample Writing Rubric

  Criteria Points
 
  1 2 3 4  
Organization Sequence of information is difficult to follow. Reader has difficulty following work because student jumps around. Student presents information in logical sequence which reader can follow. Information in logical, interesting sequence which reader can follow. __________
Content Knowledge Student does not have grasp of information; student cannot answer questions about subject. Student is uncomfortable with content and is able to demonstrate basic concepts. Student is at ease with content, but fails to elaborate. Student demonstrates full knowledge (more than required). __________
Grammar and Spelling Work has four or more spelling errors and/or grammatical errors. Presentation has three misspellings and/or grammatical errors. Presentation has no more than two misspellings and/or grammatical errors. Presentation has no misspellings or grammatical errors. __________
Neatness Work is Illegible. Work has three or four areas that are sloppy. Work has one or two areas that are sloppy. Work is neatly done. __________
References Work displays no references. Work does not have the appropriate number of required references. Reference section was completed incorrectly. Work displays the correct number of references, written correctly. __________
Total __________


Adapted from Marco Polo  http://marcopolo.worldcom.com/

Copyright©2001-2003, Northeastern Educational Television of Ohio, Inc. All rights reserved.