This is the third post in a series on sources as the Building Blocks of Inquiry.
One of the most innovative features of IDM is its interconnectedness. Yes there are separate questions, tasks, and sources. However, a good IDM will always have questions, tasks, and sources that intertwine and rely on each other. To this end, each of the features of an IDM (including the assessment) should rely on each other, bringing out the essence of the content. For teachers new to the IDM process, one of the areas of struggle is creating good disciplinary tasks that allow students to tackle the featured sources. Now, I realize that this is a post on sources and here I am talking about tasks. But hear me out. One of the quickest, and most effective ways to create quality tasks is to first look at the sources that have been gathered and ask this important question, “What are the kinds of tasks that the sources require?” For sure, tasks should always answer the supporting question, which in turn should move students toward answering the compelling question. However, inexperienced teachers often struggle in the area of content expertise. This can lead to a surplus of tasks that resemble more of a checklist rather than a disciplinary tool for unpacking sources. More to the point: if a task does not help students deal with the depth and challenges of the source, then it should be scrapped.
So what should teachers do? I say go to the source! Literally. What kinds of tasks are the sources asking the reader/viewer to participate in? Let’s be more specific. If you are having students read a secondary source detailing the events that led Europe into global war in 1914, have them create a timeline of these events in a detailed way so that they understand the sequence of events. Having students work on the reliability of two or more competing sources? Have them create a ranked list/or spectrum of the sources from most reliable to least.
These are just two simple examples. But these are still scratching the surface of what can be accomplished with tasks. One of my favorite things to do in my classroom is to use the thinking processes of the sources themselves to help frame tasks. Let me explain. Many US teachers are familiar with teaching the tragic process of Native American removal under the Jackson administration in the first half of the 1800s. There are many ways to teach this topic and we now have so many rich resources to help students come to grips with this ugly period of American history. One year, a colleague of mine sent me an excerpted transcript of Andrew Jackson’s address to Congress concerning the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and really wanted us to use it in our classes. As I read this speech over and over, I became concerned that this source could present several problems for my students, many of whom were struggling readers. Could they understand the language that Jackson was using? Could they comprehend the spatial and geographical descriptions in his speech? More importantly, would they accept Jackson’s arguments for the removal of indigenous groups? I realized then that this speech needed something more than just simply guiding questions asking the audience, point of view, limitations, etc. While good, these questions did not get at the heart of what Jackson was trying to accomplish with this speech, namely, making an ethnocentric justification for the illegal removal and killing of indigenous peoples.
At the time of this lesson, I had not yet entered the world of IDM. Yet, what I saw was that this source demanded a task. Students needed to do something with this speech. So I asked myself, what is this source attempting to accomplish? What is Jackson doing here? The more you read, the more you see the cultural dichotomy he is creating between white American settlers and the current inhabitants. Look at the adjectives he uses to describe Americans: “benevolent,” “interesting,” “civilized,” “Christian,” and “whites.” Contrast the descriptors assigned to indigenous groups: “savage,” “rude,” “decay,” “annihilation,” and “red man.” Jackson is essentially making a comparison. He is making a T-Chart. So that’s what my students did. I gave my students different colors of highlighters (skip this step if you need to) and asked them to highlight the descriptor words Jackson uses to describe white Americans (government, settlers, institutions) and use another color to highlight the descriptor words that are assigned to indigenous Americans. Then they created a T-Chart (individually or with a partner) that lists those words plainly.
The results were striking for the students. Done in isolation, this task immediately brought into focus the prejudices and attitudes of the President. Students were flabbergasted that a President would be so blatantly disparaging of another group. My class discussion took care of itself.
Now pair the speech with another source like John O’Sullivan’s Manifest Destiny (1845) or John Gast’s American Progress (1872), and you now have created a conceptual template that can be used to tackle the assumptions of other primary sources. This template can now be corroborated or even challenged as you add more and more sources to your student’s repertoire. The task takes on a life of its own and does more than simply “get students through” the inquiry.
It’s a simple task. A T-chart. But when the task emerges out of the source, what you have now is a tool that allows students to better see other sources. This is how inquiry ought to work. Sources and tasks working in tandem to allow a more clear picture to emerge for the student. So, when in doubt, go to the source!
Read all the posts in this series.
- Post #1 The Building Blocks of Inquiry
- Post #2 Sources Talking to Other Sources
- Post #3 Going to the Source