Teaching American History Freedom Project

“Freedom’s Boundaries -At Home and Abroad”

Standards and Methods10-21-11

Agenda

I. Standards

II. Methods

History 3 [Interpretation]

Essential Question

• Why might accounts of the same event/societies differ?

Standards based responses evidence presented points of view choice of questions, use and choice of sources, perspectives, beliefs.

(there could be others)

Problematic Prior Knowledge • Once a source is judged not to be good for one

investigation, it loses its value (students “jettison” it permanently).

• Some sources are unbiased. • Weighing the evidence is a process of counting the number

of sources for one conclusion versus another.

• Any interpretation of the past is acceptable.

• History is just a bunch of facts.

Instructional Chunk #1 orGathering Information

Students practice analyzing sources in a context that most likely is familiar to them.

The Cheating MysteryAn unidentified teacher

has strong suspicions that a student named Bob has cheated on a

test. The teacher plans to investigate the alleged act of

cheating by questioning some of the other students in

the class.

Witnesses • Erin: sits in front of the room. Likes

Bob very much.• Katie: sits next to Bob in the back of

the room.• Sean: sits right behind Bob in the

back; dislikes Bob greatly.• Ryan: sits in the middle of the room.

Activity: Analyzing Sources• Draw the location of each witness in

the classroom.

• Create a list of “good” and “bad” sources for the teacher (explain why they are good or bad).

The Interviews

• Interview 1: Katie said she thinks Bob cheated.

• Interview 2: Sean said Bob cheated.

• Interview 3: Erin stated that she did not think that Bob cheated.

• Interview 4: Ryan was not sure if Bob cheated.

Teaching for Transfer: Hugging

Create a list of questions that one might ask about any witness or

source when faced with a similar task of deciding which source might be

“best” or most credible.

Chunk 1 Focus: Sourcing

• Interrogating sources.

What do you think? Did Bob cheat?

Chunk 2: Weighing Evidence

Toward which conclusion does the evidence point?– Bob cheated?– Bob did not cheat?

Analyzing/Weighing Evidence

Resource #2: Evidence• student response sheets (handouts)• the “witnesses” (Erin, Katie, Sean, Ryan)• Bob’s average test grade for the marking period is a 72• Sue sits in the desk right in front of Bob• desks are arranged tightly in rows• Bob and Molly just started dating• Bob and Molly say that they study together• class average on the test was an 81• teacher curves tests based on highest score• Bob and Molly both got the highest grades in the class• Bob’s teacher observed that Bob was acting peculiar during most of the test and

saw him looking in Molly’s direction on several occasions • Bob needed an A to pass for the marking period• Bob and Molly turned their paper in at the same time• Bob is known to have cheated only 1 time since being in school.

Toward what conclusion does the evidence point?

Activity: Chunk 2 or Extending Information

Directions: • Cut out the “headers” that appear on Resource

#2 then place them in 3 different sections of your desk or table.

• Then, cut out the evidence strips below the headers.

• Read each piece of evidence to those in your group then place the evidence strip under the conclusion (or header) that it best supports.

• Discuss all of the evidence with those in your group then reach agreement on which conclusion the evidence best supports i.e. Bob cheated; Bob did not cheat; or ???

Chunk 3 (or Applying Information)

• Transfer to new (history) context.

• Case Study.

Building Prior KnowledgeProviding Context In 1898 Cuba was still a colony of Spain but its people

were trying to break away from Spain just as our original 13 colonies broke away from England in 1776. Americans started hearing reports that Cubans were suffering because the Spanish were rounding up civilians and throwing them in detention camps. Over time, Americans began supporting the Cubans in their struggle for independence.

In January of 1898, the United States sent the battleship USS Maine to Havana Harbor in Cuba. Some think that the United States sent the USS Maine to protect Americans and their businesses in Cuba. Others think that the United States sent the ship as a way of telling Spain that the United States did not approve of their policies in Cuba and to warn Spain that the United States might use its military to support the Cubans.

Our “Maine” Mystery

• February 15, 1898• 9:40 p.m.• USS Maine,

stationed in Havana Harbor, explodes

• 266 US sailors dead

Reactions

Captain Charles Sigsbee, USS Maine.

“Public opinion should be suspended until further report.”

Yellow Press Headlines

“Destruction of the Maine was the Work of an

Enemy”

“Crisis at Hand

Spanish Treachery”

New York Journal

President McKinley“Waiting for the Facts”

(Or, should it read “Waiting for the Interpretations?”)

What are Possible Causes of this Tragedy?

(Discuss at Tables)

Possible Explanations

• intentional external explosion

• unintentional external explosion

• intentional internal explosion

• unintentional internal explosion

“Foiling” the Investigation

• Take a piece of aluminum foil.

• Pretend it is the hull of a ship.

• Simulate what would happen if there was an internal explosion.

• Simulate what would happen if there was an external explosion.

Activity – Resource #5 Analyze the Evidence

Directions

• Cut out the headers that appear on Resource #5 then place them in 3 different sections of your desk or table.

• Then, cut out the evidence blocks below the

headers.

• Read each piece of evidence to those in your group then place the evidence block under the Theory (or header) that it best supports.

• Discuss all of the evidence with those in your group then reach agreement on which theory the evidence best supports.

Account 1Account 1: The explosion on the USS Maine was caused by an external, underwater

mine.

Evidence Presented:• the Maine carried a type of bituminous coal (New River coal) that rarely combusted. • bunker A16 was not situated by a boiler or any other external heat source• normally, spontaneous combustion does not occur unless there is a heat source to

speed up the process• when Bunker A16 was inspected the morning of the disaster, the temperature was

only 59 degrees Fahrenheit• the Maines' temperature sensor system did not indicate any dangerous rise in

temperature on the morning of the last inspection.• discipline on the Maine was excellent, and regular inspections of coal bunkers for

hazards, as well as the implementation of precautions for preventing bunker fires, were diligently carried out.

• A number of witnesses stated that they heard two distinct explosions several seconds apart. If anything else besides a mine had triggered the magazine explosion, then witnesses would have only heard one blast, because the only explosion would have been that of the magazines.

• the only reason that two explosions would have been heard is if something besides the magazine had exploded, such as a mine.

• the divers who examined the bottom plates of the Maine reported that they were all bent inward.

• divers spotted a large hole on the floor of Havana harbor.

Competing Account 2Account 2: The explosion on the USS Maine was caused by an internal explosion involving the spontaneous combustion of coal in bunker A16. The

fire caused by the combustion detonated nearby magazines.

Evidence Presented: • spontaneous combustion of coal was a fairly frequent problem on ships

built after the American Civil War. Coal was exposed to air, oxidized and began burning at 180 degrees. Heat transferred to magazines causing explosion.

• bunker A16 had not been inspected since 8 a.m. The explosion occurred around 9:40 p.m. There was ample time (12 hours) for a coal bunker fire to smolder into a disaster.

• several other ships sustained damage from coal bunker fires during the Spanish American war.

• no one reported seeing a geyser of water thrown up during the explosion, a common sight when mines explode underwater.

• no one reported seeing any dead fish in the harbor and these would have been seen if there had been an external blast.

• inward bending of the plates was caused by water displacement occurring at the same time the front of the ship was breaking away from the rear.

Think-Pair-Share(Resource #6)

• The Sampson Board of Inquiry (1898)Headed by Captain William T. Sampson, United States Navy.

Finding: The Maine had been blown up by a mine, which in turn caused the explosion of her forward magazines. “The court has been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons.”

• Spanish Commission (1898) Finding: The explosion on the Maine was caused internally, probably due to an accident.

• Vreeland Court of Inquiry (1911)Headed by Rear Admiral Charles E. Vreeland, United States Navy.

Finding The explosion of the magazines on the Maine was triggered by an external blast, but the damage to the ship was much more extensive than the Sampson Board had thought. The blast occurred further aft on the ship.

• Rickover Investigation (1976)Began as a result of interest on the part of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, United States Navy. Mr. Ib S. Hansen of the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center and Mr. Robert S. Price of the Naval Surface Weapons Center volunteered to look at the evidence.

Finding The explosion of the magazines was caused by a coal bunker fire, which had heated the magazines to the point of explosion. “There is no evidence that a mine destroyed the Maine.”

• National Geographic Investigation (1999)National Geographic commissioned Advanced Marine Enterprises as part of a centennial article.

Finding“[I]t appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines.”

Discuss• Have the conclusions about the

causes of the explosion on the USS Maine remained the same or changed over time? Explain.

• Why might there be different explanations of the same event in history?

• Do any of these change your conclusions? Why?

• Do the sources [investigators] of these investigations matter? Explain.

• The Sampson Board of Inquiry (1898)

• Spanish Commission (1898)

• Vreeland Court of Inquiry (1911)

• Rickover Investigation (1976)

• National Geographic Investigation (1998)

Check for Understanding/Summarizing Strategy

Resource #7

Resources for You

Today Next Workshop

Debrief• Essential Question

#1: Why might accounts of

the same event/societies differ?

• Essential Question #2: What caused the explosion on the USS Maine?

Problematic Prior Knowledge • Once a source is judged not to be good for one investigation, it loses its

value (students “jettison” it permanently).

• Some sources are unbiased. • Weighing the evidence is a process of counting the number of sources for

one conclusion versus another.

• Any interpretation of the past is acceptable.

• History is just a bunch of facts.

• A source that is not useful for one investigation may be very usefull for another.

• All sources contain bias.

• One or a few pieces of evidence can far outweigh may other pieces of evidence.

• Interpretations or conclusions supported by convincing evidence carry the day.

• History is a bunch of interpretations that we invite you to challenge.

After LunchReporting in Delaware

How did newspapers in Delaware cover our “Maine story?”