Rachel G. Ragland | Changing Secondary Teachers' Views of Teaching American History | The History Teacher, 40.2

Changing Secondary Teachers' Views of Teaching American History

Rachel G. Ragland
Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, Illinois

CHANGING TEACHING PRACTICES in secondary history classrooms requires teachers to first change their attitudes and views towards teaching history. This was a key finding that emerged from the analysis of changes that took place in the teachers' classrooms during the course of our Teaching American History grant project that was successful in changing teachers' views and attitudes. What follows is a summary of the teachers' practices, ideas, and attitudes about teaching history before participating in the program, the professional development activities that took place with the goal of changing these attitudes and practices, and a summary of the new ideas and practices that were documented after the program. Key curriculum elements in the program that are believed to have produced the most significant changes in attitudes and classroom instruction will be highlighted.

The principle partners in this three-year professional development program were: Waukegan, IL District #60, a high-need school district; Lake Forest College; and the Chicago Historical Society (now the Chicago History Museum). At the outset we established goals not only to improve teachers' knowledge, understanding, and teaching strategies, but also to improve their appreciation of American history. We assigned a program that would, at the end of the three years, enable our participants to demonstrate a clear rethinking of the teaching of the traditional American history survey course and continue to work with mentors to devise teaching strategies for the engaged learning of history.

In order to achieve these changes, the curriculum elements of the program were carefully constructed around the two guiding principles of working directly with historians on content knowledge, and working with teacher educators on applying this knowledge to the secondary history classroom. The first principle was implemented by having content knowledge sessions presented by historians who would model the practices of "doing history" and "historical thinking." The second principle was implemented through sessions on translating the work of historians into the secondary classroom through the introduction of instructional strategies specifically relevant to engaging students in history. It was key that content knowledge (knowledge of American history in this case) was coupled not only with pedagogical knowledge (about teaching in general), but also with pedagogical content knowledge (how to teach history in this case) in order to be meaningful.¹

We based the sessions designed to impart content in American history on research on discipline-specific professional development in history. Bruce A. VanSledright indicates that "[k]nowing what expertise looks like gives history teachers some targets for what they might accomplish with their students (assuming they desire to move those students down the path towards greater expertise in historical thinking)."² Additionally we reviewed a study by Medina, et. al. that found that "subject matter professional development plays an important role in teacher preparation,"³ and planned to repeat the success of the University of California, Davis History and Cultures Project, that reported that "what teachers understood from our programs, they transmitted and taught—even emphasized."⁴

Research also supports the second design principle for the project activities—imparting pedagogical content knowledge. Thornton (in Brophy) emphasizes the importance of choosing methods of instruction specific to the methods of history⁵ such as the use of documents advised by Michael Simpson.⁶ We also believed that although what professional historians do can serve as a benchmark, as Van Sledright explains, school teachers must not "unfairly hold novices to the standards set by the experts" but must, through the study of history education method, strive to fill the gap created by "the academic developmental distance between novices and experts."⁷

Previous research also supports the finding of this project that perspectives and views need to change before actions and behaviors. Cranton's work on professional development indicates that:

Adult learners have assumptions, beliefs, and values that determine the way they interpret the world and their experiences. These assumptions may be challenged by people, events, changes in context, crises, or new experiences.... If this process leads to a change in assumptions, it also leads to a new way of interpreting the world, and transformation has taken place. Actions and behaviors will be changed based on the changed perspective."⁸

The changes in perspectives, attitudes, and subsequent instructional practice of our history teachers support this view of transformative learning as it is applied to professional development.

Curriculum Elements, Data Collection, and Project Activities

We recruited twenty middle school and high school history teachers from Waukegan, IL District #60, a working-class satellite city of Chicago. The district's student population is 8.9% white, 20.6% African-American, and 68% Hispanic. The teachers received stipends and professional development credit for participation. After recruitment, a three-part needs assessment of the cohort involving a written survey, follow-up interviews, and in-class observations of all teachers by the project staff was administered for use in the design of the project's activities.

The activities for the three-year project included two one-day preparation sessions for the historians, two summer institutes (one three-weeks and one two-weeks in length), and a series of four-hour Saturday workshops. The curriculum for these activities will be described more fully below. School year follow-up included work with teachers by individual history professor mentors, scheduled classroom observations by peers and faculty, ongoing project implementation, and on-line mentoring and collaboration. The on-going school year follow-up was central for reinforcing the ideas learned in the summer institutes and for supporting the teachers throughout the year.

Teachers' Views and Instructional Practices Before Project Activities

The initial needs assessment revealed the necessity of developing new attitudes, views, and understandings by our teachers. One of its key findings was that only approximately one-third of the teachers had majored in history (seven of the twenty), and most described themselves as deficient in key content areas of the survey course in American history that they were being asked to teach. Most of the teachers in our project had learned history from lecture-based undergraduate courses and their own reading of history texts. They had not conducted historical analysis themselves. As a consequence of this lack of training in history, most teachers were not familiar with the work of historians and what it means to "do history." When asked to define "doing history" (meaning the work of historians), the majority of teachers defined it as having students do "hands-on," simulated historical activities in the classroom, such as making their own soap. They did not view "doing history" as work done by historians in creating history based on research with primary documents and artifacts ("source work"). Teachers surveyed also made no mention of the importance of using or teaching historical thinking skills.

In terms of the instructional practices, the needs assessment revealed that what the teachers did in the classroom were not research-supported practices for increasing student engagement in history. More specifically, one hundred percent of the participants indicated on the initial written survey that they used class discussion most often. However, in subsequent stages of the needs assessment— interviews and classroom observations—it was determined that this technique could better be described as teacher-centered recitation or lecture on factual details, rather than discussion. Other practices used by the majority of teachers were lectures (seventy percent), small group "projects" (seventy percent) which often consisted of completing textbook-driven worksheets and the use of commercial/popular film, video, or music (sixty percent), which often consisted of viewing a film or other media for the entire class period with little analysis or interpretation. The majority of teachers also expressed little interest in or use of thematic approaches to history, primary documents, first person narratives, museum resources, or artifact analysis—all of which have been shown to be excellent practices for history instruction (See Table 1 in Appendix A).

Curriculum Elements Used to Modify Teachers' Views and Practices

Clearly, one of the most important pieces of the curriculum design was the collaboration and mentorship done by history faculty and their role in presenting the content of American history to the teachers. It was crucial that they show teachers how professional historians view their work, something defined by Bruce A. VanSledright as follows:

Historians know that there is a distinct difference between history (the product of their investigations) and the past (traces and artifacts that remain—historical data, if you will). Historians... occupy themselves with reading and digesting the residues of the past left behind by our ancestors. Much of this residue remains in the form of documents or sources. "Source work" then becomes a staple in the investigative lives of these experts.⁹

Before participation in the project, the teachers (and their students) tended to see history as a series of dates, names, and places lacking meaning or relevance. Historians, on the other hand, see history as a dynamic discipline, rather than as a static narrative. History as an academic discipline is more than a collection of stories; it is a systematic way of thinking about the past governed by methodological rules. We needed to convince our teachers that real learning of history goes beyond simple stories and involves interpretation and construction of explanations. Without an interpretive framework and larger view of the "doing" of history, students will not truly understand or remember what they learn.

The Illinois Learning Standards that our teachers are mandated to follow include an element of historical analysis and interpretation that our teachers were not including in their instruction. These standards ask teachers to have their students pose questions; collect and analyze data; make and support inferences using evidence; report findings; explain the tentative nature of historical interpretations; describe how historians use models for organizing historical interpretation; make inferences about historical events and eras using historical sources; identify the differences between historical fact and interpretation; analyze and report historical events to determine cause-and-effect relationships; and compare competing historical interpretations of an event.¹⁰ The standards also view history as the ideal place for students to engage in conceptual thinking, analysis of social situations, and problem solving of real life issues. It is true that these many skills, which had been presented and modeled by the historians during our project are not specifically tested during state mandated high-stakes testing, due to the elimination of state-wide history testing. Nevertheless, history teachers are encouraged to make a connection between teaching with these skills and the state standards in reading and writing rather than seeing them as contradictory.

These concepts about the discipline of history and what it means to "do history" were key curriculum design elements of the project. In particular, creating opportunities for the teachers to work directly with historians and having the historians model the practices of "doing history" were designed into the summer institutes, Saturday workshops, and ongoing collaboration with historian mentors assigned to each teacher (See Table 2 and Table 3 in Appendix A for a listing of the topics presented by historians in the two summer institutes). Teachers worked directly with historians on both individual history projects (year one), in which each teacher was paired with a historian as a mentor for development of the project, and group "unit plan creation projects" (year two), in which each group was made up of two or three teachers and one historian as a mentor and partner in the process.

There were "faculty preparation days" for the history faculty before each summer institute, the purpose of which was to stress to the historians the importance of describing to the teachers the process of historical analysis that went into creating the sessions they would present to the teachers. The historians needed to make what was implicit in their presentations explicit to the teachers. Historians were encouraged to "meta-teach," or explain why they chose to teach their sessions the way they did. Their role was both to guide and model good historical thinking. Consequently, they stressed their use of primary documents, first person narratives, museum resources, and artifact analysis in constructing their presentations for the teachers on topics in American history. For example, in some sessions, the historians presented alternative ways to look at traditional topics by choosing primary documents, case studies, or perspectives that were non-traditional, in order ultimately to make their presentation more engaging to students. There were sessions on "The Survey from the Other Shore: Hispanic and Indian Views of the Colonization Period," "Abraham Lincoln: Moral Politician", "Jackie Robinson as American Icon," "How the Constitution Dealt with Slavery in Light of the Ideology of the American Revolution," "How Unsung Participants Sparked the Civil Rights Movement," "Automobility and American Culture, 1900–1929," and "The History of Ice Cream" (a Saturday workshop presentation on the consequences of industrialization). We needed both to instruct the teachers and to change their attitudes about the subject of history and how it should be studied before we could do anything else. These presentations highlighted the dynamic nature of history as a discipline, as well as a systematic way of thinking about the past, guided by interpretation and construction of explanations.

New Instructional Strategies for Classroom Implementation

The second key curriculum design element was the direct presentation of a series of new instructional strategies for the teachers to implement that brought "doing history" into the secondary classrooms (See Table 2 and Table 3 for a listing of the instructional strategy sessions presented in the two summer institutes). Having history faculty work closely with the instructional experts from the teacher education faculty in both planning and implementation, including co-teaching some sessions, was key to making connections between the in-depth study of history and its translation into effective secondary instructional strategies. It was crucial to demonstrate to the teachers that the practices of "doing history" that the historians had demonstrated could be equally successful with their secondary students. To explain our emphasis on the role of experts on methods of teaching history, we were able to cite VanSledright's research which showed that the old traditional classroom practices actually retarded "the development of historical thinking because they foster the naïve conception that the past and history are one and the same, fixed and stable forever, dropped out of the sky readymade, that the words in the textbooks and lectures map directly and without distortion onto the past."¹¹ The collaboration between history and education professors, along with input from the teachers themselves, yielded a list of twelve basic "McRAH" teaching strategies (so named after Model Collaboration: Rethinking American History).

The McRAH strategies are: 1) use of primary documents and document-based questions; 2) historical artifact analysis; 3) "doing history" activities such as historical interpretations, presenting more than one possible cause for historical events, using historical facts as evidence for arguments; 4) "doing history" research assignments; 5) thematic instruction including a variety of textual resources; 6) use of conceptual questions to organize lecture material; 7) use of graphic organizers, interactive note-taking, and maps to develop main concepts; 8) use of media/multimedia/technology; 9) use of counterfactual approach; 10) use of narrative approaches, including guided imagery for response; 11) perspective-taking exercises, such as role-plays, scenarios, present-minded responses put in historical context, impact of individuals on history; and 12) use of familiar, familial, and community connections to propose historical links. Giving the teachers a concrete list of strategies provided an instructional focus that the teachers could use to take the work of the historians and translate it to the work of their history students.

The pedagogical content knowledge sessions focused on getting secondary students to appropriately use the methods used by historians. This was accomplished in several ways. First, historians and teacher educators planned and taught sessions together in which they modeled the process of taking a historical topic, choosing appropriate teaching resources, and creating student-friendly instructional strategies. For example, sessions on "linking themes in history," "document analysis," " artifact analysis," "use of images," "applying Illinois learning standards," and "document-based questions," were co-taught by professors of history and education, who modeled specific content and pedagogy examples. Second, teachers became involved through hands-on projects which involved practicing the strategies they were being taught. This occurred through the individual and group curriculum design projects previously mentioned, through online discussions on the project's website bulletin board, and eventually by having teachers co-teaching sessions with professors during the second summer institute. For example, year two sessions on "multiple intelligences in the classroom," "use of images," and "writing strategies in the classroom," were all co-taught by professors providing theoretical background, and fellow teachers providing classroom examples that they had successfully put into practice during year one.

A third way we used to introduce teachers to new instructional strategies was to have the teachers experience firsthand how the strategies worked. During the institutes and workshops, guest speakers, including commercial presenters such as History Alive! and The DBQ Project, engaged the teachers in hands-on application of their methods by placing the teachers in the role of their students as they experienced these strategies. Another important component in this direct engagement of the teachers with new strategies was the Historical Society partner in the project. Educators from the museum presented hands-on sessions for the teachers on artifact analysis, such as using actual artifacts from Civil War prisoner of war camps from the museum's collection. They also demonstrated multiple assessment procedures to use with students, educated the teachers on the process of doing historical research using the museum's collections, and showed them how to find primary documents and other resources. These sessions occurred during both the workshops and the day-long fieldtrips to the Historical Society that took place during the institutes.

Finally, the on-going school year follow-up activities played a significant role in helping the teachers to transform and maintain the changes in their attitudes and practices. These activities included online collaboration with professors and peers during which instructional design questions were posed and answered, resources were shared, and observation visits were planned. Observation visits by history and education faculty members, as well as peer observation teams in which teachers observed in each other's classrooms and gave feedback, were key to reinforcing and refining the changes teachers were putting into practice. Teachers also had continuous access to resources at the college and the museum, and maintained contact with professors in formal and informal settings. Teachers created their own "Instructional Change Plans" with their personalized goals for the school year. They reported and documented progress on their goals each quarter and received feedback from project faculty. The support of colleagues was important in sustaining the teachers' renewed attitudes toward their work.

Teachers' Views and Instructional Practices After Project Activities

A written survey, individual interviews, and observation assessments of the teachers' attitudes and practices in their classrooms after participating in the project activities made it possible for us to conclude that the goals for the project had been achieved. First, teachers demonstrated a clear rethinking of the teaching of American history and were now placing a new emphasis on historical literacy of the American past. Secondly, teachers were using more teaching strategies for engaged learning of history, such as the use of primary sources and artifacts.

In the final evaluations conducted immediately following the first summer institute, teachers' responses to a prompt on "history teaching is..." revealed a remarkable change in attitude and perception about best practices in history teaching. Their responses now included statements such as: "history teaching is: making history come alive for students;" "being interactive and student-centered;" "causing students to question, analyze, postulate, and think like historians;" "helping students to make personal connections with history;" "developing 'historical habits of thought' in students;" "looking at resources beyond the textbook; to show ambiguity, complexity and multiple points of view;" and "using primary documents, artifact analysis, critical thinking, analyzing and synthesizing of information to help students understand WHY things happen in history." These statements reflect the clear change in attitudes about history teaching that emerged from the summer institute, and are in stark contrast to the pre-institute responses centering on lecture, "discussion," and fact transmission.

Subsequent interview responses from teachers during the school year following the first institute indicated that the changes in attitudes and perspectives were leading to changes in practice. Comments included:

The lectures [from historians] surveying different time periods of United States history raised important questions for me that I now use to frame the subject for my students. These questions piqued my curiosity and will keep my students interested and motivated too; I assigned and distributed the textbook, and then told them [the students] to put it in their lockers. It hasn't come back into my room yet; On looking at what is covered in one era and then another, I began to see connection, carry-over that I hope to use to show continuity in history to my students; I can now put material in front of my students for their interpretation; I have set a goal of having [the students] dig out information... standard practice in my classroom now. They now know that they need to discover something; I now start my teaching by asking questions; I am doing more thematic teaching... [such as] What is freedom?

Final evaluation comments at the end of the project showed even further development in the teachers' attitudes and practices:

I really believe [the project] deeply helped me to "break the mold" of traditional history teaching, to try and experiment with many new practices in the classroom; using the strategies learned through [the project] showed improvement with my students' understanding of what was being taught; I learned to be a facilitator of learning rather than a "dispenser of wisdom."

Classroom observation data showed that the teachers were, in fact, putting these changed attitudes and revised ideas on the nature of history and history teaching into practice with positive results. As previously discussed, instructional practices before the project were heavily teacher-centered, lecture-based, whole class in design, and focused on coverage and retention of factual material. After participating in project activities, an increase in student activity vs. teacher-directed instruction was observed by project faculty. General trends revealed less dependence on lectures, worksheets, and textbook readings. The internet was being used for student and teacher research, more tasks requiring higher-order thinking, such as analysis and evaluation were being assigned, history was being presented more thematically and as a set of interpretations instead of facts to be memorized. There were more genuine cooperative small group activities rather than the reliance on the whole class instruction seen previously. Teachers indicated a higher level of use of the techniques of artifact analysis, counterfactual approaches, perspective-taking exercises, and use of familiar, familial and community connections to propose historical links. All of these methods were stressed in the design and delivery of the project's curriculum.

Final teacher-created unit plans collected at the end of the project showed evidence of "rethinking" the traditional design of instruction of American history. The units were more thematic in design and used key turning points, conceptual ideas, and more primary documents to aid student understanding and retention of historical facts, rather than relying on lectures and outlines of historical detail. The units also clearly demonstrated the goal of increasing student understanding of how history is done, and how historians approach the task of interpreting historical events and facts. There was an increased use of primary documents and visual media from a wide array of resources to supplement or replace traditional textbook resources.

The majority of the units also made use of instructional design principles, introduced in the project, that increase student engagement in learning. The materials and assessment tools had elements of personalization and individualization. Students were given choices as to what to produce, asked to engage in deep reflection, and used primary resources relating to their own communities and historical identities. Students were increasingly treated as knowledge-makers in the classroom in that they were asked to present and share their work with their peers, and worked collaboratively to achieve their goals. Complete examples of these units, and other teacher work, can be viewed on the project's website at <www.lakeforest.edu/mcrah> (See Appendices B, C, D, and E for examples of units and lessons using these newly incorporated ideas).

A survey assessment at the end of the project also revealed a new level of confidence on the part of the teachers with the use of the instructional strategies they had been taught. The majority of teachers felt confident or excited using the following McRAH Strategies: using primary documents and document-based questions; historical artifact analysis; "doing history" in the classroom; thematic instruction; using conceptual questions to organize lecture material; use of graphic organizers; and use of images, media, multimedia, and technology. Participants were not as confident about the use of counterfactual approaches and narrative approaches including guided imagery for response, although they were giving them a try.

Implications for Professional Development Activities and History Classrooms

The highlights of the data presented from this Teaching American History project demonstrate the importance of recognizing that before teaching practices can undergo desired changes, the teachers' attitudes and views towards teaching history have to be changed. Secondary teachers of history first need to understand the nature of studying history, historical thinking, and the work of historians in "doing" or creating history. Once teachers have these attitudes, perspectives, and ideas about the nature of history, they can then be encouraged to include these ideas in their classroom practices to the benefit of their students.

In order to work toward these changing attitudes and practices, teachers need to experience professional development that includes two key factors that contribute to this attitude change. It is necessary for them to work directly with historians to gain greater understanding of what historians do and what historical thinking is in order to develop attitudes and beliefs in line with good practice in history. In addition, teachers benefit from being shown a specific series of instructional strategies, developed in collaboration with teacher educators, with which to implement these new understandings about history. Sessions co-taught by history professors and educators working with teachers were key, as were sessions that put teachers in the role of their students to experience hands-on how the strategies worked. On-going school year support and mentoring during follow-up activities were essential for maintaining changes in attitudes and practices. Further research and analysis of the project's outcomes will reveal more about both the factors that contributed to these changes and whether they were sustained. Even based on the results so far revealed by this project, however, we would recommend that professional development activities that seek to improve the teaching of history in secondary classrooms seriously consider replicating the goals and activities that appear to have contributed to our success.

Notes

^1. Lee Shulman, "Those Who Understand: A Conception of Teacher Knowledge," American Educator 10 (1986): 9–15, 43–44.

^2. Bruce A. VanSledright, "What Does It Mean to Think Historically...and How do You Teach It?" Social Education 68 (2004): 230.

^3. Kathleen Medina, Jeffrey Pollard, Debra Schneider, & Camille Leonhardt, "How do Students Understand the Discipline of History as an Outcome of Teachers' Professional Development?" (Oakland, CA: Regents of the University of California, 2000), 18.

^4. Ibid., 19.

^5. Jere Brophy, ed. Subject-Specific Instructional Methods and Activities (Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, 2001), 311.

^6. Michael Simpson, "Editor's Notebook," Social Education 66 (2002): 389.

^7. VanSledright, 230.

^8. P. Cranton, "Self-directed and Transformative Instructional Development," Journal of Higher Education 6 (1994): 28.

^9. VanSledright, 230.

^10. Illinois State Board of Education. Illinois Learning Standards (ISBE,1997), 16A

^11. VanSledright, 231.

Appendix A:
Project Data

Photograph of history professor Steve Rosswurm working directly with teacher of history Joe Brysiewicz using primary documents during the project.

Table 1
Rank Order Results of Needs Assessment
(% of teachers listing response)

Question 1: Background Information
7 of 20 teachers were history majors
Mode undergraduate semester hours in American History: 9–16

Question 2: List the top five (5) instructional practices you now use most often in your classroom

Most Used Instructional Strategies:
��Class discussion (100%)
��Lecture (70%)
��Small group projects (70%)
��Commercial/ popular film, video, music (60%)

Least Used Instructional Strategies:
��Fieldtrips to museums/ libraries (0%)
��Multimedia (PowerPoint, HyperStudio) (0%)
��Historical Fiction (5%)
��First person narratives (5%)

Question 3: Choose whether or not you feel each of these strategies is important to be used in the teaching of American History

Most Important Strategies to Learn About:
��Alternative assessment/ project based learning (65%)
��"Doing" history (65%)
��Web-based learning (55%)
��Putting events into a larger historical context (45%)

Least Important Strategies to Learn About:
��Use of first person narratives (0%)
��Museum resources (15%)
��Distance learning (20%)
��Interdisciplinary approach (20%)

Table 2
Summer Institute #1 Curriculum

Contest for North America

The American Revolution

The Survey from the Other Shore: Hispanic and Indian Views of the Colonization Period

Becoming America – Industrialization

Moving West and Becoming Western

The World of the Master and the Slave in Antebellum America

Abraham Lincoln: Moral Politician

Post Civil War Industrialization – Wage Labor vs. Capital

The Urbanization of Afro-America: Migrations Great and Little

Depression & New Deal

Cultural Dimensions of American Identity

Rights Revolution – Feminism & Civil Rights

Jackie Robinson as American Icon

The Cold War and the National Security State

De-industrialization and the Urban Crisis: Chicago's New Urban Poor

Immigration Act of 1965

Historical Thinking

Skills of Historical Analysis

Psychology of Teaching History

Linking Themes in History

Document Analysis

Classroom Applications & Performance Assessment

Artifact Analysis

Reading Historical Texts

Using Multimedia

Moral Ambiguity of History

Using Web-based Instruction

Textbook as the Teacher's Tool

Extrapolation of Topics to Secondary Level

Applying IL Learning Standards

Individual History Projects–Reflecting, Defining, Researching, Creating, Consulting, Mentoring, Revising, Presenting

Table 3
Summer Institute #2 Curriculum

Pennsylvania & the Outer Limits of Social Revolt during the American Revolution

How the Constitution dealt with slavery in light of the ideology of the American Revolution

Lowell, MA and America's Ambivalence about Industrialization

Lincoln, Race & the Declaration of Independence

Political Imagery & the Transformation of the Women's Suffrage Movement

Gender & the Cold War at Home

How unsung participants sparked the Civil Rights Movement

Industrialization & the Rise of Realism

Malcolm X – the Man & the Myth

Automobility & American Culture, 1900 – 1929

Dust Bowl Odyssey: Comparing the Joads to their Real-life Counterparts

The Coming of Modernism in America

Postwar Suburbs & Segregation

Historical Thinking Skills

Intro to McRAH (History Teaching) Strategies

Use of Images: Art or Music/Cartoons or Maps & Charts

Presentation Skills

Online collaboration

Students as Knowledge Makers

Multiples Intelligences in the Classroom

Writing Strategies in the Classroom

Web-based Learning

Document-based Questions

Using Revised Units in Your Classroom

Group History Project – Reflecting, Designing, Delegating, Researching, Consulting, Mentoring, Revising, Presenting

Appendix B:
Sample Lesson Plan - Colonization and Settlement

Appendix C:
Sample Lesson Plan - Middle Passage

Appendix D:
Sample Lesson Plan - Native American Displacement

Appendix E:
Sample Lesson Plan - Reconstruction

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.