When Primary Sources do Double Duty OR When Halloween and Politics Collide

Earlier this week, I posted about a primary source analysis that a class of fifth graders did. The focus was on lost traditions, specifically, the lost superstitions of doing certain activities to find your spouse on Halloween. We used an 1896 drawing along with a newspaper article to uncover the lost superstition of looking at a mirror holding a candle to look for the image of your future spouse. Through my own analysis and with the help of some others, I found out quite a bit more about the drawing and the intention behind it.


Through the analysis of the 1896 drawing, many students focused on the dress of the woman shown. Her top is covered with stars, the bottom with stripes, giving it a flag effect that is difficult to ignore. She stands at a dresser and mirror, her hand on a candle. There is a reflection of a man in the mirror.  The man shown in the reflection isn't the dashing young man that one might expect to be shown in the representation of this superstition. Four days ago, when I found the newspaper article that referenced the superstition, I was just happy that I had some understanding of the image.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011645580/

Then, another layer of the drawing started to reveal itself. First, an educator in the TPS Teachers Network that I am a part of shared a similar image. This one referenced the tradition in a satire of the 1904 election. In the image, Uncle Sam is walking down the stairs holding a candle and a mirror. In the mirror is the image of Teddy Roosevelt. In the background, other candidates walking around with candles and mirrors looking for their "match". I wondered about the woman in stars and stripes from the other picture, but hadn't put together the pieces yet.


That afternoon, another fifth grade class came in for the activity. The teacher was very active and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896

jumped right in to do the analysis of the drawing with the students. As students read the newspaper article, I asked if she had ever heard of this superstition. She shared that she hadn't, but it made her wonder more about the questions that she had written as part of her analysis and wondered aloud if there was an election in 1896. Everything clicked into place for me. I shared a little about the other picture and she quickly looked up information on the 1896 election. There, on wikipedia, was an image of William McKinley which bore a eerie resemblance to the "ghostly" image in the mirror from the 1896 drawing. We were left with a new interpretation, that of Lady Liberty looking for her future spouse.

There I discovered a whole new meaning to this 1896 drawing. It was the political satire of the day. The 8th grade social studies teacher could use this in studies of the late 1800's. The high school political studies teacher could pair these images with more current political cartoons involving Halloween traditions. Either class could explore the illustrator's intended audience. Those aren't areas that I would explore with fifth grade students, but them learning the tradition could give them key background knowledge if revisiting the primary source later.

In addition to the many places this primary source could work among different grade levels, the collaboration to get to meaning is worth noting. I made my own learning discoveries with the help of colleagues. Without them, I would never have discovered that deeper meaning to the 1896 drawing. Similarly, students benefit when discussing primary sources together. Their thinking is stretched and challenged. Pieces of understanding from multiple students can be put together to deeper meaning than they can achieve alone. While it may not be appropriate to constantly have students collaborating during the analysis of a primary source, having them come together at different points in the process can reap great benefits.

When that 92 Year Old Halloween Newspaper Article ISN'T a Primary Source

What makes something a primary source? Before I attended the Library of Congress Summer Institute, I thought I knew, but a definition by the Library of Congress, has helped me evolve that definition.

The Library of Congress gives three descriptors when defining a primary source. They describe primary sources as the "raw materials of history." To further define this, they also describe them as "original documents and objects which were created at the time under study" and differentiate them from secondary sources which were "created by someone without firsthand experience." I revisited this definition recently when preparing a Halloween activity for fifth grade students.

http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/acd/2a07000/2a07300/2a07327r.jpg

Students like looking back in time. What was Halloween like 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Primary sources can provide answers to those questions. For this activity, I focused on a 1896 drawing of a woman, her hand resting on candle and looking into a mirror with a reflection of a man. I had looked at the image many times and it made little sense to me. I thought it might be a reference to a ghost or deceased loved one, but her lack of expression confused me.

Recently, I explored Chronicling America for newspaper articles on Halloween. I found a 1922 article titled Mischief Night which may explain the photo. The article references a superstition that on Halloween a woman could hold a candle to a mirror and see her future husband's face. The article implies that she must be walking down the stairs backwards when doing this, but the general idea is portrayed in the drawing. I felt it helped to shed light on the drawing and it was short enough that I could use it as part of a lesson on this lost superstition.

As I prepared to use the article, I asked the question, was this a primary source? If I was asking myself what Halloween was like 120 years ago, this newspaper writing didn't qualify. It was written 92 years ago, a generation after the drawing was created. In addition, the article read, "Time was, when Hallowe'en..." when describing the superstition with the mirror, referencing something that existed in the past. In this context, this article was a secondary source.

Did I still use the article? Absolutely. Students analyzed the drawing and, in small groups, came to consensus on what the illustrator was trying to portray. They then read the article and had an opportunity to revise their thinking. The lesson went wonderfully and as part of that lesson, the students and I had a great discussion about what makes something a primary source. Finally, I asked the students what I could do if I wanted to confirm this account from 25 years after the drawing. A couple of students suggested that finding a newspaper from 1896 that referenced Halloween could be a solution. From there I was able to briefly share two primary source articles, one from 1891 and another from 1895, that referenced Halloween as a night to "reveal your future spouse's face" and when "maidens try to find out who will wed them."

Something being "old" doesn't make it a primary source. Instead, looking at the time period you are studying will help to define if that image, map, document, or object is a primary or secondary source and while that doesn't determine whether you will use it or not with your students, it can impact how you approach using the resource.

Adapting Text-Based Primary Sources for Elementary Students

I was excited to see that the fifth grade teachers at RM Captain are integrating primary sources into some of their history teaching. Some challenges they were facing in using text-based primary sources and how they are addressing those challenges is worth sharing. Text-based primary sources can include letters, journals, diaries, laws and government records, newspapers, speeches, transcripts of interviews, or any primary source where text is the main component.

In a recent collaboration with the fifth grade teachers, they were excited to share an activity that relied on primary sources on the topic of the Jamestown colony for students to make decisions about founding their own colony and, in the process, come to some understanding of why cities and towns were initially located in certain places.

The teachers shared their resources with me. They had a number of text-based primary sources. I was interested to see how the students interacted with them, so I asked Mrs. Ketzer, one of the teachers, how the project was going.

Mrs. Ketzer shared that she didn’t think the students were connecting with the primary sources and that they were struggling with them. She shared that they were using the same process of making observations, reflections, and questions that we had done in the library with other primary sources. 

We spoke about the primary sources that they used. Some of them were longer texts. Even shorter texts had difficult vocabulary. All of the primary sources were transcribed, but were copies of copies with black print on grey background. Through our discussion, we came up with several ideas to present the primary sources in a way that may help the students connect with them more effectively.

• Retype the text so that it looked more clean and was a little larger. It would be easier to read. Removing distractions allows students to focus.
• For longer passages, choose chunks that are important for students to analyze. While older students may be able to read and analyze a large passage, younger students can be more successful with shorter passages. Choose the piece(s) you hope they would focus in on. Isolate them and let students interact with them.
• Provide a glossary on the same page, allowing students to understand the text without leaving it. Text written even a few decades ago may have words or phrases that students have never seen. Reading around the text in a small passage may make it difficult or impossible for them to come to an understanding of the text or it may be confusing.
• Provide space for students to make reflections and questions on the same page. (With text based primary sources, we typically make observations right on the copy of the primary source.) Having the source and analysis in the same place allows easy access when using their thoughts for the next steps of learning.

The next day Mrs. Ketzer shared a new version of the primary source text. I thought she did an excellent job of implementing our ideas. I suggested a few changes to wording, and she began using it with students. 

I checked in with her and Mrs. Crowley, the other 5th grade teacher doing the simulation with her students, a few days later to see how the updated presentation of the primary sources were going. They both felt students were much more engaged with the text. One student, who was close by and listening to our conversation added, “It’s so much easier to read.”

As we present primary sources to students, it is not only important to choose the best primary source for students to analyze, but also to present the primary source in a way that encourages a student to engage and interact with it.

As I was writing this blog post, I found this article on making text-based primary sources more accessible for students. You may find it an interesting addition.

Taking Chistopher Columbus' Journal One Step Further

Years ago, when I was still in the classroom, we used translations of Christopher Columbus' journal in class. I read it to students or they read it on their own. They took on the role of a shipmate and wrote their own journal entry. It all felt "okay" but was missing something. I think a recent activity with two fifth grade classrooms got closer to meaningful learning.

During collaboration, two of our fifth grade teachers were studying the time period encompassing European exploration. They wanted to push their own teaching forward and had collected many resources on the typical explorers that students study. Since I have been doing several activities with primary sources, they asked if I would do an analysis of Columbus' journal entries with the students. They handed me a packet of journal entries. I agreed that we could do something with the entries.

 I knew we were under time limitations, less than two hours. They were coming to the library during one of their social studies periods. If I needed more time, I could take their weekly library visit as well. That time limitation always shapes our encounters with primary sources. Here, I knew I had to put specific journal entries in front of them. I chose three that I thought revealed Columbus' intentions better than the others. In one entry from October 12, 1492, he writes about meeting natives and taking possession of the island. In another from that same day, he writes about his desire to convert the natives to his religion. In the final shared entry from October 13, 1492, Columbus writes about his search for gold.

I had three entries that highlighted intentions that would impact Columbus' and other European explorer's encounters with Americans, but I was left with a feeling of "so what?" Students could analyze these writings and come to some understandings about Columbus and possibly those that he encountered, but what would allow them to solidify their thinking in action? This is another understanding that I've come to when using primary sources with students. While analyzing using the LOC Primary Source Analysis Tool is a powerful activity, there is a piece at the bottom that reads "Further Investigation". It challenges us to take that next step with students and not to let the analysis be the end of the learning.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3a10998/

Again, I turned to primary sources. I thought about a piece of artwork depicting Columbus' landing that was used in a summer institute at the LOC that I attended in 2013. It was created in 1893, hundreds of years after Columbus' landing. We originally used it in a discussion where we began to form our definition of a primary source.

The interesting thing about the piece is that it seems to be influenced by the time period of when it was created and its creator. (I encourage you to read Rebecca Newland's ideas on sourcing and contextualizing.) Critiquing a interpretation of Columbus' landing based on his own words would provide an opportunity for students to show an understanding of the journal entries and apply that understanding to their critique.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3g04806/

I chose three different artist renditions of Columbus' landing. I felt they had three distinct perspectives and would allow the students to focus on different perspectives of the journal entries. My resources were ready.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.01974/

Students, overall, did an incredible job on the analysis of the primary sources. I like to keep my directions simple, telling students to identify anything they think is important, interesting, or unusual. There is also a warning of not thinking everything is important, interesting, and unusual. Many reflections and questions spoke to the perspective of the natives, letting me know that they were identifying Columbus' perspective, but not solely identifying with that perspective. With some delays, we completed analyses of two of the journal entries in our first sitting. As students left, one said, "Thanks, that was fun," while I overheard another telling a fellow classmate, "I did the third analysis already even though we weren't supposed to." These were two small signs that we were on the right track.

During the students' next visit, we jumped back into the activity with them analyzing the third journal entry. After they finished this, I paired them up and gave them their final challenge. I told them I had three depictions of Columbus' first landing in the new world. They were all made after this journey and I wanted them to choose one that, based on what they knew, Columbus would say was the most accurate.

Students were up for the challenge and the conversations were interesting to overhear. Students argued over elements in each picture, not only identifying connections between the images and the journal entries, but giving them weight about what was most important to see in the interpretation. One image showed men in armor which was in the journal, but is also showed natives there when they shouldn't be (according to this student's interpretation). Faith was written about, but not crosses which were shown in two of the images. One image truly had natives without clothing but was missing other elements a student felt was important. Ideas were swirling, not only in heads, but also in the air.

I stopped the conversation. I wanted students to make an individual decision and defend it. I asked all students to make a "claim" and "evidence" statement. I see these used more in science, but thought that this would work well here, not only because they were familiar with the format, but because it
would allow them some structure to their choice. I gave them some guidance on what they may want to write about, not only what they felt made their choice the best according to Columbus, but also what made the other options not as good. With less than ten minutes, they quickly shared their thoughts.

While I am still reading the student responses, I am seeing much of the opinion that I heard in the discussion and evidence that they took their analysis of the journal entries and were able to apply it to critique the artistic depictions.

Heliocentric, Geocentric, and Primary Sources

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to use one of Library of Congress' new eBooks with students. I posted some pictures on Twitter, but wanted to share a little more about the process.

I had been looking for some integration of research skills for our one fifth grade class that is currently studying space and motion. While students had mostly been studying observational aspects to space such as moon phases, their classroom teacher shared that they had been introduced to the terms 'heliocentric' and 'geocentric'.

The new Understanding the Cosmos eBook primary source set gave a great selection of primary sources that could help support that topic. Originally, I thought that I would encourage students to explore the differences within several geocentric models, but upon asking the students a few questions, it became clear that they were still hazy on what these models were and how to define them. Many students thought that it might be the solar system drawn from a different point of view, not necessarily different models of the solar system. Even though this helps explain why these models are different, they hadn't grasped the inherent differences in the models themselves. I hoped that analyzing pieces from this primary source set would help them come to an understanding of the difference.

To prepare, I first downloaded the eBook on a class set of iPads through the iBooks store. There is no charge for the eBooks. (The eBooks are currently only available on iPads, but a recent Tweet implies they are looking at other options.) This only took about 20 minutes for almost 30 iPads. I didn't have the books sync because I didn't know how the sync feature would impact a class of students using the books at once. After downloading, I found the primary sources that had heliocentric and geocentric models of the solar system. (If you're wondering, they are images 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 15.) Finally, I had copies of LOC's Primary Source Analysis Tool for the students.

Each student was given a primary source to analyze with no two students analyzing the same source at a table. I projected the eBook on the SmartBoard and showed students how to access the eBook, their primary source, and how to draw on the primary source, modeling some reasons they may annotate on the image. I told students we would work on defining our words, but for now, they were just to analyze their image, taking notes on the paper provided. (I did not use the included analysis scribing in the eBook because I wanted to give students a chance to have all of their writing in front of them at once and because I wanted to see their writing.)

I found that students, for the most part, had a great deal of focus on their analysis. They loved to pinch and zoom feature and used it to see details that couldn't be seen otherwise. They used the draw feature purposefully, circling things that they found interesting, unusual, or important. They used their finger to write "Why?" about some of the writings around the models. While there was sharing with others, it was purposeful. They were engaged. I did have to direct the students to write out reflections and questions on their analysis sheet. They wanted to continue to interact with the primary source and each other. While that engagement is incredible, writing out observations, reflections, and questions on the Primary Source Analysis Tool, in my opinion, helps to focus their attention and allow later conversations with each other to be elevated because they have concrete evidence of their own thinking.

After students analyzed their primary source, I asked them to confer with others at their table. There were two groups that all of these models could be grouped in, heliocentric and geocentric. I suggested they use their analysis and focus on the differences and similarities to try to help them define the words that they could not correctly define earlier.

Students talked with each other about what they noticed in their primary source. Some pointed out that the moon is drawn as a planet. Others noticed that not all of the planets were shown or that the scale was off. They explored the language and how they translated some words to figure out where a planet or the sun was in the model. What I did not expect was for them to talk as much about the language. Sol, Terra, Earthe, Sonne, Solis, Geo- and Helio- were all words that students focused on, talked about, and highlighted.

When the class shared out at the end of the session, all of the groups but one had a correct definition of 'heliocentric' and 'geocentric'. What was interesting to me was that the one group that did not have a correct definition for the terms still used a very logical explanation for their thinking. They believed that one word had to do with models that had gods or other spirits living on the planets of the solar system and the other word defined those models where the planets were barren. As they shared their focus on the images they analyzed, their thinking made great sense. That being said, by the time two groups after them had shared, they asked to change their idea based on what others had said.

This embodies why I appreciate the use of primary sources in learning. Analyzing primary sources as part of an activity encourage the struggle that leads to learning. Students had to observe, interpret, and apply their understanding of these primary sources to create a definition for a pair of words. They brought in their own understanding of the solar system and of language to help construct that understanding. They worked individually and then collaborated together to come to agreed upon meanings that weren't confirmed by the teacher until all had an opportunity to make their own learning journey. Overall, I would consider this a good first experience with using primary sources to explore this topic and a promising first use of Library of Congress' new eBooks.