I have approached our Civil War unit in a different manner this year. We opened with three days of activities revolving around the collection of documents offered by the DBQ Project. On the first day, students worked to determine how to categorize the documents into overarching causes of the war. It was wise to tell them which documents to group together because, even with that assistance, some of my sophomores struggled with the logistics of what to name the categories. The most challenging one may have been the first one with the category of “economic differences between the North and the South.” Revealing the categories, and thus the causes of the war opened our second day of study. After a Pear Deck presentation with references to each of the other causes and some connecting material, the bulk of the time of the second day was devoted to a single-paragraph essay using the first four documents to give evidence of the economic differences. This relates to our long-term goal of working with historical documents and using writing to express understanding of these primary sources. A short task pinpoints weaknesses in terms of structure, communication, or document use better than our “usual” five-paragraph essay. I liken success to this with using a “whole-part-whole” method in coaching. In exploring the issue of slavery, students were asked to complete a “Fake Twitter” assignment, which required supplemental instruction on the tool and a couple of the topics students were expected to include.

After working through the causes, we accounted for secession and then opened our look at the war’s actual fighting. It is challenging to examine wars sometimes because students with a penchant for history may have an in-depth understanding of each military maneuver and a precise understanding of the weapons employed. Meanwhile, other students enter the course unit no more than “aware” that the war being studied occurred. Addressing achievement gaps and differentiation are enmeshed in all we do as teachers, but – in the land of teaching history – studying a war exacerbates this issue. Offering links to various websites that provide more detail on the leadership, battles, and other specifics will occur in our second week on this topic. Some students will get so involved in these that I will fear they have lost the underlying information behind it; others will not do one more click than is expected of them in a class period.

Various types of decorative tape on popsicle sticks sorted student groups randomly as we opened our next day on the Civil War. Upon being assembled into these groups, an additional receptacle had numbers that students drew to determine their roles in two other tasks on the day. An opening textbook reading that introduces the fighting phase by telling about shots fired on Fort Sumter employed the “MVP” reading strategy. (This also establishes a sport-themed link.) Our principal shared this strategy from “Designating the MVP: Facilitating Classroom Discussion About Text” by Carolyn Strom in The Reading Teacher, October 2014 (Vol. 68, #2, pp. 108-112).

M – main idea

V – vivid mental image of the overall text

P – phrase that stays

Each number assigned the student a particular role within this; groups that had four students rather than three were instructed to have their “4” share either a “V” or a “P” from the material.

In the next textbook segment, the Union and Confederate advantages, disadvantages, and strategies, were shared through graphs, a map, and a series of paragraphs. After reading and recording this information, I explained that a pep talk is used to motivate, but it also lets a side see what its focus should be, while addressing what are believed to be the key factors in being victorious. In addition, these speeches sound different whether you enter the contest with the upper hand or are generally an underdog. While explaining this, I also make a connection to pre-game analysis letting spectators know what to expect from each side.  [I am also careful to mention that this is an analogy we use to examine a war, and that it is not meant to diminish war to something that functions primarily as entertainment for much of our society. In reading about the early battles of the Civil War, it is maybe all-too-familiar to see people viewing war so casually.]

The culminating activity occurred – again with the drawn numbers assigning student roles – with some “stadium rock” to set the tone. After brief preparation of what to say, the four tasks were executed:

North pep talk

South pep talk

Analyst (knows it all, wants to tell spectators what to anticipate)

Fact-checker (accuracy, fills in if things are left out, like a second analyst)

Students embraced this activity. As they prepared for the culminating activity, the intensity was palpable, and some students truly got into character with some fist-shaking and phrases like, “Go team!” to conclude their speeches. What made this unique compared to other cooperative activities like this that I have set up was the attentiveness with which students listened to each other. They were seeking to learn more because the format was engaging, and I think they also had been drawn in by the range of activities that preceded this.

I look forward to modifying this pattern slightly for some, if not all, of the other wars we examine this year. In terms of a formula, this method worked extremely well and played to readers, writers, and speakers, on different days. With the document set and the textbook material on advantages, disadvantages, and strategies, exploring graphs and other visuals seemed to make the information accessible to more students. It also made the volume of information less daunting.

The next challenge: to meet or top this with the rest of this course unit. Fortunately, the fiery political debates, Lincoln’s resolve, following up on how the initial factors played out, and some fascinating events, will provide plenty of fodder for us. Students will grow in their understanding, but I think they have already grown in their view of history as a living class, not just a class about the dead.