Visible+Minorities+and+Recruiting+for+WWI

Usha's comments in Blue.

Your name: Chris J. Carswell

===**Initial Reading and Assessment of //The Canadian Challenge,// in light of James W. St.G. Walker's "Race and Recruitment in World War I: Enlistment of Visible Minorities in the Canadian Expeditionary Force," (//CHR,// 70.1, 1989).** ===

//The Canadian Challenge//, Don Quinlan, Doug Baldwin, Rick Mahoney, and Keven Reed, edd., addresses the issues faced by visible minorities attempting to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the First World War in a way that does indeed address most of the key points: namely that these minorities wanted to fight in defence of Canada, but were prevented from doing so by prevailing racist attitudes. Given the text's concision and economy, attributes necessitated by the text's extensive scope [as late as 2007, a year before its publication date], the treatment this issue receives is relatively significant: about a page of narrative text and a one-page vignette highlighting the exploits of Native sniper Francis Pegahmagabow. This is heartening. These merits notwithstanding, there are a number of issues that must be addressed. First and foremost is the issue of perspective. One (ironically) sees the issue through the eyes of the White recruiters, and their lens of racial prejudice and stereotype. There is no mention of //why// minorities so vehemently attempted to join the war effort, or how disillusioned and angered that they felt as a result of the majority's racism. Perhaps the most significant issue with the text's treatment, however, is the lack of opportunities for students to engage with the issues inherent to this troublesome chapter in Canadian history. None of the text's questions for review and response has students reflect on what this clearly racist recruiting policy implied about what Canada's "national identity" was at that time, or how one could contrast that identity with the one that has developed to date. This seems like a missed opportunity in a unit that tackles the issue of the formation of a Canadian identity head-on. In particular, a study of the latent racism of the 1910's forces students to realize that the multicultural identity of modern Canada was not, by any means, an inevitable historical progression, but, rather, the product of decades of change and compromise. Interesting - it seems that this topic would be a perfect place to consider the issue of perspective and considering history through different lenses. Thanks for this assessment, Chris. Excellent start, Chris. A few comments. I think you're first part (Imagine you are PM..) is an interesting exercise in role play. I'm not sure if it's a critique the piece yet, though. Right now, it asks students (and this may just be in the wording, not in the intent) to basically list some limitations. However, once you take both pieces together, you are closer to a critical challenge. However, the way it is phrased right now, what students seem to be critiquing is their own ability to imagine the limitations rather than the government's recruitment policies.

Overall, I think you are very, very close here - it might be a matter of streamlining what you are asking students to do (try one sentence or question that outlines the students' task) so that it clearly reflects the thinking you want students to engage in.
 * __Enduring Understandings:__**

Students will understand that:


 * i) __Historical sources can roughly be divided into two types, primary and secondary sources.__**
 * ii) __Both source-types have strengths and weaknesses, and are both important to historical research.__**

- this lesson will include close analysis of a primary source:
 * __Including Primary Sources:__**

Citation pending Which is the better source for research into the recruitment of minorities during WWI: the secondary source //The Canadian Challenge// or the primary source [insert title here]? Oh - this is really neat - having them understand the content while simultaneously examining different types of sources and assessing their usefulness for the task at hand. Love it. Extension: Should historians think of the two types of sources in this way?
 * __The Lesson's Critical Challenge/Focal Point:__**
 * __[Take 2]__**

Challenge type: Identify the better

__**Intellectual Tools:**__


 * a) Background Knowledge:**

In order to successfully engage with this critical thinking exercise, students will need to:

i) Have content knowledge gleaned from two different kinds of sources (one primary, one secondary): What happened; who the parties involved were; what //their// attitudes and reactions were: start with the textbook, but then move to a primary source offering testimony of the opinion of minorities;

ii) Know how to analyse these two types of sources; be/become aware of what primary and secondary sources are; how they differ; what the strengths and limitations of each type are;

//They will come to appreciate the implications of first-hand perspective, especially emotion and the consequences for truthfulness and honesty of having a personal "stake" in what is described, etc.// //They will also come to understand the nature and limitations of secondary sources; the problems and benefits of being at an 'historical distance' from an event; etc.//

- for the sake of simplicity and gradually introducing sources, historiography, and bias, one primary source will be chosen, so as to postpone for a future lesson the problem of variance in primary sources; this mirrors the choice of **only one** secondary source, so as to postpone discussions of secondary source variance; //i.e. This lesson is the first plank in a **course-wide scaffold** that guides students toward being critically aware historians who learn about, and appreciate the limitations of, their sources before they use them;// - the point will be to emphasize the first-hand nature of the primary source; how this kind of source differs in perspective from a secondary source, like the students' textbook; - their findings will come from group-based analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of each source [with prompts such as "What can the primary source tell me that the secondary can't?" and "Does the author of this source have anything to gain from portraying the issue in this way?" etc. etc.]; and from a teacher-moderated sharing of the groups' observations; - the teacher will encourage students to draw broader conclusions about secondary and primary sources in general, using a specific instance of each as a starting-point;

Yes, this is all good; but please also but and paste the relevant curriculum expectations here.


 * b) Criteria for Judgement:**

- as seen above, students will develop an awareness of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each source-type during their work in class, as they examine one primary source and one secondary source that //both// describe the same event;

- early in the lesson, students and teacher will collectively develop a description of what they think a strong/superior historical source might look like (i.e. have a set of criteria to evaluate each source); - with these criteria in mind, students will approach, analyse, and evaluate each source, recording their evaluations in a chart that will be provided to them (see below under //Thinking Strategies// for information about data chart and rating scale);

Three criteria will focus their thinking and guide their final evaluation:

A good historical source:

i) Offers a broad portrait of an issue, event, or historical agent: i.e. it includes more than one perspective, or at least acknowledges that multiple perspectives exist (Perspective). ii) Treats the issue at hand with thoroughness and detail: i.e. provides the historian with the detailed information she/he will need to understand an issue fully (Depth); iii) Avoids bias, or at least openly acknowledges bias. Content does not seem to have been shaped by some 'higher design' or ulterior movement. (Bias); Excellent.


 * Thinking strategy: Report card **

- students will approach their reading of the 2 sources armed with these criteria; - as they read, they will have before them two report cards, one for each source; - each report card will have three sections, one for each criterion; - each section will have: a space for the criterion, as simplified by the student; a space for her/his appraisal of the source in relationship to this criterion (with A+ being the closest a source can come to 'making the grade' for this criterion, and F being the lowest; perhaps the source does the exact opposite of the criterion); and a space that calls upon the student to justify his/her evaluation by referring to specific examples/passages from the source in the question, and by generally providing a summary of the thought process that led to this evaluation. - once students have completed the report cards, they will be asked to reflect upon their evaluations, and to make a final decision as to which source came closest to their description of a good source; **i.e. to identify which source was better;** Good idea. - these considerations are all tied to the lesson`s main thrust, which is to actively engage students in //source analysis (or **evidence and interpretation**//); - students will be engaged in this kind of historical thinking from the outset of the lesson; - they will learn about the subject of `visible minorities and recruiting in WWI` from two different sources; be required to identify what each source contributes to their understanding of the topic (i.e. strengths); but also be aware of the limitations of each source; - students will be guided toward the realization that //both kinds of sources have their strengths and weaknesses// and that the privileging of one over the other is not what the historian does; - the critical challenge introduces this (ultimately erroneous) distinction **//expressly so that students can discover this fact for themselves//**; - this will make this important reality of historical research (that we have to use both source-types) more meaningful to them, as it will be a conclusion they themselves will have reached;
 * Dimension of Historical Thinking: **

c) Habit of Mind: **Critically minded.**

- the lesson will reinforce the necessity of //evaluating// historical sources, rather than simply accepting them;

d) Critical Thinking Vocabulary: **Evaluation** and **Bias**

- students will know that their work in this lesson is the //evaluation// of two source-types; - students will grapple with a major issue in (historical) writing: bias;

- will encourage students to think carefully as to which perspective they are taking; which evidence they are choosing, etc. when they write that piece;
 * __Relationship to the Summative:__**
 * -** by teaching students about the construction of a narrative (including authorial bias, the selection of evidence, the difference in perspective between first-hand and `bird`s eye`, etc.), this lesson will help prepare students for the completion of the `News report` section of the summative performance task.

Fabulous ideas emerging here, Chris. Nicely done. This is an interesting approach to criteria. 2 comments:

a) although you will be introducing students to the term "historiography", I think for the sake of the criteria they will need to actively use, you should probably unpack this term or use a synonymous phrase so that they will have greater clarity b) I worry that this is a "counting" mechanism that won't get at the relative strengths and weaknesses but will simply have them count up strengths and weaknesses. Would it be worthwhile to, instead of saying more/fewer strengths/weaknesses to articulate criteria that outlines these strengths as you have started to do below - e.g. the stronger source is: