Munitions+Production+-+Theresa

Usha's comments in Blue.

Your name: Theresa Huntley (Teri)

=== Initial Reading and Assessment of Textbook Treatment of the Topic ===

Name of Gr. 10 Textbook examined: Making History: The Story of Canada in the Twentieth Century

Name of more "scholarly" source examined: Myer Siemiatycki. "Munitions and Labour Militancy: The 1916 Hamilton Machinists' Strike." __Labour/ Le Travail__. vol. 3. 1978 (pp. 131-151).

Munition production in the First World War is really a subsection of a larger unit on the Wartime Economy in __Making History: The Story of Canada in the Twentieth Century__. Although the infamous career of Minister of Militia Sam Hughes is briefly mentioned earlier on, the text weaves the creation of the Imperial Munitions Board (IMB) into a broader trend of government control over the production of goods. The text touts munitions as a major component of wartime industrial output in Canada and uses this in particular as a bridge for discussing the contribution of women to the war effort and the introduction of women to the labour force. However, the text does gloss over the relationship of munitions development to other labour issues. The text does not seem to delve too deeply into the issue, but it does knit munitions into the fabric of economic history in Canada and in particular the role of women. I had a look at __Canadian History__ by Hundey and Magarrey to see if there was anything more specific about the topic, and found an interesting vignette of Sam Hughes as a person of note in history and included a picture of him juxtaposed with an image of a soldier carrying the Ross rifle which was such a blunder for the military. The text used the image as a means for discussing the equipment used by soldiers in WWI. I find this interesting because, to me at least, discussing the actual objects used by a soldier somehow makes his contribution seem more real. It also highlights how Hughes' rifle blunder had a tangible impact on soldiers' lives. I thought the two approaches might be more effective together.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Teri. It is interesting that you point out how this topic is woven into a broader narrative and as a means to exploring issues. This contextualization certainly enhances student understanding, especially if they are given the opportunity to grapple with some of the issues that emerge rather than just be told about the impact of munitions production within the larger context. I look forward to seeing how you proceed with this topic.

Critical Questions: Couldn't decide which was better. (Lacking critical thinking skills when applied to my own work. Or you just have too many good ideas! )

During a war, what is more important: ensuring the rights of workers at home or providing supplies to soldiers abroad? Explain. *judge the better or best.

Is it fair to expect women to give up their jobs in manufacturing when soldiers come home from war? Use details from the text to support your answer. * critique the piece

These are both well-framed critical questions, Teri, and you have rightly identified the types of challenges. The first one is a little less clear in the sense that I'm not sure anyone was very concerned with "rights of workers" at home during WWI - this is an issue that comes more to the forefront post WWI. What you have identified in these critical questions and from your background reading (above) were several of the controversies related to munitions production. So, you could focus in on one of these controversies (as each of the critical questions above do) OR you could asks students to assess the country's overall approach to this topic and they could consider a number of different controversies (women, workers' environment, Ross rifle scandal, etc.) to come up with an overall assessment. Just some ideas to ponder. What do you think?

New Critical Question/ Activity: Sam Hughes and Joseph Flavelle were both in charge of organizations that oversaw the production of munitions in Canada in WWI. In a report card format, assess whether Sam Hughes and Joseph Flavelle made positive contributions to the war effort. Use evidence from the textbook and from the Canadian War Museum website (www.warmuseum.ca) to make your assessment. Do you think that Prime Minister Borden was justified in replacing the Shell Committee with the Imperial Munitions Board? Topics for Assessment: Production Output, Labour, Quality Assurance, Impact of Individual's Decisions/ Actions on Canada's Relationship to Britain, Overall Effectiveness.

Criteria for "positive contribution": Did the actions/ decisions of Sam Hughes or Joseph Flavelle: - help achieve the goals of the Canadian government in the war (i.e.: Victory for the Allies)? - improve soldiers' lives and support soldiers on the front? - make it easier for people at home in Canada to support the war effort? - improve Canada's reputation? Yes - this makes more sense - do you think so, too?

I recognize that the answer is fairly obvious, but I think that through this kind of excercise students could gain an understanding of how governments have to respond to economic pressures on the homefront as well as preparing troops for war. Assessing public figures limits the scope of the wartime economy and munitions production to something more tangible that goes beyond facts and figures.

Yes, I think it is fair to focus on public figures and you have clearly framed a critical challenge (actually 2 - assess the 2 public figures and also "was Borden's decision justified...") unless you see all 3 of these figures as occupying a line of the report card. Either way, it will clearly invite critical thinking.

Right now, what you have identified as criteria are really "topics" to consider. When you say, "Impact of decisions" and "overall effectiveness" you are getting closer to the idea of criteria. If you are having students assess whether these figures made a "positive" contribution, then you need criteria for what makes a contribution "positive" (e.g. increases quality of life, solidifies Canada's reputation, etc.). Or if you are asking if they made a significant contribution, you'll need criteria for "significant" (e.g. depth, breadth and duration of impact of actions). Does that make sense? The qualifier you choose helps kids understand what, in particular, they are assessing and helps you define the factors that will help them make a decision. Of course they will look into the topics you identify (e.g. production output, labour, etc.) - that is the background knowledge they will need to understand to help make a decision. Does that make sense? Let me know what you think.

Key Learning: Students will understand that munitions production had a signficant effect on Canada's economy both during the war and after. They will also understand that war involves effort both on the battle-front and the home-front.

Critical Challenge: see above

Building Skills: This lesson will help students develop the ability to evaluate the performance of an individual or individual actions/ decisions towards a common goal based on criteria. It will also help them assess the impact of government decisions on people's lives (specifically soldiers and people at home). This will in turn help them with their newspaper assignment- specifically with the report card option.

Dimension of Historical Thinking: Cause and Consequence

5 Intellectual tools: Background knowledge: knowledge of Canadian economy before war, knowledge of WWI causes and the concept of "total war" though this will be reinforced throughout the lesson.

Criteria for Judgment: Criteria for good war effort (ie: contribute positively to the war effort); good economy (employment, production, etc.); quality of munitions regarding soldiers' actual experience The criteria you identify above for a positive contribution is good.

Criteria for a report card: what makes a good report card: detailed criteria for evaluation, clear rubric for evaluation, equitable treatment of the subjects of the report card

Habit of Mind: circumspect: tentative belief until sufficient evidence to warrant a more definitive position (to weigh all information before making a judgment)

Thinking Strategies: - weighing information (perhaps a pros and cons list); rating scale

Critical Thinking Strategy: Judgment

Visual Aid to be integrated: Munitions propaganda poster outlining consequences of poor munitions production on the soldiers' at the front in Europe.