Teachers Designing Instructional Materials: A Unit on the Assassination of Kennedy (Part 1)

As a novice U.S. history teacher in Cleveland (OH) in the mid-1950s, I began designing lessons that contained sources absent from students’ textbooks. While I used the textbook for most lessons, I developed materials about race in the U.S. that would add to (and eventually replace) textbook lessons. Then called Negro history, these lessons and units largely used primary sources (e.g., letters written by black soldiers serving in the Civil War, accounts by former slaves about pre-Civil War life on plantations).

For most of my students (but clearly not all), these new materials and lessons seemed to work, that is, there was more student participation in class discussions, they asked questions, and many wanted to learn more about events and people in the sources I used. They connected events together and began using evidence to support their interpretations of what occurred in the past. I was pleased.

Designing lessons and units, however, while exhilarating, also exhausted me since I was teaching five classes of 30-plus students daily. I began to think that teachers, with a reduced class schedule, could also experience the excitement and, yes, joy, of designing lessons and putting them into practice within their own classrooms. I began to think that developing instructional materials would improve both teaching and student learning as it seemingly had in my classes.

I reasoned that if this largely worked for me with predominately minority and poor students, it would work for all teachers. I was becoming a reformer fixed upon improving teaching through teachers developing their own lessons and units. Yes, I was generalizing from my experience, a common tic among reformers; it was a view of how to improve teaching and learning that I eventually gave up. But in the mid-1960s to the early- 1970s, I was a true believer in improving schooling through-teachers creating lessons and units for their classes.

In 1963, I left Glenville high school to become a master teacher of history in the Cardozo Project in Urban Teaching in Washington, D.C. At Cardozo high school, working with Peace Corp Volunteers who had returned from overseas and were preparing to become certified teachers in the District, I had a chance to put my ideas into practice. The paid interns taught only two social studies classes (as did I, their master teacher). The mission of the Project expected them to teach, work in the community, and, here’s the kicker, develop instructional materials for their two classes. And that is what we did–together.

One of the teacher-developed units we developed in 1965-1966 was aimed at teaching thinking and writing skills. Based on the 1964 Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, I, Jay Mundstuk, and Ike Jamison worked over a summer to develop the eight-lesson unit. The subject matter was still fresh in our students’ minds and whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin or part of a conspiracy that planned the President’s murder was being debated constantly whenever the subject arose in classes.

We wanted to teach those reasoning skills which would be needed in all social studies courses as well as on the street and in the home. We wanted a subject that would grab our students and engage their minds in trying to figure out answers to uneasy questions. The Kennedy Assassination became the subject matter.

Material in the popular media was abundant; testimony before the Warren Commission was available as was the deluge of attacks and defenses heaped upon the conclusions of the Commission (e.g., Oswald was the shooter and acted alone). Moreover, in 1965 the memory of President Kennedy was very dear to many of our teenage students. Students in our classes named Kennedy as the best President ever. Mystery still surrounded Lee Harvey Oswald. His role in the assassination piqued our students’ curiosity. We named the unit: “Who Killed Kennedy?”

images

The unit was organized into a series of lessons the first of which raised the question of how do we know who the assassin was.  The question got students to state their beliefs initially and, as the unit unfolded, they began to question their beliefs when we presented them with available evidence from the Warren Commission and a few of the conspiracy-driven articles and books that appeared within months of the assassination.

As the students sorted through the evidence, they worked to have them use different thinking skills that were built into the unit’s seven lessons:

*How to make and verify hypotheses (we called them hunches).

*How to evaluate the reliability of sources of evidence.

How to draw inferences from a set of facts.

*How to weigh evidence and use it in support of a conclusion.

*How to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information in reaching conclusions.

The overall purpose of the unit was not to “prove” Oswald innocent or guilty.

images

The purpose was to get students to read carefully and judge the credibility of available sources, come up with hunches about who killed Kennedy, use evidence to reach a conclusion, and be able to defend their conclusions. We were more concerned with the process of reaching a conclusion and creating an explanation for what happened–a process embodied in the above skills–than the conclusion itself.

Part 2 takes up what we did in the unit itself and our evaluation of its worth.

About these ads

8 Comments

Filed under how teachers teach

8 responses to “Teachers Designing Instructional Materials: A Unit on the Assassination of Kennedy (Part 1)

  1. Here’s a belated comment from a 3rd year teacher busy teaching while concurrently developing instructional materials for his algebra 1 course thanks to Common Core and the enormous range of student skills in any one class… :)

    As always, Larry, I read your posts with fascination, as I find my own experiences as a “new but not young” teacher so reminiscent of your writings. Ironically, while fifty years separate our experiences, the similarity in hopes, efforts, and outcomes are painfully too familiar. Frequently, my biggest takeaway from your posts is why do we seem to repeat the failures of the past in our efforts to improve educational outcomes for students?

    More personally, I leave my classroom nearly every day wondering how I can change not only my students’ outcomes, but the beliefs and policies that contribute to the persistent gap between outcomes of select student segments across America. As educators, are we doomed to a Sisyphean experience? Or may we truly improve educational outcomes for all students in ways that absolute measures belie? I am committed to the latter, which requires reframing many well-intentioned but misguided perceptions that limit our abilities to educate the diverse array of students in our country.

    • larrycuban

      Thanks again, Dave, for your comments on the post. I am glad to read that you are developing your own materials for math as Common Core is upon us. As I think back on my own experiences in the classroom, I concentrated on my students and not on changing policymaker ideas or the most recent “new” thing that reformers foisted upon teachers. Only when I left the classroom to become a district office administrator and, later, a superintendent in another district did I begin to see the patterns in reform initiatives (instruction, curriculum, school organization, and management) that you mentioned. As a historian, I saw my job to document such patterns, particularly when teachers went against the grain and altered mainstream policies.

      • Unfortunately, Larry, with my 25 years of “systems thinking” experience in engineering and business before I entered the classroom, I cannot help but abstract out from the confines of my classroom to the educational system writ large. The curse of older age (relative to most 3rd year teachers), I suppose. I hope it serves my students, me, my family, and my desire to improve the system…

      • larrycuban

        Yes, Dave, the trajectories of our lives and careers differed. Thus, our evolving perspectives on school reform diverge but there is much that we both share insofar as goals of teaching, helping students and working with like-minded colleagues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s