Kathryn Ramos

Dr. Abby Reisman

Lightning Jay

EDUC 657-004

1 May 2019

Final Unit Project

Rationale:

As part of their chronological march through American History, the U.S. History class of

11th graders will follow up their unit on the Great Depression with a multi-week unit on the

Second World War. Students will learn how the consequences of World War I led to World War

II and how war material production in World War II helped to bring the U.S. out of its

depression. Other topics students shall cover include the rise of fascism, the Holocaust, wartime

combat, civilian life during the war, the dropping of atomic bombs, and the aftermath of the war.

Student learning goals include connecting the end of World War I to the origins of World

War II, analyzing the global scale of the conflict, exploring the horrors of ethnic cleansing and

international response, and examining the role of advancing technology in changing the

landscape of war. The principle takeaway of this unit will be examining how the U.S.

increasingly shifted its focus into becoming a global player, assuming a much more active role in

foreign policy in the coming years and assuming a role of world leadership on the international

stage. Students will examine the role and responsibilities the U.S. takes on in this period and in

the present. The chief enduring understanding alongside the other themes will help students to

use history to inform the present and to evaluate the balance between modern globalization and

continuing national divisions.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 49
Lesson type: Video Lesson type: Lesson type: Primary Lesson type: Lesson type:
Clips Analysis Lecture Source Exploration Argument Building Documentary
Content: Rise of Content: Beginnings Content: Holocaust Content: Debates Content: Pearl Harbor
Fascism of WW2 Objective: Students over American Objective: Students will
Objective: Students Objective: Students will discern the scale neutrality build upon the
will use sources and will utilize causality of the Nazi ethnic Objective: Students experiences of U.S.
discussion to reflect in connecting WW1 cleansing. will explore the servicemen to connect
on how fascist to the beginnings of Assessment: arguments for and the attack on Pearl
leaders utilized WW2. Document questions against American Harbor with the nation’s
nationalism and Assessment: involvement in the emotional response and
charisma to gain Whole-class European conflict. subsequent entry into
power. Discussion Assessment: Pros + the war.
Assessment: Video Cons sheet Assessment:
Worksheet Documentary
Worksheet
Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 49
Lesson type: Lecture Lesson type: Music Lesson type: Primary Lesson type: Jigsaw Lesson type: Simulation
Content: American Analysis Source Analysis Content: Major Content: Turning Point &
War Industry Content: Americans Content: Home Front Battles D-Day
Objective: Students in the Army Objective: Students Objective: Students Objective: Students will
will explore the Objective: Students will examine primary will perform a deep- evaluate the political
technological will analyze war sources and discuss dive exploration on and military strategies
capabilities of the songs for civilian life during the the impact of a major employed by various
U.S. forces and the perspective, war as well as WWII battle and nations at the turning
expansion of meaning, purpose, Japanese-American present relevant point of the war.
national defense. and connection to internment. information to their Assessment: Record of
Assessment: content knowledge. Assessment: Small peers. Simulation
Timeline Assessment: Group Discussion Assessment:
Song Analyses Presentation +
research
Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 54 Minutes: 49
Lesson type: Lesson type: SAC Lesson type: SAC Lesson type: Lesson type: Project
Photograph & Content: Atomic Content: Atomic Argument Building Objective: Students will
Newspaper Exhibit Bombs Bombs Content: War Crimes employ perspective and
Analysis Objective: Students Objective: Students & U.N. multimedia in creating a
Content: V-E Day & will explore the will formulate Objective: Students memento box as
V-J Day diverse viewpoints arguments supported will work with their someone who lived
Objective: Students regarding the by text and discuss peers to evaluate through WW2.
will reflect upon the necessity and within groups and as a global strategies for Assessment: Project
ending of the war justification of class how different addressing war (Rubric)
and its effects and dropping the sources can support crimes and for
celebrations around atomic bombs. different conclusions. maintaining peace.
the world through Assessment: Assessment: Assessment:
media. Graphic Organizers Reflection on Argument Sheet
Assessment: Small- Consensus
group Discussion
 Summative Assessment Sheet

Enduring Understanding: Global tragedies and humankind’s potential to cause mass loss of life have
changed the ethnic landscapes of entire continents, the political systems and boundaries of entire
countries, and the military capabilities of the world at large.

Data: 3 letters and a photograph

Assessment Description: Students will work in pairs to create a soldier memorabilia box. They will
choose a name and nationality for their soldier, and then they will write three letters to the soldier’s loved
one(s) and a photograph, taken during the war from where their soldier is stationed. Students will explain
why the photograph is significant to their solider. Additionally, the first letter will cover the unit of
instruction’s first weekly question, or “How and why did the world become embroiled in such a massive,
bloody conflict?”, and in it, students will have their soldier explaining the reason their soldier is in the
army and the reason the soldier’s country entered the war. In the second letter, students will address the
unit’s second weekly question, “What did soldiers experience during this conflict?”, in which their soldier
shall comment upon what their life is like during the war and describe one significant battle they were a
part of. In the third letter, students will respond to the unit’s third weekly question, “How does a divided
world rebuild after an all-consuming war?” To do this, students shall write a letter in which their soldier
muses on the war’s end and what they have heard will occur in peace negotiations. Students will date
each letter to display knowledge of chronology with the events mentioned within the letters.

Successful completion of this assessment: Successful completion of this assessment would include a
photograph dated to the Second World War from an area where soldiers were stationed; an explanation of
that photograph’s significance to the students’ soldier; a letter dated to the beginning of the war which
correctly identifies one of the motivations for that soldier’s country going to war and a possible reason for
that soldier to be in their nation’s army; a letter dated after the events of a battle described within the letter
which also comments upon the soldier’s way of living in the army; and a letter which dated near the end
of the war which describes at least one aspect of the post-war peace plan.

Potential struggles for students; least successful version of this assignment look like: Students may
struggle with finding and analyzing a relevant photograph, and students may struggle in what manner to
write their letters. The least successful version of this assignment would feature missing elements, a
photograph from an incorrect time or place with minimal explanation of significance, letter dates which
suggest a poor grasp of chronology, and letters which do not address or only vaguely touch upon content
knowledge.
What skills are needed for What is the value of this skill?
success?
Writing Articulation through writing
represents an important life
skill necessary for college and
career.
Perspective Taking Analyzing the point of view of
a past actor from a different set
of circumstances shows
comprehension and empathy
with not only peoples of history
but also peoples of different
backgrounds to oneself.
Primary Source Analysis Primary sources offer close
insight into an event and the
experiences and perspectives of
those involved.
How will you scaffold this
skill?
As a class, students will look
over models of letters and
reflect on which elements make
the letters successful both as
pieces of writing and as
informational sources on the
war.
Students have used sourcing to
study how point of view
influences sources, and students
will also receive notes on
different circumstances which
motivated soldiers in the war,
including the draft, the desire
for income, and personal belief
in their nation’s cause.
Students have had projects in
which they located primary
source photographs and
answered questions of
significance to the time period.
The class shall review some of
these projects in preparation for
the photograph analysis
component of the assessment.
World War II Memory Box Project DUE DATE March 20, 2019

Work in a pair to create a “memory box” for a World War II soldier. Your “box” should include the
following:
-Your soldier’s name and nationality [you can use a real soldier or make one up]

-3 letters to a loved one

-Letter 1) Include the date, your soldier’s reason for joining the army, and the
reason the soldier’s country joined the war

-Letter 2) Include the date, what your soldier thinks of life during the war, and a
description of one significant battle your soldier was a part of

-Letter 3) Include the date, a discussion of how the war ended, and what your
soldier has heard will occur in peace negotiations

-1 photograph
The photograph should show where your soldier is stationed and should be taken
between 1941 and 1945. You must include the source where you found it, the
date it was taken, where it was taken, and a 1 sentence description of what the
photograph shows.

Project Rubric
On-task during work time 20%
-Submits assignment on time

Letters 20% each x 3 = 60%

-Date
-Relevant information

Photograph 15%
-Source
-Appropriate date and location

Peer Evaluation 5%
EXAMPLE MEMORY BOX

Soldier’s Name: Harold Lash

Soldier’s Nationality: American

~~

Letter 1:

August 3, 1942

Dear Jacqueline,

I am thinking of you every day. Here in the Philippines, it is very hot and muggy.

Most of us guys don’t get a lot of sleep. I would not even be here if not for the draft back

home which forced me into military service. I have never wanted to be a soldier. At least

I am in the supply unit, but if I ever see combat, I fear if I will get home to you.

Ever since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to destroy our planes and battleships, our

country has been very aggressive about fighting this war. Thousands of Americans died

that day, and the President immediately named December 7th “a day of infamy” and

declared war on Japan and the rest of the Axis Powers.

I hope this war will end soon. I would much rather be back in New York with you

and the children. Take care, and please write back soon.

Yours,

Harold
1942, at Camp O’Donnell, in Capas, Tarlac in the Philippines. In this photograph, we
soldiers and some Filipino men carry the dead to a burial site.
(Source: Seton Hall University, https://blogs.shu.edu/ww2-0/1942/05/16/u-s-army-
sergeant-tells-of-horrors-on-bataan-peninsula)
 Structured Academic Controversy Lesson Plan

Rationale:

“Was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to end the war?” This

question occupies an irremovable position in the Social Studies discipline as it currently stands as the first

and only use of nuclear weapons against human beings. This topic, in light of how nuclear war will

inform the coming decades of the Cold War and how the prospect of nuclear holocaust haunts political

dealings to this day in talks with North Korea, thus remains a particularly significant and relevant topic

within the study of U.S. History. Even more specifically, historians have constantly waged discussions

and debates over the ethics and justification behind the U.S. decision to drop the bombs since the events

of World War II nearly 75 years ago. Some scholars emphasize their perception of the necessity of these

bombs to end the war; in order to support their argument, these groups and individuals often point to

Japanese war crimes and statistics on the potential loss of American life should the war have continued.

However, other scholars characterize these bombs as unneeded and cruel due to their use against civilians,

the effects on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the possibility that Japan was preparing to

surrender even before the bombs’ use. This central historical question thus invites students to engage with

the nation’s history as other historians have in making sense of decisions through an ethical lens (in

determining whether the use of a nuclear weapon can be considered “necessary”) while simultaneously

evaluating decisions for their pragmatism. The number of opinions and figures thrown around in this

discussion therefore represent a rich area of history for students to explore.

Additionally, as study of U.S. History in classrooms often centers around the perspectives of

American citizens, expanding the definition of U.S. History to include how the actions of the United

States affects other countries can prove a valuable and underexplored avenue with which to approach

historical study. To this end, the documents this lesson plan gathers in order to assess perspectives

surrounding the necessity and justification of dropping the bombs come from American and non-
American sources alike. The sources for the lesson plan’s documents include the U.S. Strategic Bombing

Survey in the President’s Secretary’s File, therefore representing an official yet non-public analysis of the

role of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war production cities, the damages incurred in Japan, and the United

States’ culpability in said damages. The next document from Winston Churchill’s words in the Commons

Sitting in the United Kingdom showcases the perspective of the U.S. President’s close ally in the war, and

in this document, Churchill comments upon the rationale for dropping the bombs, the humaneness of

actions taken to secure the safety of Japanese civilians, and the alleged necessity of the bombs for ending

the war. The following document originates in a transmission from the Japanese Foreign Ministry

communicating the Empire of Japan’s intent to surrender to the Allied Powers and expresses the goals and

overall feeling of a nation battered from the attacks suffered, which may either corroborate the notion that

the bombs themselves caused Japan’s surrender or may support the conception that Japan felt fatigued

from the war and was preparing to surrender for months. The final document excerpts a memoir from a

survivor of the bombing of Hiroshima, Hara Tamiki’s work “Summer Flowers,” and provides a first-

person narrative of the destruction which ravaged the city and the impacts of the bomb on the populace,

which highlights whom the bomb was used against and the “acceptable sacrifices” decided upon by the

U.S. in service o ending the war. These varied sources should hopefully provide diverse perspectives

upon the role of the bomb and the justification behind its use.

While crafting this lesson plan, I came to gain a far more comprehensive understanding of some

of the historical discussions surrounding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Researching relevant

literature exposed me to additional perspectives and truly instilled in me the impression that no small

selection of sources will ever capture the complexities of this issue. However, this inspired in me the

desire to give my genuine best effort to introducing and having this discussion with my students. Thus, I

searched across many platforms in order to find materials to prepare my students within this lesson.

Finally, I have planned and re-planned the proper place for this lesson within my larger unit on

World War II. Allowing this topic the appropriate amount of class time and ensuring the lesson came at a
reasonable place in comparison to the rest of the unit initially posed an obstacle to me. I needed to ensure

a certain chronology throughout my unit in order to communicate the flow of the war to students and to

help them to grasp the causality of events during the war. Clearly differentiating the end of the war in

Europe taught in a prior lesson from the ensuing struggle in Asia represented a priority in framing this

lesson. I similarly had to guarantee I reserved the right amount of time for students to truly explore this

topic, and to this end, I designed this lesson plan to constitute two days of class. This time frame would

allow students to perform a close-read of each document, spend time working with their groups to explore

two different perspectives and reach a consensus, and to engage in a whole-class discussion.

I expect my U.S. History class of 11th graders to have a cursory knowledge of the atomic

bomb and of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the aim of reinforcing and building

upon that knowledge, the lesson includes brief background information on the U.S. development

of the atomic bomb, the power of this new weapon, arguments on the U.S.’s rationale for

dropping the bombs on Japan, its impacts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan’s surrender.

Students have previously practiced with close-reading documents to examine author’s

perspective. As they read, students will have different scaffolds to aid their learning; for instance,

students will circle unknown words and guess their meaning in context, students will consult a

vocabulary list at the end of each modified document, students will underline phrases which they

believe support their position, and students will answer questions and utilize a graphic organizer

to articulate their takeaways from each document. I hope students will carry away from this

lesson an understanding that the study of history is far from a static discipline, and as historians,

we will never achieve full objectivity or omniscience. Gaps will exist in our knowledge of

certain time periods, necessitating personal interpretation, and our own biases will color these

interpretations. I believe grasping the purpose of the Structured Academic Controversy may

challenge some students, as students may be far more familiar with a debate format in
comparison. To check for understanding, I will walk around to listen to group conversations,

glance at student worksheets, and ask students what evidence they have found for their side. As

the activity continues, I will ask each group what the other team in their group has taught them

about the other argument, and I will ask each group to share what consensus they have reached.

Finally, in whole-class discussion when students contribute their personal beliefs, I will insist

that every student provide their justification- the “why”- of their argument, as every perspective

comes from somewhere. Tracing what elements lean a student toward calling the bombs

necessary versus other students calling the bombs not necessary can elucidate how priorities

inform viewpoints; for instance, a student who believes the U.S. government should value the

lives of Americans over the lives of people from other nations might use that rationale to support

the point that dropping the bombs was necessary to save American lives in the war. I would like

students to understand the nebulous nature of studying history, and I would like them to practice

the skill of extracting information/evidence from a source in service of an argument.

Lesson Plan: (Class meets for 50 minutes every day)

Preparing Background Knowledge-

Opener: We’ve talked about how the Allies invaded Berlin and Hitler committed suicide. What

did his suicide lead into? <pause for response> Germany surrendering and “victory in Europe,”

or the end of the war in Europe, right? But we’re not done with the war entirely yet. Why not?

<response> Yes, we are still fighting Japan. Today, we’re going to find out how the Allies defeat

Japan and end World War II for good.” (3 minutes)

Slides on Atomic Bombs (6 minutes)

Transition: Now, I am passing around a packet with a few documents and some worksheet

questions. Each of these are about the U.S. dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, and keeping in mind that question, “Was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima

and Nagasaki necessary to end the war?”, your job is to go through these documents to find

evidence supporting either side. Now, the way we’ll do this is a little different than usual. In your

pods of four, two of you will be a team, finding evidence to say the bomb was necessary and two

of you will be a team, finding evidence to say the bomb was not necessary. You can decide who

will take which role right now while I pass the packets out. (5 minutes)
Transition: Does everyone have a packet and a team? Alright. The first thing you’ll want to do in

your team is look on the last page- see where it asks you for 4 main points of evidence to support

both sides? You and your partner will be going through the documents and filling in the 4 pieces

for the position you’ve taken. While you read, I want you to circle words you don’t know, write

them in the margins, and write what you think the word might mean in context. I also want you

to underline potential evidence as you go, and to answer the summary questions at the bottom of

each document. So for now, take the time to read and answer the questions. Once your team

finishes that, you can begin filling out those four points on the back. (3 minutes explanation)

(15-20 minutes to read all documents and find 4 points of evidence)

Transition: If both teams in your pod have finished finding your evidence, the next step is to

share the information with one another. First, the team that found evidence to say the bombs

were necessary will share the 4 points they found. The other team must summarize their

argument back to them to their satisfaction. Once you have done so, you can switch, and the

team that found evidence to say the bombs were not necessary will share, with the first team

summarizing their argument. With this, you will be able to fill out the first two sections of that

back page. (1 minute explanation)

(6-7 minutes to share and restate, writing as they go)

Closure: In our last minutes of class, I’d like you to finish filling out those two sections on the

back page if you haven’t already. After that, you should go over the documents ensuring you’ve
read them all and answered the guiding questions. We’ll continue working with these tomorrow,

so I’ll collect the documents so they’re safe for tomorrow. Put your names on them! (5 minutes

for closure)

SECOND DAY

Opener: Let’s get right back into it! Someone remind me what we were working on yesterday.

<response> Yes, you had those packets you were filling out to find evidence on whether

dropping the atomic bombs was necessary to end the war or not. I’ll pass those back now. (4

minutes opener + passing back)

Transition: Take a few minutes to refresh yourself- skim through the documents and read that

back page for what evidence you found. If the top two sections of your back page aren’t filled

out, talk with your group to get what you are missing. (5 minutes refresher)

Transition: Alright! So within your pod, you have investigated these documents to show what

supports the bombs being necessary and what supports the bombs not being necessary. Now, I’d

like you to abandon the position your team investigated. Forget about which side you were

supposed to find evidence for. For that final box on your team’s paper, you’ll be discussing the

issue with your own personal opinions. This isn’t a debate- you’ll be sharing what you think with

your whole 4 person pod and trying to reach a consensus, or an agreement. Making sure you hear

from both sides of the argument, what is your group’s agreement on whether or not the bombs

were necessary to end the war? Take some time to talk it over in your groups and fill out the box.

(2 minute explanation, 8 minutes to work on consensus while teacher floats around room)
Transition: Okay, we’re going to have each group share out their consensus and write it on the

board so we can see what things we believe as a class. (5 minutes groups sharing out and writing

on board)

Transition: <teacher will comment upon the distribution of opinions in the consensuses> Now

that we’ve gotten to hear from each group, we’re going to discuss this as a class. Was dropping

the bombs necessary to end the war? What do you think? Using what you found in the document

and what other information you know, you can share out your opinion, and we’ll see if our class

is in agreement or if there are some different viewpoints around the room. (1 minute

introduction)

<teacher poses the question once more to begin discussion> <Discussion continues with teacher

interjecting the guiding questions when appropriate> (20 minutes)

Closer: Thank you all for a great discussion. From the documents and from our discussion today,

it seems as though this can be a contentious topic. We also touched open current events when

talking about the bomb, so it seems that this isn’t only a matter of should we have used the bomb

back then but also should we do so today. A number of you also pointed to how the documents

show us different perspectives and how the necessity of the bomb might be seen differently by

leaders versus civilians versus Americans versus Japanese and so on. That is why for so many

questions in history, we don’t get one objective answer. The discipline of history is always

changing and always requires interpretation from historians like us. We use the tools we have

and our own backgrounds to insert our interpretations of history. (5 minutes)

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DUDJPCILS3fERYF_P0BSOS911pDJcqX_PzIjpy1o1fk/edit?usp=sharing
 DOCUMENT A
Source: U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
June 19, 1946. President's Secretary's File, Truman Papers.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/65.pdf
--

Hiroshima before the war was the seventh largest city in Japan, with a population of over 340,000, and was the
principal administrative and commercial center of the southwestern part of the country. As the headquarters of
the Second Army and the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military commands
stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point
for both troops and supplies. Its shipping activities had [basically] ceased by the time of the attack, however,
because of sinkings and the mining of the Inland Sea. It had been relatively unimportant industrially before the
war, ranking only twelfth, but during the war new plants were built that increased its significance. These
factories were not concentrated, but spread over the outskirts of the city; this location, we shall see, accounts
for the slight industrial damage.

The impact of the atomic bomb shattered the normal fabric of community life and disrupted the organizations
for handling the disaster. In the 30 percent of the population killed and the additional 30 percent seriously
injured were included corresponding proportions of the civic authorities and rescue groups. ...A mass flight
from the city took place, as persons sought safety… and a place for shelter and food. Within 24 hours,
however, people were streaming back by the thousands in search of relatives and friends and to determine the
extent of their property loss.

...The slow and inadequate treatment of victims by the Japanese probably contributed to the high casualty
rates. Many persons could undoubtedly have been saved had facilities, supplies and personnel been
immediately available after the bombings. Probably the number of deaths from the true blast effects, flame
burns, or serious injuries from collapsing structures would not have [changed much]... With large quantities
of… blood and adequate supportive treatment, possible 10 to 20 percent of those dying of radiation might have
survived. However, it is doubtful that 10 percent of all the deaths resulting from the atomic bomb could have
been avoided with the best medical care. A more likely figure is 5 to 8 percent.

______VOCABULARY:
depots- storage facility
ceased- stopped
concentrated- focused in one area
outskirts- outside

How does this document characterize the importance of Hiroshima to Japan’s military might?

How does this document characterize the effects of the bomb itself and medical treatment on the
residents of Hiroshima?
 DOCUMENT B

Source: Winston Churchill. Commons Sitting, Debate on the Address. United Kingdom. August 16, 1945.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1945/aug/16/debate-on-the-
address#S5CV0413P0_19450816_HOC_43
--
The decision to use the atomic bomb was taken by President Truman and myself at Potsdam, and we
approved the military plans to unchain the dread, pent-up forces. From that moment our outlook on the future
was transformed… It is to this atomic bomb more than to any other factor that we may ascribe the sudden and
speedy ending of the war against Japan.

Before using it, it was necessary first of all to send a message in the form of an ultimatum to the Japanese
which would [tell] them of what unconditional surrender meant. The [generous] assurances given to Japan
about her future after her unconditional surrender had been made, when we remember the cruel and
treacherous nature of the utterly unprovoked attack made by the Japanese war lords upon the United States
and Great Britain, ...must be considered [noble] in a high degree. In a nutshell, they implied "Japan for the
Japanese," and even access to raw materials.... We felt that in view of the new and fearful agencies of war-
power about to be employed, every inducement to surrender... should be set before them. This we owed to our
consciences before using this awful weapon.

Secondly, by repeated warnings, emphasised by heavy bombing attacks, an endeavour was made to procure
the general [evacuation] of the civil population from the threatened cities. Thus everything in human power…
was done to spare the civil population of Japan, though there are voices which assert that the bomb should
never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. Six years of total war have convinced
most people that had the Germans or Japanese discovered this new weapon, they would have used it upon us
to our complete destruction... I am surprised that... people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to
the Japanese front themselves, should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have
sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives in the desperate battles and massacres of
an invasion of Japan… I believe that [future generations will] find themselves dwelling in a happier world from
which war has been banished, and where freedom reigns, [and] they will not condemn those who struggled for
their benefit amid the horrors and miseries of this gruesome and ferocious epoch.

The bomb brought peace… [and men] will keep it under... [threat to] the survival, not only of civilisation, but of
humanity itself. I [agree]... with the President that the secrets of the atomic bomb shall so far as possible not be
imparted at the present time to any other country in the world. This is in no design or wish for arbitrary power
but for the common safety of the world.

VOCABULARY

ascribe- attribute
ultimatum- final demand
inducement- persuasion
endeavour- effort
reigns- rules
imparted- shared
arbitrary- unrestrained

According to Winston Churchill, why did the Allies drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
 DOCUMENT C

Source: Japanese Foreign Ministry, transmission to neutral lands Stockholm, Sweden and Bern, Switzerland,
August 10, 1945.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/64b.pdf
--
TOP SECRET ULTRA
In accordance with the will of the Emperor, who is desirous of saving humanity from the catastrophe of war, the
Imperial Government has decided to request that the intentions of the Imperial Government be transmitted to
the principal belligerent [hostile] countries…

The Japanese government, being desirous of freeing mankind from the horrors of war and of bringing about an
immediate peace… [has] made the following decision. The Japanese government accepts the joint declaration
decided upon and published in common by the leaders of the United States, Great Britain, and China… on the
condition that the [detailed rules] of that declaration do not include any demand for alteration of the authority of
the Emperor to rule the state.

The Imperial Government is most anxious to have this made clear to the [Allied] government[s]... at once, and
that there be no error in the above understanding.
--
DOCUMENT D
Source: Hiroshima Three Witnesses. Author Hara Tamiki, “Summer Flowers.” August 1946.
-
“I owe my life to the fact that I was in the [bathroom]. The morning of August 6, catching sight of me, Sister
complained about my stay[ing] in bed; without a thought I went into the [bathroom].

How many seconds later it happened, I can’t say, but all of a sudden there was a blow to my head, and
everything went dark. It was pitch dark; I didn’t know what was going on.

It was like something in the most horrible dream… My cry sounded in my ear like someone else’s voice. Sister
flew toward me from across the way. “Not hurt? Not hurt? You’re alright?” she cried. Then: “Your eye is
bleeding; go wash it off right away.”

Cracks had opened everywhere. As I learned later, most houses in the area collapsed flat. At that point, K from
the office appeared. On seeing me, he called in a pathetic voice, “Help! I’m hurt. Look- smoke! Let’s get out of
here. Take me with you!”

“Mister, please!” We turned, and a girl whose face was bloody came walking toward us, crying. Looking
absolutely horror-stricken, she followed us, calling “Help!”

C: What does Document C say is Japan’s reason for surrendering?

D: Who does Document D describe as the victims of the bombing of Hiroshima?
QUESTION: Was dropping the atomic bombs necessary to end the war?
Dropping the bombs was necessary: List the 4 main points/evidence that support this side.
1)_From Document ___:

2) From Document ___:

3) From Document ___:

4) From Document ___:

Dropping the bombs was not necessary: List the 4 main points/evidence that support this side.
1)_From Document ___:

2) From Document ___:

3) From Document ___:

4) From Document ___:

COMING TO CONSENSUS
Starting now, abandon your assigned position and argue for either side.
Use the space below to outline your group’s agreement. Your agreement should address
evidence and arguments from both sides.
Discussion Questions:

“Do you think the bomb was the quickest way to end the war? Was it the /best/ way to end the

war?”

I suspect students may answer that the bomb was the quickest way to end the war as

Japan announced its surrender a week after the bombings. I suspect some students may answer

that it was the best way to end the war because it was the quickest, while I suspect other students

may answer that the best way to end the war would be diplomatically, without a loss of life. To

further this discussion, I might ask students to consider if the “quickest way” and “best way” to

end a war are different things, and whether the U.S.’s responsibility was to end the war as

quickly as possible or to preserve as many lives as possible.

“Some people say that we sacrificed the lives of Japanese civilians to save the lives of American

soldiers. Do you agree? Do you think that is reasonable for a country to do?”

I suspect students will agree with the statement and that they will find this reasonable for

the United States government. Some students may argue that Japan started killing Americans

first and that the priority of the government should be American lives. Other students may argue

that the U.S. should not value its own citizens’ lives over other human lives and may suggest that

the bombing would be untenable to Americans if the roles were reversed. To further this

discussion, I might ask what they believe the role of a country’s government is.
“Some argue America wanted to show off the power of their new weapon and their strength and

dominance rather than using the weapon to make Japan surrender. What do you think?”

I believe students may answer that the U.S. dropped the bomb in order to send a message

of their capabilities and to show other nations not to mess with the United States. To further this

discussion, I might ask why the U.S. needed to showcase its power, and does it change your

opinion of the U.S. dropping these bombs if their reasoning was to display power rather than to

end the war.

“If you think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was justified, how about on Nagasaki? Was it

necessary to drop both?”

I believe students will produce a variety of responses, with some students arguing that the

first bomb sent the message and destroyed Japan’s will to fight, making the second bomb

unnecessary. Other students may argue it was necessary to send a message and ensure Japan

would not be able to fight anymore.

“Would your answer to ‘is dropping nuclear weapons on American enemies necessary’ differ

today as compared to 1945?”

I suspect many students will say that it is no longer necessary to use nuclear weapons due

to the U.S.’s advanced military capabilities and the fact that other countries now hold nuclear

weapons as well. Students may answer that nuclear weapons were a more sensible and

necessary weapon in 1945 because no one had yet tested the weapon on people and the U.S. did

not have the military technology it has today to engage in alternate strategies.
 References

Churchill, Winston. Commons Sitting, Debate on the Address. United Kingdom. August 16, 1945.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1945/aug/16/debate-on-the-
address#S5CV0413P0_19450816_HOC_43

Japanese Foreign Ministry, transmission to neutral lands Stockholm, Sweden and Bern, Switzerland, August 10,
1945.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/64b.pdf

Tamiki, Hara. Hiroshima: Three Witnesses. “Summer Flowers.” August 1946.

U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, June 19,
1946. President's Secretary's File, Truman Papers.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/65.pdf
Simulation Lesson Plan: United Nations

Rationale- The major Allied Powers created the United Nations as a peacemaking body, yet each of

the major Allied Powers fought for competing visions for the postwar world based upon their

nation’s personal interests. Competing agendas drove global political policy following World War II,

and these agendas continue to limit the deciding power of the United Nations as a global governing

body.

Central Historical Question- How did personal interests inform each major Allied Power’s agenda

when deciding upon the political, economic, and social fate of postwar Europe and Japan?

Description of Central Activity- Students will count off from 1 to 5 in order to form 5 groups. Each

group will be assigned one of the 5 countries which are permanent members of the United Nations

Security Council: United States, United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and China. (For the

purposes of this simulation, China will be represented as its current representative, the People’s

Republic of China, although students will be informed that the Republic of China represented China

in the immediate aftermath of World War II.) Each group will examine their country’s interests and

respond at the bottom of their handout with how they believe their country would vote on the

following issues: “Should countries in Eastern Europe which have been liberated from the Nazis

hold free elections?” and “Should Germany pay heavy reparations, arrest all of its officials, and put

them on trial?” The groups will write why their country would vote “yes” or “no” on both issues.

The class will then simulate a meeting of the Security Council by voting on each issue. The class

will take a vote, with each country answering “yes” or “no” and explaining their argument. During

this time, each student must record at least one argument made by a group in opposition to them on

each issue. As the class has learned previously, the Security Council needs unanimity to take action,

and thus, their division will leave them unable to affect change or make decisions.
 United Nations (U.N.): global organization made in 1945 to maintain peace + security

U.N. Security Council: primary organization in U.N. to maintain peace. 15 members with
1 vote each. 10 are rotating and 5 are permanent members:

(Circle your country)

United States
Interests:
-influence in western Germany
-democracy in Eastern Europe
-rebuilding Germany’s economy
-keeping industry and officials in
place in Germany
United Kingdom
Interests:
-compensation money from
Germany
-punishing all future military threats
-democracy in Eastern Europe
-rebuild Britain’s economy

France Soviet Union

Interests: Interests:
-compensation money from -compensation money from
Germany Germany
-resume democracy in France -control of Eastern Germany
-punishing all future military threats -control of Eastern Europe as a
-democracy in Eastern Europe buffer zone against invasion
-gaining territory in Asia

China
Interests:
-compensation money from Japan
-regaining their territory which was invaded and occupied
-maintaining one party rule in Communist China

Should countries in Eastern Europe which have been liberated from the Nazis hold free elections?
Your country’s position and why:

The argument from the opposing side:

Should Germany pay heavy reparations, arrest all of its officials, and put them on trial?
Your country’s position and why:

The argument from the opposing side:

HEADING
Kathryn Ramos U.S. History- 11 Grade
th
54 minutes, 3rd period, February 21st, 2018
The Holocaust

OVERVIEW/ RATIONALE
The Holocaust is one of the cruelest and largest-scale tragedies in human history, and in their
study of World War II, students must realize the magnitude of this genocide. Studying events
such as Kristallnacht will help students to understand the role of authorities in looking the other
way during the brutality. Studying the words of people directly affected by or involved with
concentration camps will show students the conditions of such camps and the terror inflicted
upon individuals on the basis of ethnic, religious, and political differences. Each new generation
should learn of the Holocaust in deference to the phrase, “Never again,” a saying which acts as
remembrance of the lives lost and as a call to action to never allow such acts again.

ENDURING UNDERSTANDINGS
The German government imposed anti-miscegenation and anti-citizenship laws aimed toward
Jewish people.
Authorities in Germany condoned or ignored acts of violence against Jewish people.
During the Holocaust, the Nazi regime interred, brutalized, and killed primarily Jewish people as
part of their “Final Solution” aimed toward ethnic cleansing and promoting the dominance of the
Aryan race.
LGBTQ+ individuals, communists, and disabled people also faced this treatment.

GOALS/OBJECTIVES
Students will analyze primary sources for information on the experiences of individuals within
the Auschwitz concentration camp. Students will also analyze these sources for audience and
reliability and will discuss these with their peers.

STANDARDS
Students will analyze perspectives of the Holocaust and demonstrate an understanding of the
interpretative nature of history using a variety of tools (e.g., primary and secondary sources).
(from the Kentucky High School Holocaust Curriculum Guide)

MATERIALS
Laptop + Projector
Documents and worksheet:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hosTo_oZTeSO0V8KqSZNbWHIYIZ9H6fXH91FcePH65g
/edit?usp=sharing
Vocabulary
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19popp8dmN2KV-
6V3BNS4yr8Rd0QhokOPGl1KRB5MVEw/edit?usp=sharing
PROCEDURES

OPENER For their Do Now, students will respond to the Martin Niemoller quote, “First they
came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came
for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came
for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for and there was no
one left to speak out for me.” Students will answer “Are bystanders guilty for not speaking out
against injustice?” They will also think on if there are any similar modern-day examples of this
mindset. [6 minutes]

BODY OF THE LESSON The teacher will transition by telling students that today they shall
be exploring that environment in which people were imprisoned and killed for their identities in
Nazi Germany. The teacher shall connect this to the previous day’s lesson by informing students
that while the U.S. debated over neutrality in the war, activists urged the U.S. not to ignore the
cruelty and suffering taking place under the Nazi regime. [3 minutes]

Students will add the following vocabulary terms to their notes while the teacher provides
background on each:
Holocaust: Nazi Germany’s plan during WW2 to kill all Jewish people (also known as the Final
solution); leads to the deaths of 6 million Jewish people
-a form of genocide or ethnic cleansing: eradicating an entire race
-promotes the Aryan “master race”

Nuremberg Laws: laws in 1935 which took citizenship away from Jewish Germans and banned
marriage between Jewish people + other Germans

Kristallnacht: (also “Night of Broken Glass) November 9, 1938, when German citizens attacked
Jewish stores and synagogues while authorities did nothing

Concentration camps: camps where Nazis imprisoned Jewish people, Roma people, gay people,
communists, and other groups. In camps, many Jewish people were killed in gas chambers
-a major camp is Auschwitz in Poland [10 minutes]

Students will then receive primary source accounts: a diary from a young girl taken to Auschwitz,
a report from two men who escaped Auschwitz, and an excerpt from the autobiography of a
commander at Auschwitz written while in jail years after the Holocaust. The teacher will instruct
students to pay attention to the source notes as they shall be completing a graphic organizer
which asks students to analyze the significance of source type, audience, and origin. Students
will have time to read the documents and fill out the organizer. [25 minutes]
CLOSURE Near the end of class, the teacher will help to scaffold the organizer’s final question
on the reliability of each source by inviting students to share out what they believe makes a
source a “reliable” piece of historical information. If students do not point to it, the teacher will
suggest students consider an author’s motivation in composing a particular account in regard to
their social position and their intended audience. If students finish early, they should discuss their
responses to the organizer with those around them. [10 minutes]

ACCOMMODATIONS Documents have been modified for ease of understanding. Students

will utilize a graphic organizer to compare and contrast sources.

ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
Students will fill out a graphic organizer summarizing important takeaways on the sources and
their thoughts on the documents’ reliability as historical sources.
Students will remain on-task during work time.
Students will remain respectful toward the topic as part of their “attitude toward learning” grade.
EXCERPT FROM THE DIARY OF HELGA WEISS REGARDING LIFE AT AUSCHWITZ

Helga Weiss was 12 years old when Nazi soldiers removed her family from their home in Prague to a ghetto at Terezín.
From there, she was taken to Auschwitz where she remained only briefly before being sent off to another camp. Her diary
contains numerous details about her experiences as an Auschwitz prisoner.

Early in the morning came the wake-up call, after which each bunk received a pot with scrapings in it. They
said that we’re new here so there was no more left for us. I was utterly miserable. If that’s how they’re going to
feed us, then it’s the end for us. Although it wasn’t at all edible—cold, thick, and bitter—we forced it down.
Partially to fill our stomachs with something, anything, and also because we were afraid that they would punish
us for leaving food.

After breakfast was roll-call, where they counted us, left us standing there for an hour, maybe two, I don’t know
exactly, because I don’t have a watch—in any case it was endless. Why I don’t know; apparently it’s part of the
daily program. They only let us back in the building once it seemed to them that we were sufficiently tired and
frozen through and through. It’s only October, but it was freezing cold standing there at four in the morning (it
must have been around then, it was still completely dark), almost naked, for the rags they dressed us in can’t
be called clothes, our bare feet stuck in Dutch clogs (sometimes only one clog, if you’re not clever and
energetic enough to clamber down from the bunk in time and there aren’t enough to go round)—and the worst
thing of all, with a shaven head; that’s the part that gets coldest.

Besides that, this Polish climate is awfully odd. During the day the sun beats down till people faint from the
heat, while in the early morning it freezes worse than at home in December. I have to laugh when I remember
how Mom always got mad when I wouldn’t want to put on a cap or long stockings in winter. If I ever get home
again, I will never wear anything on my head till the day I die.

Source: Helga Weiss, Helga’s Diary: A Young Girl’s Account of Life in a Concentration Camp (New York: W.W. Norton,
2013)
EXCERPT FROM THE REPORT OF AUSCHWITZ ESCAPEES RUDOLF VRBA AND ALFRÉD WETZLER

Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler were Czechoslovakian Jews sent to Auschwitz as prisoners in 1942. They escaped from the camp in
April 1944 and made their way back to Czechoslovakia where they submitted a report of their experiences to the Slovakian Jewish
Council. The report was translated and sent to Czech government representatives in neutral Switzerland where it was then translated
again and distributed to the Allied governments, including the United States.

On the 13th April 1942 our group, consisting of 1,000 men, was loaded into railroad cars at the assembly camp of SERED.
The doors were shut so that nothing would reveal the direction of the journey and when they were open after a long while
we realized that we had crossed the Slovak frontier and were in ZWARDON. The train had until then been guarded by
Hlinka men but was now taken over by SS guards. After a few of the cars had been uncoupled from our convoy we
continued on our way arriving at night at AUSCHWITZ, where we stopped on a side-track. The reason the other cars were
left behind was apparently the lack of room at AUSCHWITZ. They joined us, however, a few days later. Upon arrival we
were placed in rows of five and counted. There were 643 of us. After a walk of about 20 minutes with our heavy packs (we
had left Slovakia well equipped) we reached the concentration camp of AUSCHWITZ.

We were at once led into a huge barrack where on the one side we had to deposit all our luggage and on the other side
completely undress, leaving our clothes and valuables behind. Naked, we then proceeded to an [neighboring] barrack
where our heads and bodies were shaved and disinfected with lysol. At the exit every man was given a number which
began with 28,600 in consecutive order. With this number in hand we were then herded to a third barrack were so-called
registration took place. This consisted of tattooing the numbers we had received in the second barrack on the left side of
our chest. The extreme brutality with which this was effected made many of us faint. The particulars of our identity were
also recorded. Then we were led in groups of a hundred into a cellar, and later to a barrack where we were issued striped
prisoners clothes and wooden clogs. This lasted until 10 a.m. In the afternoon our prisoner's outfit was taken away from
us again and replaced by the ragged and dirty remains of Russian uniforms. Thus equipped we were marched off to
BIRKENAU.

AUSCHWITZ is a concentration camp for political prisoners under so-called “protective custody". At the time of my arrival,
that is in April of 1942, there were about 15,000 prisoners in the camp, the majority of whom were Poles, Germans and
civilian Russians under protective custody. A small number of prisoners came under the categories of criminals and
"work-shirkers".

AUSCHWITZ camp headquarters controls at the same time the work-camp of BIRKENAU as well as the farm labor camp
of HARMENSE. All the prisoners arrive first at AUSCHWITZ where they are provided with a prisoner's [registration]
number and then are either kept there, sent to BIRKENAU or, in very small numbers, to HARMENSE. The prisoners
receive consecutive numbers upon arrival. Every number is only used once so that the last number always corresponds to
the number of prisoners actually in the camp. At the time of our escape, that is to say at the beginning of April 1944, the
number had risen up to 180,000. At the outset the numbers were tattooed on the left breast, but later, due to their
becoming blurred, on the left forearm.

Source: The “Auschwitz Protocols,” Records of the War Refugee Board, FDR Presidential Library
EXCERPT FROM THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF RUDOLF HÖSS

Rudolf Höss was commander of the Auschwitz concentration camp from 1940 to 1943. Under his leadership, the camp
experimented with multiple methods of murdering inmates, mainly using poisonous gasses. Höss was captured, tried, and
sentenced to death after the war. The following is an excerpt from his memoirs, which he wrote while in prison.

In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsführer SS,
directly by his [assistant’s] office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his [assistant]
being present and said in effect:

“The Fuhrer has ordered that the Jewish question be solved once and for all and that we, the SS, are to
implement that order. The existing extermination centers in the East are not in a position to carry out the large
Aktionen [assembly and killing of Jewish people] which are anticipated. I have therefore earmarked Auschwitz
for this purpose, both because of its good position as regards communications and because the area can
easily be isolated and camouflaged. At first I thought of calling in a senior SS officer for this job, but I changed
my mind in order to avoid difficulties concerning the terms of reference. I have now decided to entrust this task
to you. It is difficult and onerous and calls for complete devotion notwithstanding the difficulties that may arise.
You will learn further details from Sturmbannführer Eichmann of the Reich Security Main Office who will call on
you in the immediate future.

“The departments concerned will be notified by me in due course. You will treat this order as absolutely secret,
even from your superiors. After your talk with Eichmann you will immediately forward to me the plans for the
projected installations.

“The Jews are the sworn enemies of the German people and must be eradicated. Every Jew that we can lay
our hands on is to be destroyed now during the war, without exception. If we cannot now obliterate the
biological basis of Jewry, the Jews will one day destroy the German people.”

On receiving these grave instructions, I returned forthwith to Auschwitz, without reporting to my superior at
Oranienburg.

Source: Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Höss (Cleveland: World Publishing Co.,
1960)
Name of Document

Source date

Intended audience

How do you think the

source’s origin and
intended audience
affect the information it
contains?

Key details from

source

What do those details

teach you about the
experience of Jewish
people at Auschwitz?

On a scale of 1-10,
with 1 being “very
unreliable” and 10
being “very reliable,”
how would you rate
this document/
interview’s reliability as
a source of historical
information? Why
would you give it this
rating?
 Kathryn Ramos

6 May 2019

Reflection

The discussions I have had with my peers over the course of my Social Studies

graduate education class, particularly in our roundtable conversations, have illuminated a

number of ways in which I can build upon my teaching practice. In particular, utilizing

feedback from these sessions, I envision a number of concrete ways in which I can address a

primary struggle of my unit planning to date—namely, the ability to balance skills and

enduring understandings with content knowledge. In reflecting on this, I will consider the

implications this focus can have upon my unit planning.

In history classrooms, students should learn history, and teachers should teach history.

Content knowledge stands paramount in helping students to achieve an essential

understanding of our world and how it came to be. However, this instruction on content

knowledge cannot come at the expense of longer-lasting skills or understandings. While

teachers should strive to impart important historical knowledge to students, it remains

unlikely and unreasonable to expect that historical details and minutiae will stick with

students years down the line. What students will retain for longer are skills such as primary

source analysis, perspective taking, persuasive writing, and many others. These skills

prepare students not only as lifelong learners but also as members of modern society, and

these skills give students the necessary tools to pursue their educational or occupational

ambitions. Further, rather than remembering discrete details about various historical figures,
it is more important for students to recognize trends and lasting significance of history as part

of overall enduring understandings from studying history. With this in mind, while I will

continue to centralize important content knowledge, I can appreciate and incorporate the

rationale for emphasizing certain skills and the retention of enduring understandings in my

lesson plans.

One particular strategy I will pursue in reorganizing my current unit planning methods

will be in the resources I consult when planning curriculum units. Specifically, in the past

year, I have based my U.S. History units off of a set of U.S. History curriculum guidelines

which my mentor teacher showed to me at the beginning of the year. I have followed the

document’s suggestions on weekly content guidelines, which has been immensely helpful in

identifying significant periods to cover when marching through U.S. History chronologically.

However, faithfully recreating the week-by-week schedule denoted in the document has led

to significant difficulties with pacing and with balancing content knowledge and instruction

on skills and understandings. In an effort to fit in every topic listed in the document, I have

sacrificed repetition of key knowledge and practice of key skills. This demonstrates to me the

importance of diversifying in searching for resources. My personal practice and my time in

Methods class have highlighted that standards guidelines can be far from flawless and rarely

work for every single classroom and context. Thus, I believe in searching for fitting

guidelines and modifying schedules for my own classroom in order to create unit plans suited

to my teaching philosophy.
 An additional technique which I believe will help me think more critically about the

structure of lessons within my unit plans will be adopting a new format for lesson plans which

provides for explicit linkage between each activity and enduring understandings. More

specifically, this format might look like a box describing an activity, with an arrow pointing an

adjacent box in which I fill out what skills this activity develops and how. In the current format

in which I craft lesson plan, I write enduring understandings at the top, and then I write specific

procedure down below. The disconnect in this format occasionally causes the procedures to not

reflect the intended enduring understandings. However, using a new format which demands such

connections between exactly how each activity of a lesson supports that lesson’s enduring

understandings and skill development will help me in this approach.

Specific structures we have utilized in Methods class have also shown me the importance

of being very intentional in selecting the skills and enduring understandings I write in to plans.

For instance, the Summative Assessment Planning Sheet we worked with in planning our

curriculum unit asks: “What skills are needed for success? What is the value of this skill? How

will you scaffold this skill?” This helps to provide the necessary motivation for the goals of a

lesson in that it asks teachers to think explicitly about what certain skills they are teaching, why

they are teaching those certain skills, and how they will teach those certain skills. This attitude

shall carry forward with me in teaching so that I can work toward crafting lessons which are the

most useful and effective use of my students’ time.

Overall, the roundtables and the course as a whole have given me much to consider on

just how many decisions we make when planning. There are innumerable ways in which to craft

lesson plans, a concept I witnessed firsthand when comparing my unit plan with those of my
peers in my discussion group. I realized that even simple decisions about how to lesson plan

could lead to fundamental differences in our units. For instance, one of my classmates who also

teaches history moves through units thematically rather than chronologically. This provides an

entirely different picture of history when grouped together by overarching elements rather than

time. While I still believe I will follow a chronological model due to my desire to impart cause-

and-effect to students, I value the technique my classmate demonstrated to me of tying together

themes. For instance, while I would teach such movements chronologically, making references

and connections to other social justice movements when teaching about women’s suffrage, the

1960s Civil Rights Movement, the Stonewall Riots, or other events can demonstrate patterns and

the continued struggles of groups and individuals to achieve recognition and acceptance in the

face of prejudice. Additionally, I have been able to learn from teachers who have taken similar

approaches to teaching as well. For instance, when conferring with a peer who, similarly to

myself, seeks to conclude lessons within a single day for cohesion and comprehension, we spoke

on the benefits and shortcomings of this approach. While every lesson should be self-contained

lessons, and definite conclusions are desirable, enforcing a rule to finish every lesson within a

single day (particularly with shorter periods) can lead to rushing through activities. Additionally,

at times having multi-day lessons can prove beneficial in reinforcing a main idea through

multiple days of instruction and in reusing materials in a manner which helps students who were

absent to catch up. Naturally, even when planning multi-day lessons, these lessons must function

as self-contained lessons with each day having its own opener and closure with appropriate

transitions. Overall, however, displaying flexibility in crafting certain lessons will help me grow
as a teacher. This holds true for lessons which defy expectation as well; for instance, if I plan for

an activity to take a certain amount of time and the activity takes far less or far more time than

allotted, I must adjust my lesson accordingly.

In summation, my time in teacher education has helped me to grow as a teacher through

practical experience in my classroom, theoretical experience in my university courses, and self-

reflection in my assignments. My professors and cohorts have proven an invaluable resource in

providing feedback and alternative perspectives toward lesson planning and teaching overall.

Specifically, through dialogue with my peers, I have concluded that my lessons should more

intentionally centralize skills and enduring understandings, and my lessons should display

flexibility in terms of time. To achieve this goal, I will search and consult a number of additional

curricular resources for the sake of unit planning. I will also utilize new lesson plan formats

which explicitly link skills addressed, rationale for these skills, and scaffolds for these skills. I

will continue to connect with other educators both within whatever school I work at, within a

larger district or community, and even across state lines via internet. It is impossible to perfect

the art of teaching, and so a good teacher must always be striving to improve and to learn from

the perspectives of others. Striving to improve and to listen to others represents core values for

good members of society as well. Therefore, I will carry this lesson with me in the years to come,

not only in my career but also in my life.