Engaging Students in Jigsaw Learning, Poster Projects, and Ad Hoc Debates
To Encourage Them to Become Critical Thinkers

James A. Diskant

     One the challenges that we face daily as teachers is how to encourage our students to interact with us and with each other in meaningful ways. Students are too often pulled in different directions during their busy days, where an interesting discussion may be interrupted by the bell, where they are thinking about the soccer game that afternoon, or a problem at home. It is all too easy to fall into the trap that traditional history teachers, as well as teachers of other subjects of getting out the information for them to memorize and have students regurgitate it back to us if they were robots. Of course, most educational literature in the last 20 years has argued the opposite.¹ And not all students learn alike; of course instruction and assessment need to go hand and hand or students will not be able to grasp the importance of assessments and their relationship to what they need or should learn. This is why I continue to write about how we need to "stretch students' learning preferences [so that they] become engaged learners who are willing to more beyond their comfort zones of learning.²

     There are countless strategies to accomplish these goals, but students' involvement in their learning in multi-faceted ways is key, as are activities that encourage students to think critically and to understand that the correct answer is not necessarily only the one provided by the teacher or the textbook. Rather, good learning is demonstrated by critical thinking over an issue that is historically significant and should be by extension significant to the world in which we – they – live in today and that they will ultimately have a role in maintaining, creating, changing, and/or improving, depending on what matters to them. In order to share practical implementation of these ideas, I want to share four successful strategies from my experience this fall: the results of the Roundtable that I recently conducted, the use of jigsaw learning, an example of an ad hoc debate, and my school's current school wide 10^th grade poster project.

     First, the Roundtable, entitled "A Large Roundtable Discussion in Three Parts: The World Around 1825: Who is in Control? Reactionaries, Moderators, or Revolutionaries" (see Addendum A) was the first activity that I used to start the course in September. Drawing upon their own learning preferences, students shared information about early 19th century women and men over the course of three days. First, they were assigned their role and had a period to prepare. Second, the men in control (whether present at the Congress of Vienna or not) shared their reactionary, conservative, moderate or liberal perspective with class during the second period of the activity. During the final day the men and women, radical or liberal, who lacked political power, shared their ideas with the class. The activity concluded with everyone standing up in the correct political spot in a spectrum to re-clarify what they each thought.³

     It was overall a successful activity where most students in my three 10^th grade classes came away with a clearer understanding of the political spectrum at the time in the world, which people had political power, what they did with it and why, which people tried to work with others and the difficulties they had in doing so, and the reasons why most peoples' needs were not met in this historical period. While the use of the painting of the Congress of Vienna worked splendidly, sadly my (new) classroom's technology did not work the first two times in allowing me to play Beethoven's Battle of Symphony, until the end of the Roundtable, so that the discussion of the symphony did not as, I had hoped, set the stage, instead the music concluded it. The Fire Lane at the end of the discussion was a fantastic way for students to explain their role to the class, hear the other roles, and better understand the political spectrum that existed in the 1820's. The illustrations that they created also demonstrated their understanding of the issues.

     While students have been able to refer back to positions and even specific people from this activity during the course of the fall, as we have moved on in the course, it became clear that there were two problems, one of content and one of approach that will require some adjustment next time or the next time I organize a similar activity. First, many students appeared to be confused which people attended the "real" meeting in 1824 designed to halt revolutionary change and came away thinking that all 15 people were actually there. Perhaps the problem was that on Tuesday the men who were there (from Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia) were joined by men who were not present (from China, the Ottoman Empire, and the United States). On Wednesday none of the people who actually spoke were actually present at the Congress. Next year I need to make it clearer – either in a Handout or on posters in the room – who actually participated in the real meeting, and who I added for purposes of the simulation. Second, some students were unwilling to learn from one another in the roundtable conversations and wanted to present/debate their perspective without and before completely understanding the other perspectives. I'm not sure whether they needed more time to prepare or simply more time absorbing the nature of learning that this activity required.

     Second, jigsaw learning has been an excellent way to encourage more students to participate in different ways: individual; small group discussion, and full class discussion. At the suggestion of my current intern, Emily Rochford, a student at Simmons College, we used this method twice this fall: in order to understand key aspects of the Communist Manifesto in October (see Addendum B for the culminating quiz on this material that was given the day after the jigsaw activity) and a month later to understand key aspects of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (see Addendum C for the activity). In both cases students were given time to read and annotate their portion of the room and then discuss with the other 3 or 4 people at their table the meaning of the portion (20 minutes). Then 4 students from each table moved and shared their knowledge of their portion with their class mates from the other groups. In some cases I had to help, but in most cases they did the entire activity on their own. (another 20 minutes) We then had a brief sharing of the key points as a full class (15 minutes). I was quite impressed each time with the extent of their individual and collective knowledge; they also clearly liked moving in the middle of class!

     Third, debates have long been a component of my teaching repertoire; typically I allow students a full period to prepare their roles. This fall I approached it differently (see Addenda D, E, and F) and, after spending two weeks looking at reformers, set up a two day debate with no advanced warning. When the students arrived in the classroom I (or Emily) assigned the debaters their roles, and otherwise students were given roles in the audience, depending on where they sat. It was a great two days! Most students got into their roles well, argued their points convincingly and audience members, even normally quiet students, asked superb questions. Each class managed to end the first class at a good spot and in two of the three classes returned to fabuolous discussions the second day. The third class was less strong; in part, because I had miscalculated on one debater who did a poor job defending her position, and some members of the audience were less focused on Day Two. The next time I do it, I'll add more roles, including a male factory owner, former Mexican citizen living in California, a freed slave in Canada, a member of the House of Lords from London, an Irish peasant still in Ireland, and a Russian serf so that each student would have their own role (instead of with a partner) so as to increase a perspectives from across the world and to increase each person's accountability and voice.

     Finally, a poster project that I have already shared in a previous essay,⁴ has now become a school event (see Addenda G, H, I, & J). In September, the my colleague (I with whom I had done this activity together for two years) and I shared it with the three additional teachers who now teach Grade 10 (two new to the building, one who had previously taught ninth grade) and they were inspired to join us in the activity. We agreed that we would all use the same rubric (Addendum H) and pitch in to buy prizes ($15 gift cards from Borders) and that we would, along with the Department Head and my intern, serve as judges to choose the top 10 (out of almost 300 sophomores). We agreed to disagree on the nature of the assignment itself; one colleague with two classes had a project similar to mine, while the other three teachers' projects were different than ours and similar to each others: they focused on the pitfalls of democracy in the United States in the 1840's. Out of my 80 students, I had 12 excellent ones; they shared their posters first in class in mid December 2009; the school wide Fair was to have taken place right before winter break, but due to a snowstorm it was cancelled! It was one of those days that I was desparate to be in school: we had collectively spent hours making this event happen and the students were pysched to participate and possibly receive one of the unknown prizes. Fortunately we were able to reschedule it; it will now take place on our first day back in January: what a fabulous way to return to school over a ten day break.

     Too frequently students are only rewarded for sports competitions or for artistic exhibitions – dance, music, and/or theatre -- and yet school is supposedly to prepare students to compete in a world where it matters what they think, what they can create, what they can write, and what they can say. In my experience we don't challenge or compliment them enough in these essential areas of learning. This Fair is a small step in the correct direction: collegial cooperation to encourage students to compete over what they can produce, where each of them has an equal opportunity to win and be rewarded by their peers, teachers, and the school at large.

James A. Diskant, Ph.D., World History Connected's editor for Pioneering New Classroom Approaches, teaches at the John D. O'Bryant School of Mathematics and Science in Roxbury (Boston), Massachusetts.

United States and World History II
Dr. Diskant
A Large Roundtable Discussion in Three Parts
The World Around 1825: Who is in Control?
Reactionaries, Moderators, or Revolutionaries

• fifteen different perspectives,
• the emerging political spectrum by the early 19^th century,
• alliances that people – leaders or subjects and/or citizens – made to advance their goals, and
• issues – opinions and/or methods – that they kept people apart from one another who may at an initial glance have had many things in common with one another and in a "perfect" world could have worked together.

     The simulation will take two days; we will have that simulation on Tuesday and Wednesday. We will hear from the leaders of the five empires (Positions One – Five) who were responsible for trying to stop these changes. In addition, we will hear from three leaders who did not participate at the Congress and whose countries were not represented at the Concert of Europe (the organization set up by the Congress) and yet may have agreed with some of the ideas articulated by the first five positions (Positions Six – Eight). But the opinions of these men did not represent all the voices in this period so the Roundtable will be opened up to additional voices – people who very much wanted change, some of whom were successful and others who failed and died in their attempts (Positions Nine – Fifteen).

     Part One: on Tuesday the men in power will speak, moderated by Emperor Qianlong of China – Position Eight -- who ruled one of the most powerful empires and yet tried to work on his terms with a range of people who both agreed and disagreed with him. Then we will hear from other men in power, including reactionaries, conservatives, and moderates who also had political power, and yet disagreed with the Chinese Emperor. Meanwhile those representing those positions in favor of change will sit in the audience – the outer circle – and listen to those who oppose them. Those in the outer circle who take notes as to what they hear and learn.

     Part Two: on Wednesday those who had been in the audience will speak, moderated by Position Nine that of Monsieur and Madame Bonhomme, fictional French peasants who had gained land as a result of the radical changes ushered in by former French leader Maximilien Robespierre in the 1790's and are now content with their new position. Then we will hear from other revolutionaries, as well as liberals and those in favor of change; some of whom were successful and others of whom were not and may have been killed in their attempts (a little historical imagination brings them to the Roundtable!). Meanwhile those representing those positions in positions of power will now sit in the audience – the outer circle – and take notes as to what they hear and learn about people who oppose them.

     Part Three: the moderators of both days will open a dialogue to exchange views across the political spectrum so as to clarify the emerging political views of the early 19^th century from reactionary to radical, along with conservative, moderate, and/or liberal in between. Part Four: all positions will stand in the room to create the political spectrum that existed and "shout" out your perspective for all of us to hear.

     Roles:

• Position One: Prince von Metternich and his advisor, Austria
• Position Two: King Frederick William III and his advisor, Prussia
• Position Three: Tsar Alexander I and his advisor, Russia
• Position Four: Prime Minister Talleyrand and his advisor, France
• Position Five: Viscount Castlereagh and his advisor, Great Britain
• Position Six: President James Monroe and his advisor, United States
• Position Seven: Sultan Mahmud II and his advisor, Ottoman Empire
• Position Eight: Emperor Qianlong (deceased) and his advisor, Chinese Qing Dynasty
• Position Nine: Monsieur and Madame Bonhomme, fictional French peasants who had gained their land as a result of the revolution
• Position Ten: Major Ridge and his advisor, Cherokee Nation
• Position Eleven: Simon Bolivar and his advisor, Venezuela
• Position Twelve: President Dessalines (deceased) and his successor, Haiti
• Position Thirteen: Olaudeh Equiano and a supporter among the Ibo people
• Position Fourteen: Olympe de Gouges (deceased) and a supporter who had helped gain equality temporarily for women and were later killed
• Position Fifteen: Wolfe Tone (deceased) and an advisor of the United Irishmen who were killed for their attempts to bring freedom to Ireland

• Be sure that you include most of the groups in your illustration. The best illustrations will be creative and detailed.


• In addition to illustrating these issues and/or problems, be sure to explain in a clearly written paragraph why you organized the illustration the way you did. The paragraph should be written on a separate piece of paper.

1. Since the majority of the world's population appeared either to want change or to have their needs heard by their rulers – as represented by French peasants, former slaves, the Cherokee, and others – what appear to be the two most important reasons why they failed to unite with one another to accomplish these goals: geography, language, methods, and/or values? Explain your answers for a full 4 points.


2. Despite the reactionary and/or conservative political alliances, what two economic reasons showed that the balance of power was shifting in this period?

U.S. and World History II
Dr. Diskant
Quiz on the selection from The Communist Manifesto:
20 Points (each question is worth 2 points)

1.)   What is "class struggle"? Define it in your own words.

2.)   What are 2 reasons that Marx and Engels argue that led the bourgeoisie to emerge in the 19^th century as a dominant social class?

3.)   Explain the following sentence in your own words: The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society." (first sentence of the right hand column on p. 5).

4.)   What does the following sentence mean: "The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself." (first sentence in the last paragraph on the second column on p. 6)

5.)   Look the 10 measures in the new communist society on p. 8. Which measure seems to be the most important? Why?

6.)   What do Marx and Engels mean by "class consciousness" they use throughout the selection?

• What would it mean, if you were a loyal member of the bourgeoisie?


• What would it mean, if you were a loyal member of the proletariat?

7.)   What are 2 examples from the 19^th century that support Marx and Engels' view of history?

8.)   What are 2 examples from the 19^th century that contradict this view of history?

9.)   Are you persuaded that the "communists" are only a positive force? Why or why not?

10.)  Do you think that workers would join this movement? Why or why not?

United States and World History II
Dr. Diskant and Ms. Rochford
War between the United States and Mexico in the 1840's
and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848

If you are sitting at Table 1, read the Preamble "In the Name of Almighty God", Article I, and Article V; annotate your readings, and be ready to share your understanding of the major points. Second, share the major points of those articles with others at your table.

If you are sitting at Table II, read Article VIII and Article IX; annotate your readings, and be ready to share your understanding of the major points. Second, share the major points of those articles with others at your table.

If you are sitting at Table III, first read Article XI and Article XII; annotate your readings, and be ready to share your understanding of the major points. Second, share the major points of those articles with others at your table.

If you are sitting at Table IV, first read Article XIX and Article XX, annotate your readings, and be ready to share your understanding of the major points. Second, share the major points of those articles with others at your table.

If you are sitting at Table V, first read Article XXI and Article XXII; annotate your readings, and be ready to share your understanding of the major points. Second, share the major points of those articles with others at your table.

Now, that each of you experts on your particular articles, show what you know to your classmates so that too will become experts on all of the articles!                                                         

1.) In what ways was this treaty a fair one?
2.) In what ways was this treaty an unfair one?
3.) What future problems/dilemmas do you predict will develop in the 1850's and beyond?

United States and World History II
Dr. Diskant and Ms. Rochford
The United States in the World of the 1830's–1850's:
Debate: Should the U.S. be improved through reform?

Should the U.S. be improved through reform?

Side One: Politicians who argue that U.S. is not in need of reform and that its economic and political viability needs to remain unchanged

Side Two: Reformers who argue for significant changes to make the United States a more humane place

Audience: A variety of U.S. residents and others who will vote on the merits of either side's arguments

Audience Members:

• Bankers in Washington, D.C.
• Slave owners in Mississippi
• Farmers migrating to Oregon
• Society women in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Domestic Servants in Boston, Massachusetts
• Factory Girls in Lowell, Massachusetts
• Irish Immigrants in New York City
• Slaves on a plantation in Georgia
• Factory Workers in Manchester, England
• University Students in Paris, France
• Cherokee who resettled in the Oregon Territory

See the reverse side for the rubric for assessment.

United States and World History II
Dr. Diskant and Ms. Rochford
The United States in the World of the 1830's – 1850's:
Debate: Should the U.S. be improved through reform?
Ballot: Class Period:                        Role:

Should the U.S. be improved through reform?

Side One: Politicians who argue that U.S. is not in need of reform and that its economic and political viability needs to remain unchanged

Side Two: Reformers who argue for significant changes to make the United States a more humane place

1.)   Take notes,
2.)   Ask questions based on your prepared questions, based on your assigned role
3.)   At the end of the debate, vote:

• Side One
• Side Two
• Neither

Quick Quiz: Period 5
Debate: Should the U.S. be improved through reform?
5 Points

Side One: Politicians who argued that U.S. is not in need of reform and that its economic and political viability needs to remain unchanged

Side Two: Reformers who argued for significant changes to make the United States a more humane place

Audience:

• One banker from Washington, D.C. (who did not vote)
• Two slave owners from Georgia
• Two farmers who migrated to Oregon
• Two society women from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Two domestic servants from Boston, Massachusetts (only one voted)
• Two factory girls in Lowell, Massachusetts
• Two Irish immigrant from New York City
• Two slaves living on a plantation in Georgia (only one voted)
• One factory worker from Manchester, England
• Two university students from Paris, France
• One Cherokee now living in Oregon

United States and World History II
Dr. Diskant and Ms. Rochford
The United States in the World of the 1830's–1850's:
Concluding Propaganda Project

• It is a special place and that it is in essence superior to your own country. You have been also told that the American people, or at least its leaders, are better than the people and leaders of your country.


• It is no better or worse than your country and that its leaders are no more able to solve its problems than your leaders are.

1.)   Native people,
2.)   Factory workers,
3.)   Immigrants,
4.)   Farm workers, free
5.)   Farm workers, enslaved, OR
6.)   Women

• You must use poster-quality paper no smaller than 2.5 ft by 2.08 ft to display your artwork.
• You may draw, paint, use cut outs from magazines or photographs (with proper citation, of course!) to create your work.
• You may illustrate your expression directly or through a political cartoon.
• You must have no more than 50 words on the poster (not counting the abstract).
• You must have no fewer than 5 words on the poster (not counting the abstract).
• Your abstract must be one page, typed, double-spaced 12 point Times New Roman font describing your artwork and the topic that you have chosen to present.
• Your abstract must appear on your poster's top left corner.
• You must include a title for your artwork, which should be prominently displayed among the top of the poster.

Addendum I

COME SUPPORT O'BRYANT'S VERY 1^ST
HISTORY FAIR!

United States and World History II
Culminating Projects for Term II
Political Posters

All the 10^th grade history teachers have pooled their talents together to have all of their students do a similar project to bring together material that their students have been studying in November and December: spread of democracy, limits of democracy, and reform movements in the United States in the 1840's, and an investigation as to whether the United States, as some have suggested, was better than other countries in this period by comparing peoples' experiences in different countries in the world.

Students will be creating political posters which will be on display all day in the Music Auditorium on Monday, December 21, 2009. Together the teachers will pretend to represent the interests of editor-in-chief's of different political magazines where the posters will allegedly be published to award the best 10 posters awards for their creative projects.

Please stop by – with or without your classes – to see the students' work and support the first O'Bryant History Fair!

http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=1342889&CID=0757ADD5C4E942
E28412062EF7E23C34&PPID=1&Search=Art%20from%201840&f=t&FindID=0&P=1&PP=10&sortby=PD&c=c&page=1

Addendum J

TO: Members of the O'Bryant Community
FROM: Teachers of U.S. and World History II
RE: United States and World History II Culminating Projects for Term II: Political Posters
DATE: Monday, December 21, 2009

     In order to facilitate the judging of these propaganda posters on behalf of the various editors of the different political magazines where the posters will be published to award the coveted 10 prizes, we have pre-selected some posters from their classes that they each think may deserve the prizes. Before final decisions can be made, feel free not only to give us feedback about these particular posters, but also as you peruse all of the others in the room, add others that we need to consider.

     While individual topics differ, all posters deal with what their students have been studying in November and December: spread of democracy, limits of democracy, and reform movements in the United States in the 1840's, and an investigation as to whether the United States, as some have suggested, was better than other countries in this period by comparing peoples' experiences in different countries in the world. Individual teachers' assignments, along with the common rubric, are posted in the room.

     On behalf of the propagandists for whom the posters have been solicited, we will be delighted to have your feedback on these particular ones, as well as other ones that you think deserve one of the ten prizes!

     Thanks!

¹ For example: Robert J. Stahl, Ronald VanSickle, and Nancy N. Stahl, Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies Classroom NCSS Bulletin 108, Second Edition (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2009), Daniel T. Willingham, Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009), and James A. Percoco, Divided We Stand: Teaching About Conflict in U.S. History (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 2001.

² "Engaging Students to Act Like Historians: Ideas to Entice Thoughtful Collaboration and Positive Interactions Before Students Begin to Complain that History is Boring!" in http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/6.3/diskant.html Accessed on January 1, 2010.

³ Ibid.

⁴ "Engaging Students to Think Comparatively by Placing United States History in "Real" World History Courses, Part Two" in http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/5.2/diskant.html Accessed on January 1, 2010