Sourcing a Massacre: Sequencing Evidence in a 45-Minute Inquiry
An eighth-grade U.S. history team at a suburban middle school teaches four sections of 28 students in 45-minute periods. Nine students across the team are multilingual learners at WIDA level 3, and the district requires every unit to include at least one primary source. For the Boston Massacre, the team has four excerpts: a caption describing Paul Revere's engraving; Captain Preston's trial testimony; a colonist's testimony about being threatened by soldiers; and a recent textbook paragraph that calls the event a 'confrontation.' The team wants students to answer 'Was the Boston Massacre a massacre?' in one class period. One teacher proposes showing the engraving first to hook students, then reading the textbook, and ending with a vote. The team asks you to review the plan and suggest a defensible sequence that fits the time and supports students in sourcing and corroborating evidence.
1. Is the colleague's proposed sequence defensible? Propose a 45-minute sequence using at least three of the sources and explain how each step supports historical thinking.
Read the worked answer
The colleague's sequence is engaging but not defensible as an inquiry. If the engraving is shown first without sourcing, students are likely to read Revere's image as a neutral record, then treat the textbook as the correction. That reverses the work of historical thinking. A better 45-minute sequence: (1) 5 minutes-pose the question and define 'massacre' and 'propaganda' with a quick word bank; (2) 10 minutes-pairs read Preston's testimony and the colonist's testimony with a sourcing chart (author, date, audience, purpose, claim); (3) 8 minutes-pairs compare where the accounts agree and conflict, listing one reason for the conflict; (4) 10 minutes-the teacher presents the Revere caption as an interpretation made after the event, and students identify what the image emphasizes and omits; (5) 7 minutes-students write a one-paragraph answer that uses at least two sources and names one limitation; (6) 5 minutes-share out. The textbook can be used last as a secondary synthesis, not as the arbiter. This sequence fits the period, keeps the primary-source requirement, and makes sourcing and corroboration the center of the lesson rather than a vote.
2. How would you scaffold the source work for WIDA level 3 multilingual learners while preserving the historical problem? Include at least two specific supports and one check for understanding.
Read the worked answer
Keep the historical question and the conflicting accounts; scaffold the language, not the thinking. Supports: (1) a pre-taught glossary with visuals for 'testimony,' 'massacre,' 'sourcing,' 'corroborate,' and 'propaganda,' plus a home-language glossary where possible; (2) excerpted documents with the same claims but shorter sentences and marginal questions ('Who is speaking? What does this speaker want?'), not a summary that erases voice; (3) a jigsaw in which each partner reads one testimony and completes half the sourcing chart, then teaches the other; (4) sentence frames such as 'According to ___, the soldiers ___. However, ___ says ___. This matters because ___.' Check for understanding: a 3-2-1 exit ticket-3 facts one source states, 2 places the accounts disagree, 1 sentence explaining why the disagreement matters. Alternatively, ask students to underline the sentence they would use as evidence and label it 'Preston' or 'colonist.' The key is that multilingual learners still confront conflicting evidence; the scaffold reduces linguistic load while preserving the cognitive demand.
3. What would you look for in exit tickets as evidence that students are sourcing and corroborating rather than just choosing a side? Give concrete examples of student language.
Read the worked answer
Look for students who name a source's origin or interest before using it, who compare accounts, and who qualify their conclusion. Strong exit-ticket language sounds like: 'Preston's testimony may protect himself and the soldiers, so I trust it less on whether he gave an order to fire.' 'The colonist says the crowd was threatened, but he was a Bostonian, so his account may favor the crowd.' 'Revere's engraving was made after the event and shows the soldiers firing in a line; that may be an interpretation, not a photograph.' Weaker answers say only 'I think it was a massacre because people died' or 'the textbook says it was a confrontation.' A simple rubric: 3-uses two sources, sources at least one, and notes a disagreement; 2-uses two sources but does not source them; 1-asserts an opinion with no evidence. This assesses historical thinking rather than whether the student reaches a particular verdict.