In this lesson, students analyze primary sources in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did Teddy Roosevelt oppose the segregation of San Francisco‰ŰŞs public schools? The teacher first informs students of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the resultant attempted segregation of Japanese students. Students then read 4 source documents‰ŰÓletters and public speeches‰ŰÓin which President Roosevelt discusses his reasons for opposing the law, as well as a political cartoon addressing the issue. For each, students answer questions on a graphic organizer: Why do you think TR opposed the issue? What can you infer about the U.S. in 1906? Finally, the class goes over a timeline of relevant events, enabling the teacher to show how reading contextually lets students learn historical context from documents. Students then respond in writing, using all evidence to reach a conclusion of their own.

In this lesson, students analyze 3 primary source documents (an editorial by Alexander Hamilton, and back-and-forth letters by Senators Rufus King and Timothy Pickering) in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did Federalists oppose the Louisiana Purchase? The teacher models sourcing and contextualization to help students analyze the documents while the students fill in a graphic organizer. A final class discussion attempts to uncover the Federalist critics‰ŰŞ real motivations‰ŰÓwas their opposition practical or political?

In this brief lesson, students study the writings of Loyalists during the American Revolution in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did some colonists support England and oppose independence? After a brief teacher introduction establishing historical context, students will read read 2 primary source documents: 1) a pamphlet by Charles Inglis, Anglican minister, explaining the many drawbacks to American independence, and 2) an anonymous newspaper letter urging reconciliation with Britain. While reading, students complete a graphic organizer that applies sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, and close reading to each passage. A final class discussion asks students to draw a conclusion as to whether the Loyalists or Patriots were more reasonable.

In this lesson, students analyze primary source documents in an effort to answer the central historical question: What was life like for Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the 1920s? Students look at 3 documents: 1) an oral interview of a Mexican immigrant, 2) a traditional Mexican corrido ballad, and 3) a 2003 article from Journal of Social History that contains data on lynching. For each, students complete questions on a graphic organizer in groups. Class discussion: do you trust these documents? What other information would you like to see?

In this lesson, designed to follow a more general study of the New Deal, students analyze primary and secondary source documents and engage in a Structured Academic Controversy in an effort to answer the central historical question: Was the New Deal a success or a failure? Students receive 7 documents, including a “fireside chat” by FDR, an oral interview, a speech by a WPA representative, unemployment statistics, and song lyrics by the Carter Family. Students then divide into groups of 4 and into pairs within each group to analyze the documents using a graphic organizer. Each pair presents the argument to the other that the New Deal was either (Pair A) successful or (Pair B) a failure. Only at the end can students abandon their previous positions, reach consensus in writing as a group, and defend that view in a final class discussion.

In this lesson, students analyze political cartoons in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did the United States annex the Philippines after the Spanish-American War? The teacher first uses a timeline to review basic information about the war, then distributes Rudyard Kipling‰ŰŞs poem “The White Man‰ŰŞs Burden,” which students analyze in pairs. Then, students are split into 6 groups and receive 2 different cartoons each: 1 from a pro-imperial magazine like Judge or Puck, and 1 from an anti-imperial magazine like Life or The World. Using a graphic organizer, students examine the cartoons and then present 1 of them to the class, explaining how the cartoonist makes his point. A final class discussion contextualizes the cartoons and the events of the late 1890s.

In this lesson, students analyze primary sources in an effort to answer the central historical question: Were political bosses corrupt? The teacher begins by explaining progressives‰ŰŞ complaints about political machines and graft and then shows a political cartoon criticizing Tammany Hall. Students then read and analyze 2 documents: 1) a book excerpt by muckraker Lincoln Steffens, and 2) a ‘talk‰ŰŞ by political boss George Plunkitt. For each, they answer guiding questions on a graphic organizer (the teacher models this extensively with the first document in the lesson). For HW, students write a dialogue between the 2 writers in which Steffens tries to convince Plunkitt to practice honest government.

In this lesson, students analyze primary source documents in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did people care about the Butler Act? Students first read an excerpt from a 1914 textbook, A Civic Biology, and answer brief questions. The teacher then gives a mini-lecture on the rise of religious fundamentalism in the 1920s and streams a video clip on the Scopes Trial. Students fill out a graphic organizer during/after they watch and then they analyze 4 documents: 1) a letter to the editor of the Nashville Tennessean, 2) a speech from one of John Scopes‰ŰŞ defense attorneys, 3) a magazine article written by a fundamentalist preacher, and 4) a New York Times article commenting on the media circus. For each, they answer guiding questions. A final class discussion contextualizes the documents: how did the context of the 1920s make this more than a simple debate over evolution?

In this lesson, students analyze primary source documents in an effort to answer the central historical question: Were critics of the First World War anti-American? Students begin by free-writing: what is patriotism? Is it unpatriotic to criticize one‰ŰŞs government? Students receive 2 documents: a speech by Eugene Debs and a pamphlet by Charles Schenck. For both, they answer detailed questions on a graphic organizer. After discussing, students then look at the text of the 1917 Sedition Act and answer guiding questions. Finally, the class looks at Oliver Wendell Holmes‰ŰŞ Supreme Court decision ruling against Schenck and discuss: Did he break the law? Do you agree with the decision? For homework, students answer the central question in writing with evidence from the documents.

In this lesson, students analyze primary sources in an effort to answer the central historical question: What accounted for American atrocities during the Philippine War? The teacher first uses a timeline to review basic information about the Philippine occupation and the 1902 Senate hearings regarding atrocities. Students then read numerous source documents from witness and participants in the war: the testimony of U.S. soldiers to the Senate, letters from soldiers to home, and a report from a Filipino soldier. Students use the sources and a graphic organizer to test 3 different hypotheses as to why soldiers were brutal. In a 1-page final response, students write about the hypothesis they find most convincing, using textual evidence. A final class discussion follows.

In this lesson, students analyze primary sources in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did the U.S invade Cuba? The teacher streams a short film (link included) while students take notes as to possible reasons for the invasion. Students then read the following: 1) song lyrics of an anti-Spanish propaganda a song written after the Maine sinking, 2) a telegram sent by Fitzhugh Lee, U.S. Consul-General in Cuba, and 3) a Senate campaign speech from Albert Beveridge. For each, students complete a graphic organizer and guiding questions. A final class discussion goes back to the original class hypotheses and determines which ones are most supported by the evidence.

In this lesson, students analyze primary source documents in an effort to answer the central historical question: Why did Texans declare independence from Mexico in 1836? The teacher introduces the topic with a film clip (Note: requires registration to Discovery Education‰ŰŞs website) and timeline and elicits student hypotheses. Students are then given 4 documents: 1) the Texas Declaration of Independence, 2) a letter by Tejano Rafael Manchola, 3) a speech by Mexican Juan Seguin, and 4) a pamphlet by abolitionist Benjamin Lundy. Students then analyze each using a graphic organizer; a final class discussion invites students to participate in the historical debate.

In this lesson, students analyze primary source documents in an effort to answer the central historical question: How did Americans respond to President Truman‰ŰŞs decision to fire General MacArthur? The teacher begins by explaining how MacArthur wanted to invade China to resolve the Korean War stalemate in 1951 and why Truman fired him for insubordination. Students are asked to make a prediction: what do you think the reaction was to the firing of this popular general? Students then analyze 3 documents: 1) a memo to Truman tabulating the letters he received after the firing (pro vs. con), 2) a letter by AMVETS supporting the firing, and 3) a very critical letter from a woman in Texas. For the last 2, students answer questions on a graphic organizer in groups. A whole group discussion follows and a quick debriefing on the impacts of the war's conclusion are presented.

In this lesson, students analyze primary and secondary source documents in an effort to answer the central historical question: Is the image of the ‘happy 1950s housewife‰ŰŞ accurate? The teacher first introduces the time period and some of its features: the baby boom, the GI Bill, suburbia, Leave it to Beaver. The teacher then shows images of the ‘happy housewife‰ŰŞ from 50s-era publications. In groups, students analyze 2 documents: a Harper‰ŰŞs magazine article on suburbia and a passage from Betty Friedan‰ŰŞs The Feminine Mystique. They complete a graphic organizer that includes a hypothesis: does the stereotype seem true? Students then do the same with 2 more documents: secondary source analyses by Joanne Meyerowitz and Alice Kessler-Harris. The class completes the graphic organizer and shares final hypotheses in a group discussion: Should we believe the stereotype? How about the experience of minority women?

In this lesson, students read informational pieces about whether or not schools should teach cursive writing. They will evaluate the arguments presented and then choose a side of the issue. Finally, they will write their own arguments expressing their points of view.

Real-world writing allows students and teachers to connect the dots between writing in the classroom by classifying writing into six areas: Express and Reflect; Inform and Explain; Evaluate and Judge; Inquire and Explore; Analyze and Interpret; Take a Stand/Propose a Solution.

This paper opens a larger conversation about what must be done to realize opportunities presented by the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and the literacy standards in other subject areas. It emphasizes the simultaneous challenges and opportunities for ELLs.The paper emphasizes that texts are approached differently for different purposes. Students need opportunities to approach texts with these varied purposes in mind. It also highlights how ELLs may be well served by opportunities to explore and justify their own textual hypotheses, even if their initial interpretations diverge from those of the teacher.

After examining recipes written based on students' favorite fairy tales, students research a recipe related to their favorite story, book, or fairy tale and include it in a classroom recipe book.

Background There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature. Methods The online author’s instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal’s data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal. Results A total of 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. A total of 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. A total of 9.1% of journals mentioned data sharing indirectly, and only 14.8% addressed protein, proteomic, and/or genomic data sharing. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing criteria. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals. Discussion Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications. Methods The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access. Results Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Conclusions Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.