Causes+of+WWI

Usha's comments in Blue. Your name: Jonathan Christink

**Initial R** **eading and Assessment of Textbook Treatment of the Topic**

Name of Gr. 10 Textbook examined: Canada Face of a Nation

Name of more "scholarly" source examined: [|www.firstworldwar.com]

__Your Initial Thoughts:__ Please provide a **brief** (5-10 sentences) initial assessment of the textbook's treatment of the subject. We have not developed any particular criteria by which to assess the textbook so this is really simply you initial reactions, feelings, questions about what you have read. Thanks! I found the text gave an adequate summary and analysis of the causes of WW1. The text provided an accurate summary of the state of the European heavyweights of the time, as well as went into considerable depth over the themes of European alliances, imperialism, the arms race, and the culminating spark in the killing of Austrian leader Franz Ferdinand. It was difficult to pinpoint a specific bias within the text as it seemed to retell the most noteworthy conditions precipitating the war. Nonetheless, the scholarly article focused slightly more on two specific areas: Bismark's reign of the German Empire and the Balkan Wars. Understanding Bismark's reign is important in understanding the causes of the war because much of Bismark's reign fostered the volatile European conditions that spurred the war. Similarly, the Balkan Wars occurred in the Balkan region which included Sarajevo, Bosnia, the place where Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assasinated. These two areas, found in the more scholarly source, further illuminate the scene within Europe prior to World War 1; however, both sources present an accurate and sufficiently detailed analysis of the causes. Thanks, Jon. It's interesting that this seems to be one of the areas of the texts that goes into significant detail. It will be interesting to look at the curriculum expectations to decide what level of detail is warranted. Thanks, again. Critical question: Were the causes of WW1 preventable? I think this question represents critical challenge #1: Critiquing the piece. It may include elements of critical challenge #4 also: Decoding the puzzle. I think your question definitely invites critical thinking. Students would need to make a judgment and could argue either yes or no. My worry is that it might not be feasible given the scope of the course. Do you think they would have to go too far back to examine European history? I'm not sure if they'll have the time to explore this or whether it is justifiable given the limitations of the course. So, you've definitely got the right structure for a question that invites critical thinking but you might want to try a question that they would use the content of the lesson to answer (maybe comparing short vs. long term causes or examining the relative significance of the various causes?). Thanks for your feedback Usha. I have two options right now. What is the significance of the various causes of WW1? or What are the determinants of WW1 in terms of their importance? Yes, these are better in that they focus on the content that will be covered during that lesson. If you ask students to rank order the causes in order of importance, you are certainly inviting critical thinking. Nicely done. __Lesson Design__  //Key Learning// -Students will understand that there is rarely a singular cause for an event; most often causality is layered and multiple. WW1 is a prime example of multiple determinants at work.  Well crafted key learning. Clearly important; stated as an understanding students will walk away with. //Critical Challenge// -Rank order the determinants of WW1 in terms of their importance. //Skill-set for Newspaper Spread// -Time-line: This lesson will help students understand what a time-line is, its purpose, and how to develop one. A time-line will be a useful skill to develop in this lesson because it will allow individuals to visually track precipitating factors for WW1.  Good. //Dimension of Historical Thinking// -I would argue that students will engage in two dimensions of historical thinking in this lesson: historical significance and cause and consequence. The critical challenge is intricately and directly related to deciphering the historical significance regarding the determinants of WW1. Therefore, both dimensions are involved.  Yes - you may choose to focus on one in particular in terms of mentioning it explicitly but both are clearly at play here. //Intellectual Tools// //Background Knowledge// Specific expectations: 1) explain the causes of WW1 and WW11 and how Canada became involved in these two wars. 2) Assess the influence of Great Britain and Europe on Canada's participation in war and peacekeeping (specifically for WW1).  Yes. Content/Skills: To complete the critical challenge students will need to thoroughly understand the MAIN causes of WW1: militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism. For each MAIN cause students need to know the five W's: who, what, where, when, and why. So for militarism, who was involved, what acts of militarism were performed, and where, when, and why were these acts performed. //Criteria for Judgment// Criteria for significance-1) prominence at the time: To what extent was the event/person/trend important at the time of its happening? 2) Consequences: What was the magnitude of the impact? What changes resulted? Did it affect a few people or many? A few countries or many? What was the lasting nature of the impact? 3) Historical prominence: Does it tell us something crucial about the time?  Excellent.   //Habit of mind// -For this lesson it is important that students learn critical mindedness. Critical mindedness is willing to evaluate information when it is important to do so. This is an important habit of mind because students will need to evaluate the role of each precipitating factor in WW1 and determine it's relative significance.   //Critical Thinking Vocabulary// -It is important for students to understand evidence for this lesson. Evidence is the data used to make judgment or draw a conclusion. An understanding of evidence is so crucial in this lesson because the critical challenge requires students to justify their answers with evidence. Without an understanding of what evidence is, students cannot be successful in this task.  Very well done, Jon. You nailed it. Thanks for your feedback Usha. I'm a little confused about the primary source and mental set, but here's what I have so far. I have 2 ideas. Idea 1 Primary source: Crown Prince Wilhelm on the prospect of war, 1913. This primary document highlights a number of indirect causes of war throughout. Students can read it and extract relevant content. Mental Set: At the beginning of class, in order to establish a mental set, I will have students work in small groups (4-5 students) and complete the activity, The Story of Casey, as found in the course profile. This activity will be my mental set, and will help students understand the difference between a direct and indirect cause. Initially students will try and complete the task without any instruction other then what is provided in the Story of Casey. Students will be given 5 minutes to complete it in groups. Afterward we will discuss as a class what a direct and indirect cause is. This activity will develop critical mindedness (habit of mind) and knowledge of direct and indirect causes in order to complete the critical challenge in the remainder of the lesson (rank order the causes of WW1).Later in the class some background knowledge about the direct (Franz Ferdinand assassination) and indirect (MAIN) causes of the war will be discussed, and students will use their primary source document and class textbook to rank order the causes of WW1. The Story of Casey In September Casey drove through an intersection and was killed in a car crash. The police officer investigating the accident noted the night fog and wet, slippery road on the report. Casey had left the party at 2:00 am in an agitated state, but none of the friends at the party attempted to stop Casey from getting behind the wheel. Casey had recently failed university. That failure really disappointed Casey’s betrothed and they broke off their engagement. What caused Casey’s accident? Explain at least three reasons in detail. What were the “indirect” causes of the accident? What was the “direct” cause of the accident?

Idea 2 Same primary source as above.

Mental Set: Have students work in small groups again and answer the following question: Lost and alone in the Alaskan wilderness, what three items would you want with you? Decide upon the top three in your groups.

This activity would allow students to critically evaluate the significance of survival objects and tools. I will give them the criteria for significance (tweaked a little from the outline above) as a mental guide. Following a 5 minute group discussion class will take up answers. The students will later apply the criteria for significance in the mental set to unearthing the most significant factors leading to WW1 (using class discussion, primary doc, and text).

The second idea seems more linked to evaluating significance as a portal of thought, while the first task corresponds closely to cause and consequence. Both interesting ideas, Jon. On first glance, the first idea certainly seems more directly related to the topic (causes) and would help students understand causes. This would be a worthy mental set. But, as you are probably thinking, the challenge is not about identifying causes but about rank ordering causes which is why your second mental set seems to align better. The difficulty with the second idea is that it's not a close parallel - i.e. important items to help you vs. causes of an event. What if you used the Story of Casey as your mental set but instead of using it to only discuss direct and indirect causes (which is a good way to introduce this vocabulary), you also asked students to rank order the causes of the accident. Would that be a better parallel to the thinking they will do in the lesson? What do you think? Thanks Usha. I think that is a better idea. I was hesitant to blend the mental sets originally because there is so little known about Casey and I felt it would be tough for students to make a judgment about the significance of each cause with so little information. However, I want there to be a strong parallel with my critical challenge, and I think that even if students have to make some inferences about Casey that is very much like historians making inferences about primary documents. So I agree, I think blending both mental sets is the way to go. Thanks for your feedback!