# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Social Studies FIELD Guide illuminates a transformative path for educators to improve social studies education by moving away from memorization an…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Social Studies Field Guide Companion Website

# data[].attributes.subject
The Social Studies Field Guide Companion Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.body
Contact Jill Scott: jill.scott@azed.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching with FIELD: A Conversation with the Authors of The Social Studies FIELD Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcast Episode · The Teaching History Her Way Podcast · 20/06/2025 · 39m

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seamlessly navigate, copy, print, export, and explore standards with ease. 🌐 Browse ADE-curated lessons and resources 📝 Create…

# data[].attributes.headline
Arizona K12 History & Social Science Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Arizona K12 History & Social Science Standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are the guiding principles?

The C3 is driven by the following shared principles about high quality social studies education:

Social studies prepares the nation's young people for college, careers, and civic life.

Inquiry is at the heart of social studies.

Social studies involves interdisciplinary applications and welcomes integration of the arts and humanities.

Social studies is composed of deep and enduring understandings, concepts, and skills from the disciplines. Social studies emphasizes skills and practices as preparation for democratic decision-making.

Social studies education should have direct and explicit connections to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts.

What are the instructional shifts for social studies?

The C3 Framework, like the Common Core State Standards, emphasizes the acquisition and application of knowledge to prepare students for college, career, and civic life. It intentionally envisions social studies instruction as an inquiry arc of interlocking and mutually reinforcing elements that speak to the intersection of ideas and learners. The Four Dimensions highlighted below center on the use of questions to spark curiosity, guide instruction, deepen investigations, acquire rigorous content, and apply knowledge and ideas in real world settings to become active and engaged citizens in the 21st century.

C3 Framework Organization

Dimension 1: Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries

Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Tools and Concepts

Dimension 3: Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence

Dimension 4: Communicating Conclusions and Taking Informed Action

Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries

Civics

Gathering and Evaluating Sources

Communicating and Critiquing Conclusions

Geography

Developing Claims and Using Evidence

Taking Informed Action

Connections to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies

The C3 Framework changes the conversation about literacy instruction in social studies by creating a context that is meaningful and purposeful. Reading, writing, speaking and listening and language skills are critically important for building disciplinary literacy and the skills needed for college, career, and civic life. Each of the Four Dimensions are strategically aligned to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies.

Why do we need the C3 Framework?

There are a number of motivating factors that inspired this work:

Marginalization of the Social Studies - The loss of instructional time at the elementary level and the narrowing of instruction in response to multiple-choice, high-stakes testing has significantly impacted time, resources, and support for the social studies. The introduction of the Common Core provided an opportunity for social studies educators to re-frame instruction to promote disciplinary literacy in social studies in such a way as to allow social studies to regain a more balanced and elevated role in the K-12 curriculum.

Motivation of Students - Children and adolescents are naturally curious about the complex and multifaceted world they inhabit. But they quickly become disengaged when instruction is limited to reading textbooks to answer end-of-chapter questions and taking multiple-choice tests that may measure content knowledge but do little to measure how knowledge is meaningful and applicable in the real world. The C3 Framework addresses this issue in fundamental ways.

The Future of Our Democracy - Abundant research bears out the sad reality that fewer and fewer young people, particularly students of color and students in poverty, are receiving a high quality social studies education, despite the central role of social studies in preparing students for the responsibilities of citizenship. Active and responsible citizens are able to identify and analyze public problems, deliberate with other people about how to define and address issues, take constructive action together, reflect on their actions, create and sustain groups, and influence institutions both large and small. They vote, serve on juries when called, follow the news and current events, and participate in voluntary groups and efforts. Implementing the C3 Framework to teach students to be able to act in these ways-as citizens-significantly enhances preparation for college and career.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The C3 is driven by the following shared principles about high quality social studies education:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tracing Personalized Learning Research Back to the 1970s Bloom Keller

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This chart elaborates on the historical reading skills of sourcing, corroboration, contextualization, and close reading. In addition to questions that relate to each skill, the chart includes descriptions of how students might demonstrate historical thinking and sentence frames to support the development of these skills.
[Spanish chart updated on 06/23/20.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Thinking Chart | Digital Inquiry Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This chart elaborates on the historical reading skills of sourcing, corroboration, contextualization, and close reading. In addition to questions that relate to each skill, the chart includes descriptions of how students might demonstrate historical thinking and sentence frames to support the development of these skills. [Spanish chart updated on 06/23/20.]

# data[].attributes.headline
Elementary & Secondary Historical Thinking Rubrics

# data[].attributes.subject
Elementary & Secondary Historical Thinking Rubrics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The skills of historical thinking, which are among the most complex that students will encounter, are the cornerstone of the changes in history instruction. Teachers need tools to measure historical thinking skills when their students apply them. Combining the historical reading skills from the Stanford History Education Group, the work of Bruce VanSledright, and input from teachers who have measured these skills in the classroom, the Assessment Resource Center for History project has developed the ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric for elementary and secondary instruction.

A rubric is a scoring tool for evaluating a student's performance. It is based on the sum of a range of criteria, rather than a single numerical score, with statements to guide raters. Rubrics can be used analytically or holistically. In analytic scoring, there is a separate score for each aspect of the product or performance. The scores are then summed for an overall score. In holistic scoring, a single score is based upon the overall impression of a product or performance. The ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric is designed to be used holistically.

Rubrics are either task-specific or general. According to Brookhart (2013), task-specific rubrics are used to assess a discrete task, whereas general rubrics assess multiple tasks around a general set of skills. There are several advantages to using general rubrics. They can be shared with students at the beginning and used with different tasks. General rubrics can also describe performance in terms that allow for different paths to success and focus the teacher's attention on developing student skills, rather than simply on completing the task. Most importantly, a robust general rubric ensures consistency in measuring student growth across classrooms.

The ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric was designed along a continuum, moving from the more accessible to the most complex skills. The historical thinking skills are organized into strategies and procedural concepts. Strategies are tools for analyzing and interpreting historical documents. In the ARCH rubric, the strategies are close reading and some aspects of corroboration and contextualization. Procedural concepts are the comprehension and application of historical practices (VanSledright and Limon, 2006). They are represented by the categories of claim and evidence but also overlap with corroboration and contextualization.

The ARCH rubric can easily be adapted for a given performance assessment task. For example, a teacher who is having students source documents as part of an analytical activity can use only the sourcing column to assess for understanding. It is not advisable to alter the rubric by adding language about specific numbers of sources, pieces of evidence, or any quantifiable attribute outside of the rubric score points. Teachers should be assessing for understanding, not task completion. Rubrics that include minimum numbers of a particular attribute are more like a checklist than a rubric.

Close-Reading Strategies

Criteria

Sourcing

Close-Reading Strategies

Criteria

Sourcing

Strategies are the more readily attainable skills in historical thinking. These are classified in the ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric as close reading.

Sourcing

Most students begin their analysis of historical texts by sourcing. Within this task, students engage in identification and attribution and determine the perspective.

In identification, students determine the overall meaning and content of the sources. For example, "This source is describing ______."

In attribution, students cite the author or authors and the earliest dates for the various sources. They may also identify the types of sources (personal accounts, official reports, court proceedings, etc.).

Finally, they analyze the authors' perspective to determine the reliability and purpose of the sources. Wineburg (1991) states that sourcing is unique to the work of the historian and represents the first opportunity for students to interpret the past through critical analysis.

Critical Reading

Close-Reading Strategies

Criteria

Critical Reading

4

Questions the author's thesis and determines the viewpoint and evidence to evaluate the claims, highlighting what the author leaves out.

Cites accurate examples of how the author uses persuasive language and specific words and phrases to influence the reader.

Seeks answers to questions left unanswered in the source to formulate an interpretation.

3

Analyzes the author's thesis and determines the viewpoint and evidence to evaluate the claims; may highlight what the author leaves out.

Cites some examples of how the author uses persuasive language and specific words and phrases to influence the reader.

Notes that the author has left some questions unanswered.

2

States the author's claims and evidence presented to prove those claims.

Determines the author's viewpoint.

Notes how language is used to persuade the reader.

1

Attempts to identify the author's claims, viewpoint, or evidence.

Close-Reading Strategies

Criteria

Critical Reading (Author's Craft)

1

Demonstrates little to no attempt to identify the author's viewpoint or claim.

Critical reading is the second close-reading strategy identified in the ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric. In this stage, students engage in a deeper analysis of text. They determine viewpoint and evaluate evidence to validate claims made by an author. Students begin to analyze the use of language: Is the author using particular words and phrases to influence the reader? Students also make judgments about questions left unanswered by the text.

Back to top

Corroboration

Strategies/
Procedural Concepts

Criteria

Corroboration

4

Constructs an interpretation of events using information and perspectives in multiple sources. Identifies consistencies and inconsistencies among various accounts.

3

Explains similarities and differences by comparing information and perspectives in multiple sources.

2

Identifies similarities and differences in multiple sources.

1

Demonstrates little to no attempt to examine sources for corroborating or conflicting evidence.

Strategies/
Procedural Concepts

Criteria

Corroboration

4

Analyzes multiple accounts of the same event or topic, noting important similarities and differences.

3

Identifies similarities and differences by comparing information and perspectives in multiple sources.

2

Identifies similarities and differences in two or more sources.

1

Demonstrates little to no attempt to examine sources for corroborating or conflicting evidence.

Next on the continnum of complexity are corroboration and contextualization. Students engage in corroboration by comparing multiple sources on the same topic to determine the historical interrelationships (Wineburg, 1991). They look for similarities in accounts that lead to a preponderance of evidence around a particular conclusion or theory. Corroboration is complex because it requires the analysis and interpretation of multiple sources in different forms of media. Corroboration also involves the close reading of these texts to determine potential bias, conflicting accounts, and reliability.

Contextualization

Strategies/
Procedural Concepts

Criteria

Contextualization

4

Applies prior and new knowledge to determine the historical setting of sources. Uses that setting to interpret the sources within the historical context, as opposed to a present-day mindset.

3

Applies prior and new knowledge to determine the historical setting of sources. May attempt an interpretation of some sources with a present-day mindset or with a limited application to the historical context.

2

Attempts to determine the historical setting of sources without fully understanding the historical context.

1

Demonstrates no attempt to understand the historical setting of sources.

Strategies/
Procedural Concepts

Criteria

Contextualization

2

Attempts to determine the historical setting of sources.

1

Demonstrates no attempt to understand the historical setting of sources.

Contextualization is the most complex of the historical reading skills. Here, students must frame historical events within the context of the time period and surrounding events. Students are, in effect, expected to see the event through the eyes of someone from a past time. This kind of analysis requires an understanding of what VanSledright and Frankes (2000) refer to as foreground and background concepts. Foreground concepts are those that help students understand the key ideas around a historical period. Examples of foreground concepts are federalism and the supply-and-demand cycle. Background concepts are those that arise from study of the past. Examples of background concepts include causation, change and continuity, and looking at the world through the eyes of others. Students cannot place events in the context of a time period without these understandings.

Back to top

Procedural Concepts

Criteria

Claim

Evidence

4

Formulates a plausible interpretation, argument, or claim based on an evaluation of the evidence found in a variety of primary and secondary sources.

Justifies claims using appropriate direct evidence from a variety of reliable sources.

3

Generates a reasonable interpretation, argument, or claim based on an evaluation of the evidence found in selected primary and secondary sources.

Justifies claims using some appropriate direct evidence from a variety of reliable sources.

2

States an interpretation, argument, or claim that may or may not be based on the evidence found in selected primary and secondary sources.

Justifies claims using generalizations or limited appropriate direct evidence.

1

Does not state an original claim, argument, or interpretation.

Does not justify or support claims using appropriate direct evidence.

The last two categories in the ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric are referred to as procedural concepts. In these categories students apply their historical understandings through some type of task. While the application is often in the form of an argumentative essay, teachers can assess procedural concepts through any number of performance tasks, such as speeches, debates, letters, political cartoons, short documentaries, etc. Procedural concepts thus represent the final assessment of student understanding.

A claim is the final interpretation or argument made after a careful evaluation of the evidence. It is important to note that students may actually posit different plausible claims using the same set of sources. The use of evidence, either to support an argument or refute a counter argument, justifies the validity of a claim.

In the elementary version of the ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric, the claim and evidence categories are optional. While some teachers will use the categories, others may find it not appropriate for the developmental levels of their students.

The ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric does not include writing conventions. Many school districts utilize rubrics to guide the writing process and are in the process of preparing new rubric tools to align with the Common Core Literacy Standards. The two national assessment consortia charged with developing items around the Common Core Standards have made writing rubrics available online. Writing rubrics can be used in addition to the ARCH Historical Thinking Skills Rubric for assessing formal writing assignments, such as argumentative essays at the secondary level or opinion-writing assignments at the elementary level.

Sources:

Stanford History Education Group. (2013). Reading Like a Historian.

VanSledright, B. & Frankes, L. (2000). Concept-and strategic-knowledge development in historical study: A comparative exploration in two fourth grade classrooms. Cognition and Instruction. 18 (2), 239-283.

VanSledright, B.A., & Limon, M. (2006). "Learning and teaching in social studies: Cognitive research on history and geography." In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd Ed. (pp. 545-570). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.

ARCH: Assessment Center for History was developed through a partnership between the UMBC Center for History Education (CHE) and the Howard County Public School System, with support from the United States Department of Education's Teaching American History grant program. ARCH materials may be used in educational settings, following fair-use guidelines.

The CHE has in good faith secured or sought permission from identifiable copyright holders to reproduce materials for educational use, following fair-use guidelines. Users of this web site should respect copyright ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The skills of historical thinking, which are among the most complex that students will encounter, are the cornerstone of the changes in history instruction. Teachers need tools to measure historical thinking skills when their students apply them.

# data[].attributes.headline
16 Variations on Think-Pair-Share to Keep Students Engaged

# data[].attributes.subject
16 Variations on Think-Pair-Share to Keep Students Engaged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Think: The teacher presents an open-ended question, encouraging students to reflect and jot down answers for two or three minutes.

2. Pair: Then students team up with a partner to discuss and enhance their answers.

3. Share: Finally, the two-person teams present insights from their discussion to the rest of the class.

To keep students on track, the instructor cues students when to switch from one step to the next.

But even the most engaging learning strategies can become boring for students if they're overused, so teachers might want to try some of these 16 variations on TPS, arranged by different learning priorities:collaborative exploration of ideas, visualization of ideas, presentation and defense of a position, and evaluation and application of ideas.Each TPS version starts with individual students writing their thoughts and concludes with groups communicating their findings to the entire class.

Collaborative Exploration

These models offer diverse peer interactions to support the refinement of ideas.

1. Silent Think-Pair-Share substitutes writing for discussion and appeals to introverted students.

During the pair sequence, the two learners " exchange written notes instead of verbalizing their ideas." Then they share conclusions aloud to the class. This can encourage the full participation of a rowdy or shy class. Example: A history teacher can direct students to silently annotate each other's perspectives on the causes of the Boston Tea Party.

2. Think-Pair-Write-Share promotes collaborative writing.

After pairing and exchanging notes, two-person teams summarize their conclusions with collaborative writing before sharing their compositions with the class. Example: During elementary math, pairs can jointly write a step-by-step explanation of how they solved a story problem.

3. Think-Pair-Rotate-Share deepens ideas through multiple discussions.

In the rotate stage, each student links up with a new partner, which thereby facilitates a broader exchange of ideas before the final share-out. This approach helps kids diversify and deepen their thinking. Examples include exploring the causes of global warming or making predictions about what happens next to a novel's protagonist.

4. Think-Pair-Share-All extends pair discussions into group exchanges, fostering a broader understanding of an issue.

After solo thinking time, two-person teams identify common ideas and then form into groups of six. Within each hexad, participants share ideas produced during the pair stage and have all the group members identify themes, or select the best ideas, to present to the class. The approach develops teamwork and communication skills through consensus-building and synthesizing. Example: During English language arts class, students can compare interpretations of character motivations during the pair stage and then form small groups to identify and refine the most compelling motivations to share with the class.

5. Think-Pair-T-Chart Compare fosters deep evaluation of viewpoints.

After discussing a question in pairs, learners compare and tally their ideas with another student duo using a T-chart. This approach encourages kids to systematically organize and compare ideas. Examples: evaluating the pros and cons of social media usage in health class or comparing personal study strategies during Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID).

6. Think-Pair-Switch-Switch-Switch broadens perspectives through conversations with multiple partners.

Participants repeat short pair conversations with four different partners before sharing results with the class. This strategy encourages iterative thinking. Examples: Middle school science students can identify and build on solutions for reducing marine debris in the Pacific Ocean, and social studies students can develop solutions for addressing instability in the Middle East.

7. Mingle-Pair-Share, invented by Elizabeth Mulvahill, helps learners process multiple questions.

Students mingle around the room to music; when the music pauses, they share responses with a nearby classmate. The process repeats with different pairs answering a new question during each round. Example: When students are fatigued on an exam prep day, music and movement quickly energize the room.

Visualization

The strategies below involve visualizing through sketching by hand, using technology, and creating posters in order to develop critical thinking.

8. Think-Pair-Draw encourages visualizing ideas.

Two-person teams sketch out their ideas on poster paper before presenting their work to the class. Example: Students can draw and label parts of a triangle to reinforce geometric vocabulary or create a visual timeline of events from Toni Morrison's nonlinear masterpiece Beloved to enhance plot comprehension and retention.

9. Think-Pair-Digitize engages learners to use technology to create an infographic.

After discussing their ideas, each two-person team creates an infographic that illustrates their ideas using Canva, Piktochart, Visme, or other software. Use this approach to foster creativity and digital literacy while helping students visually communicate complex ideas. Example: Students can compare the structures of plant and animal cells.

10. Think-Pair-Post employs structured feedback that incorporates written reflection and visualization.

Following the first two phases, paired studentswrite and illustrate their ideas on posters displayed around the room. Peers offer feedback on sticky notes they attach to each poster. This approach encourages peer feedback and develops revision skills. Examples: Students can create bar graphs, Harlem Renaissance posters, or body biographies.

Presentation and Defense

The first two groups of variations enhance presentation skills, while this group and the next engage learners in defending their positions.

11. Think-Pair-Present helps students closely examine and interpret visual or textual material.

Students work in pairs to analyze or interpret a document, then prepare a brief written product to share with the class. Whether they produce a one-sentence summary or draw a conclusion from the document, students learn how to distill complex information into a concise explanation and develop public speaking skills.

12. Think-Pair-Teach helps students internalize information by teaching others.

After individual think time, pairs review their main points. During the teach phase, one student presents the main points to the class and the other adds supporting details, following this sequence: (1) opening statement (providing the overall conclusion), (2) explanation of reasoning, (3) evidence and/or examples, and (4) final key takeaways. Examples: To reinforce procedural understanding in science class, one student can write the steps for balancing chemical equations on a document camera while the other explains a worked example displayed on a poster. And to help learners internalize proper form in physical education, assign one student to demonstrate the plank technique while the other describes how to engage the core and avoid common mistakes.

13. Think-Pair-Defend strengthens argumentation skills.

During the think phase, learners craft a claim. They discuss their argument with a partner who challenges their reasoning, ensuring that it's based on sound logic and evidence. Next, students defend their position against the scrutiny of a small group of peers. Example: To evaluate historical decisions and develop perspective-taking skills, one student can argue why the American colonies were justified in declaring independence, while their partner offers counterarguments from the point of view of Great Britain's King George III.

14. Think-Pair-Debate fosters critical thinking when exploring a two-sided issue.

After the teacher assigns each learner a specific stance (pro or con) to consider individually, pro students are paired with con students to argue for their position and strengthen their defense. Finally, pairs join up with another team. In this new foursome, each position has two defenders who (1) make opening statements, (2) offer rebuttals, (3) exchange feedback, and (4) make closing statements. This model emphasizes collaboration, in contrast to the competition of a formal debate. Example: During a literature discussion, students can defend whether or not a protagonist's actions were justified, with partners helping refine their arguments through constructive challenges.

Evaluation and Application

These models advance higher-order thinking skills.

15. Rank-Pair-Share directs learners to evaluate alternatives.

Students individually rank a list of options using a specific lens (e.g., sequence environmental issues by potential for harm, from most to least), then revise the list with a peer. Whether students are ranking the best stretching exercises for sport-specific injury prevention or the top literary themes in Macbeth, this model helps them think critically by actively prioritizing and defending their rankings.

16. Think-Pair-Apply facilitates the practical application of ideas.

During the pair phase, students solve a specific problem or complete a hands-on task in order to draw on core concepts and connect academic concepts to real-world challenges. Examples: planning a mini-ecosystem terrarium based on sustainability principles, crafting an alternative ending to Of Mice and Men by referencing the novel's narrative structure, or presenting a better U.S. response to the initial outbreak of Covid-19 based on scientific evidence.

I've noticed that when students share their results with the whole class, many classmates lose focus. To keep engagement high during this last phase, educators Kate Jones and Dylan Wiliam offer a solution: " Add. Build. Challenge." This ABC technique prompts the class to listen with three questions in mind: "Is there anything else that could be added? Can you build on that answer? Does anyone want to challenge the answer, for example, by providing an alternative response?"

One last tip: Launch Think-Pair-Share or any of these variations with a question that doesn't scan like something pulled from a dry workbook. Your question should feel electric-sparking curiosity and lively dialogue. If you're excited to hear what students will say, you've chosen well.

Responses are generated by artificial intelligence. AI can make mistakes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Variations on Think-Pair-Share to Keep Students Engaged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers and students use the classic learning strategy Think-Pair-Share often. To keep it from getting stale, try these tweaks.

# data[].attributes.body
Great insights from a summer professional development participant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A decade ago, after a week of professional development through the Gilder Lehrman Institute at the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, I wrote a piece on what I'd discovered being a student again: 10 Things I Learned Sitting in a Classroom.

This summer I had another incredible chance to be a social studies learner, this time at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, in a week-long seminar co-sponsored by the Organization of American Historians and the Sandra Day O'Connor Institute for American Democracy.

Being eleven years older and perhaps wiser, I'm extending the original piece (which still resonates) with five additional things I learned, all of which I'll take back to my own 8th U.S. History & Civics classes this year. One overarching takeaway is that human connection is still paramount for creating the conditions necessary to learn content - even among adults, many of whom graduated from college twenty-plus years ago!

1. A social opening lays the groundwork for learning.

Every day at the institute, I looked forward to lining up for croissants and coffee with two dozen classmates, all history and government teachers, and our lead scholars. This soft start woke me up, primed me for later conversations, and kept me curious about the people in the room.

Such socializing is similar to the daily chats I've done each day for five years, where each student answers a question such as "rate your energy level 1-10 and tell us why," or "what's your favorite thing to do when you get home from school."

2. Fun reviews can reconnect us to the material and to each other.

For a while I've been wanting to use low-stakes quizzes for retrieval practice to cement concepts. During this class we processed so much information that I started each morning by scrolling through notes from the day before, writing key ideas I wanted to apply to my classes or remember for myself.

Some days I could easily ask students to do note-based self-reflections, while other days I could create a quick game or quiz through Kahoot, Quizlet or an AI chatbot to practice key vocabulary.

3. For homework to be meaningful, we need to engage with it directly and actively.

If we assign readings and then discuss them in class, that's a start. But I realized last week that if I wasn't asked additionally to do something hands-on with the reading, such as talk and write with my table group about a particular passage, I didn't feel I had engaged with the history as much as I could have.

Now I'm even more determined to create touchpoints during class that reinforce students' notes or annotations. Another option is to check each student's homework while they're working on something else - offering a verbal comment - to show that I appreciate their opinion and am curious about their work.

4. How long do students need to grapple with concepts? Probably longer than we think.

It's a good problem to have, but at times during this workshop I wanted more processing time to imagine how to distill what we were learning for our classrooms, or to hear how other teachers addressed a topic or strategy.

I know I don't regularly give enough time in class for students to think, consolidate and process, except when we're devoting entire periods to research. At times I end activities before everyone finishes in order to move along with what we're covering. And sometimes it's those students who pick things up more quickly who need extra time, because they are already transferring the ideas to other disciplines or future projects in their own notes.

5. We are all learners.

In the presence of expert AP U.S. Government & Politics teachers, not to mention two university professors, I found myself sometimes shyer than I wanted to be. I didn't know as many details of Supreme Court cases as they did, and I didn't want to sound unknowledgeable.

This unexpected reticence makes me want to remind my eighth graders that we are all learners, even me. I'd also like to express gratitude for students when they express misconceptions, recognizing that it's a way to help us all improve our understanding.

If you can swing it in the summer, I can't think of a better way to spend a week than with eager colleagues, supported by organizations that honor the work we do daily. If you have additional learnings to share from being a student yourself, I'd love to hear them!
Sarah J. Cooper teaches eighth-grade U.S. History and is Associate Head of School at Flintridge Prep in La Canada, California, where she has also taught English Language Arts. Sarah is the author of Making History Mine (Stenhouse, 2009) and Creating Citizens: Teaching Civics and Current Events in the History Classroom (Routledge, 2017). She presents at conferences and writes for a variety of educational sites. You can find all of Sarah's writing at sarahjcooper.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
sandra day o’connor institute for american democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 More Things I Learned Sitting in a Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sarah Cooper shares 5 things she learned at a summer seminar about being the student, not the teacher, in class. She'll take them back to her classes this fall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Session 2 Social Studies Field Guide Foundational Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Session 3 Social Studies Field Guide Inquiry and Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Session 4 Social Studies Field Guide Ed Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Session 5 - Chapters 5 and 6  - Social Studies Field Guide

# data[].attributes.body
Discover engaging, standards-aligned trusted educational resources for Constitution Day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Authors:

Sam Wineburg and Daisy Martin

Adapting sources for classroom use allows teachers to steer students toward authentic historical inquiry and away from a version of history determined exclusively by the textbook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tampering with History: Adapting Primary Sources for Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adapting sources for classroom use allows teachers to steer students toward authentic historical inquiry and away from a version of history determined exclusively by the textbook.

# data[].attributes.headline
Find primary source newspaper articles with local and national perspectives

# data[].attributes.subject
Find primary source newspaper articles with local and national perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chronicling America | The Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.headline
Introduction to Three-Step Writing (OER)

# data[].attributes.subject
Introduction to Three-Step Writing (OER)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three-Step Reading is a strategy that helps you critically analyze what you read, and yes, it has three steps. And this strategy isn’t just for this course—you can use it with anything you read!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analyzing Primary Sources: Bloom’s Taxonomy Image Writing Prompts | Citizen U Primary Source Nexus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remembering List the different shapes you see. How many people do you see? How many __________ do you see? List all of the objects that start with the letter “___”. Circle all of the people with _______. List all of the __________ that you see. What makes them different or…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Inquiry Design Model (IDM) is a distinctive approach to creating curriculum and instructional materials that honors teachers’ knowledge and expertise, avoids overprescription, and focuses on the main elements of the instructional design process as envisioned in the Inquiry Arc of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for State Social Studies Standards (2013) […]

# data[].attributes.headline
QFT Resources - Right Question Institute

# data[].attributes.subject
QFT Resources - Right Question Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
QFT Teaching and Learning Resources - Right Question Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everything you need to use the QFT in your classroom: A step by step guide, lesson planner, and downloadable classroom handouts and classroom examples.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Structured Academic Controversy?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Structured Academic Controversy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A step-by-step guide for students participating in a Structured Academic Controversy, a method that fosters critical thinking and consensus-building through structured debate and perspective-taking.

What is Structured Academic Controversy?

In Structured Academic Controversy, like a debate, you present and advocate an assigned position, listen to an opposing argument, and then offer a rebuttal. However, in Structured Academic Controversy, you then reverse perspectives and argue the other side. In this way, you are forced to consider both sides of an issue. You then step outside of your assigned positions and work with your teammates to create a consensus statement to which everyone can agree.
How does Structured Academic Controversy work?
Guidelines

I am critical of ideas, not people. I challenge and refute the ideas of the opposing team, but I do not indicate I personally reject them.

I focus on coming to the best decision possible, not winning (i.e., We are all winners here. This isn't a competition.).

I encourage everyone to participate and master all relevant information.

I listen to everyone's ideas, even if I do not agree.

I ask for clarification if I am confused or something is unclear.

I try to understand both sides of the issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Structured Academic Controversy? Activity | The Bill of Rights Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructions for effective classroom structured academic constrovery and small group discussions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using a pie to teach historical thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Okay. Not an actual pie. Though that would be awesome! But I did learn this very easy but very cool Pie Chart strategy from Nathan McAlister, 2010 Gilder Lehrman Teacher of the Year. It’s a great h…

# data[].attributes.headline
Teach the Students the Value of Slow, Methodical Thinking

# data[].attributes.subject
Teach the Students the Value of Slow, Methodical Thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 Ways to Teach Students the Value of Slow, Methodical Thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quick thinking has its place in the classroom, but students who also master slower, more deliberate thinking develop the skills to know when each approach serves them best.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's look at the foliage season example above. Once AI generates the response tailored to the kindergarten audience, you can simply add a follow-up. For example, instruct it to "make it funnier," or "explain it to college students who are English majors using analogies they will understand." There is no need to repeat the context and other parameters. You can continue to build upon AI's responses just by adding other prompts. This reiterative process unlocks more potential from AI (Neil, 2023). Additionally, most AI systems will allow you to generate a new response if you'd like to see a different version without entering another prompt.

Limitations

While prompt engineering can improve the outputs from AI, there are some limitations to bear in mind.

Focus More on Problems, Less on Prompts

AI platforms and the models they are based upon are rapidly evolving, reaching more advanced levels of sophistication. For that reason, some experts doubt whether the importance of prompt engineering will be long lasting. Smith (2023) predicts that AI models may be able to write prompts themselves.

Acar (2023) foresees a future where advanced AI systems will be able to intuit our intentions without deliberate prompts. He calls for our attention the difference between problems and prompts. "Prompt engineering focuses on crafting the optimal textual input by selecting the appropriate words, phrases, sentence structures, and punctuation. In contrast, problem formulation emphasizes defining the problem by delineating its focus, scope, and boundaries." (Acar, 2023). In the long run, it may be more important to develop skills in crafting problems as compared to mastering prompt engineering (Acar, 2023).

Entering a prompt and receiving an output is much like the process of having a conversation with another person. But just like a conversation between two humans, interacting with AI can sometimes be complicated and AI may forget where it was in the conversation. This is another reason focusing more on the problem may be a more helpful approach than repeated attempts at crafting perfect prompts.

Be Aware of AI's Flaws

Despite rapid advancements, AI isn't flawless. Concerns around factual accuracy persist, as highlighted by a CNET incident in 2023 where AI-generated content was found factually incorrect (Thorbecke, 2023). Similar cases where AI generated factually false information can easily be found in many different settings, too, including academia. AI's production of content that is inaccurate, misleading, and even completely made up (even if it may seem perfectly coherent and believable on the surface) is called AI hallucination (Weise & Metz, 2023). It is important to keep in mind AI's limitations when formulating your prompts and always look at results with a critical eye.

Avoid AI's Potential Harms

AI can perpetuate biases. Many at MIT may be familiar with a controversy where an MIT student of Asian heritage asked AI to turn her photo into a professional looking headshot (Buell, 2023) only to find that it generated an image of her with bright blue eyes and a lighter skin tone. Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT, recognizes that AI falls short of removing biases and producing non-inclusive language, and advocates for iterative development that solicits broader public feedback to counter such challenges (Yu, 2023).

Conclusion

As users seek to harness the power of AI, crafting the right prompt becomes an essential skill, guiding AI towards desired outcomes and ensuring optimal results. The promise of AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, and others lies in their ability to adapt and learn from your carefully crafted inputs, mimicking human conversation and generating pertinent outputs. Yet, we must remain vigilant about potential flaws, biases, and the implications of over-relying on these systems without critical scrutiny.

References

Acar, O. A. (2023, June 8). AI prompt engineering isn't the future. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/06/ai-prompt-engineering-isnt-the-future

Buell, S. (2023, August 24). Do AI generated images have racial blind spots? See an example. The Boston Globe. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/19/business/an-mit-student-asked-ai-make-her-headshot-more-professional-it-gave-her-lighter-skin-blue-eyes

Cook, J. (2023, June 26). How to write effective prompts for ChatGPT: 7 Essential steps for best results. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jodiecook/2023/06/26/how-to-write-effective-prompts-for-chatgpt-7-essential-steps-for-best-results/?sh=5a76b51e2a18

Johnmaeda. (2023, May 23). Prompt engineering overview. Microsoft Learn. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/semantic-kernel/prompt-engineering

Liu, D. (2023, June 8). Prompt engineering for educators: Making generative AI work for you. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/prompt-engineering-educators-making-generative-ai-work-danny-liu

Mollick, E. (2023, January 10). How to. . . use ChatGPT to boost your writing. One Useful Thing. https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/how-to-use-chatgpt-to-boost-your

Mollick, E. (2023, March 29). How to use AI to do practical stuff: A new guide. One Useful Thing. https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/how-to-use-ai-to-do-practical-stuff

Neill, J. (2023). Enhance your ChatGPT prompts. Dr. Jeffrey Neill, Ed.D. https://www.jeffreyneill.com/blog/2023/6/30/prompt-magic-enhancingprompts

Smith, C. S. (2023, April 5). Mom, Dad, I want to be a prompt engineer. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigsmith/2023/04/05/mom-dad-i-want-to-be-a-prompt-engineer/?sh=206f254359c8

Thorbecke, C. (2023, January 25). Plagued with errors: A news outlet's decision to write stories with AI backfires. CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/25/tech/cnet-ai-tool-news-stories/index.html

Urban, E. (2023, July 18). What is intent recognition? Microsoft Learn. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/speech-service/intent-recognition

Weise, K., & Metz, C. (2023, May 9). When AI chatbots hallucinate. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/business/ai-chatbots-hallucination.html

Wu, Y., Mao, W., & Feng, J. (2022). AI for online customer service: Intent recognition and slot filling based on deep learning technology. Mobile Networks and Applications, 27(6), 2305-2317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-021-01795-5

Yu, E. (2023, June 19). Generative AI should be more inclusive as it evolves, according to OpenAI's CEO. ZDNET. https://www.zdnet.com/article/generative-ai-should-be-more-inclusive-as-it-evolves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effective Prompts for AI: The Essentials - MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlock the potential of AI by crafting effective prompts. Learn how prompt engineering can optimize your AI interactions, enhance output quality, and understand its limitations.

# data[].attributes.body
Moler's Musings

# data[].attributes.headline
Geoinquiries - K-12 Classroom activities gallery

# data[].attributes.subject
Geoinquiries - K-12 Classroom activities gallery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers, parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

Reenvisioning the UDL Guidelines

Because the UDL Guidelines are meant to be informed by feedback from the field as well as new research, they have been updated several times in the past. We are in the process of updating the Guidelines once again in our UDL Rising to Equity initiative.

This update will focus specifically on addressing systemic barriers that result in inequitable learning opportunities and outcomes. CAST aims to develop a transparent, inclusive, and community-driven process. If you are interested in collaborating and staying updated on our progress, we invite you to complete a brief survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers, parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Understanding by Design (UbD) to Universal Design of Learning (UDL): A comparative analysis of design frameworks for teaching diverse K-10 learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Inquiry Design Model (IDM) is a distinctive approach to creating curriculum and instructional materials that honors teachers’ knowledge and expertise, avoids overprescription, and focuses on the main elements of the instructional design process as envisioned in the Inquiry Arc of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for State Social Studies Standards (2013) […]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading Like a Historian curriculum engages students in historical inquiry. Each lesson revolves around a central historical question and features a set of primary documents designed for groups of students with a range of reading skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy is an inquiry-based content framework for excellence in history and civics for all learners that is organized by major themes and questions, supported by key concepts. It is vertically spiraled across four grade bands (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12), and offers a vision for the integration of history and civic education throughout grades K-12.

The document begins by introducing the seven themes around which the is organized. It then presents five design challenges that span the seven themes and reflect the six core pedagogical principles presented in its Pedagogy Companion . These design challenges typically involve several valid, worthy, and well-articulated learning goals that exist in mutual tension. They state honestly and transparently some of the rich dilemmas that educators will encounter as they work with the content themes and pedagogic principles.

For each theme, a section defines the thematic questions for K-12 history and civics and the key concepts for grade bands K-5 and 6-12. Following this, the section provides driving questions and sample guiding questions for history and civics, indicated by these abbreviations.

The history and civics content is organized into seven themes. While there is no hierarchy among the themes, and they might be variously sequenced in a scope and sequence, they do deliberately reflect a logical progression. They begin with the main task of public schooling: to prepare knowledgeable and motivated citizens to participate in American self-government. In general, the themes build from the human and natural elements of forming communities and a polity, then address the United States' new mode of constitutional government, which perpetually forges a national political community, and more particular communities in the country's complex ordering. The themes then move to the substantive achievements and challenges of American political development and self-government, framed through both historical and civic lenses; broaden out to the global context; and conclude with the ever-present need for citizens to commit to civil disagreement and an underlying civic friendship as we argue about how to live out, and live up to, our shared political principles.

THEME 1: Civic Participation
THEME 2: Our Changing Landscapes
THEME 3: We the People
THEME 4: A New Government and Constitution
THEME 5: Institutional and Social Transformation-A Series of Refoundings?
THEME 6: A People in the World
THEME 7: A People with Contemporary Debates and Possibilities

Since the beginning of our collaboration, EAD initiative leaders have recognized that teaching a complete story of the United States is hard and full of contentions. Embracing those tensions as a feature, not a bug, of the led us to develop five design challenges, which bring to the surface those questions of history and civics instruction that educators typically find the most difficult to navigate. These design challenges typically involve several valid, worthy, and well-articulated learning goals that exist in mutual tension. Each of the seven content themes is connected to at least one design challenge. For a deeper explanation of each of the design challenges, see the Design Challenges overview.

Within each of the seven themes, content is broken down into history and civics driving questions that break down and scaffold the content to deepen students' understanding of each theme as they get older. Then, within each set of history and civics driving questions, content is further broken down into sample guiding questions that provide a glimpse into the types of inquiries that teachers can plan when using the .

For example, within Theme 2, "Our Changing Landscapes," a K-2 history driving question is "How do communities name and talk about places?" This driving question is then broken down into sample guiding questions that help students explore their own story of place, as well as their communities and belonging. By 6-8th grade, a history driving question in the same theme is "How do borders change over time, and why?" This driving question is more complex and the sample guiding questions within it are more content-heavy, including questions that allow students to explore how the U.S. came to have its current borders, the history of territorial expansion, and the effects of that territorial expansion on various populations.

No, they are not. We hope that the sample guiding questions are illustrative of the vast instructional potential connecting the larger theme, the design challenge, and the driving question. However, we also acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive list of questions, and that there are many other great topics and questions that can be explored.

Unlike essential questions, which are about larger questions of civic life and history that do not have a predetermined right answer, driving questions in the often do. An example of an essential question might be, "Does history really repeat itself?", but with a driving question, students may focus on specific content, such as "How have Americans resisted or reacted to the expansion of rights and citizenship claims?"

There are some design features of the which we hope will be helpful as educators consider using the driving and sample guiding questions. First, as a group, the questions were developed to address the design challenges and are intentionally worded to surface tensions and even disagreements about a topic. Second, in addition to content itself, questions about students' own identities, values, and their relationships to historical events and civic institutions are scaffolded across the grade bands. Those features were integrated because we center full preparation for active and informed participation in civic life as the central goal, which we believe is only possible when students have opportunities to deeply learn content while building agency and skills of civic actors.

No, and we recognize that there would be a lot of content to acquire in depth. First, the sample guiding questions are examples, not essential content, so we encourage educators to choose questions that are suitable to their classroom or even develop their own. Second, the initiative leaders are actively developing plans to best serve educators by curating existing resources from diverse groups of curriculum providers and teachers across the country to support you. Finally, we believe that students and teachers can engage in this inquiry-centered learning together, collaboratively working to uncover complex answers to thematic, driving, and guiding questions through discussions, debates, projects, research, and other instructional design tools mentioned in the Pedagogy Companion . We also recognize that some of the questions in the do not have clear-cut answers, but rather are intended as a springboard for students and teachers to grapple with the tensions inherent in the narratives of American history and civics.

The is an advisory document, intended to support a diversity of curricula, materials, lessons, and assessments and to work across a variety of state social studies standards. It will break new ground by presenting an integrated framework for what, why, and how to teach history and civics. As such, it is meant to inspire and inform the authors of state standards, curricula, textbooks, and other materials, as well as teachers themselves to rethink and reprioritize civics and American history education.

The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards was written originally as a general framework for authors of state standards. It identifies content to teach largely in the form of foundational concepts and disciplinary skills, not specific topics. For instance, the C3 Framework mentions analyzing the "multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past" (D2.His.14.9-12), but does not specify which events. As the C3 Framework has gained broader use by states, curriculum writers, teachers, and others, the lack of specific topics has generated a desire for guidance about not only how, but what topics to teach in social studies.

The EAD Roadmap is meant to complement, not compete with, the C3 Framework , as it identifies specific topics for study. The C3 Framework emphasizes skills as an aspect of content; the EAD Roadmap adds more detail about topics through the use of concrete questions that should be taught. It identifies high-priority history and civics content essential to robust and authentic civic participation organized in seven content themes and five design challenges, all presented in the form of questions to be explored over the course of a K-12 education.

The EAD Roadmap and the C3 Framework share the philosophy that knowledge and understanding arise from the inquiry process: asking questions, conducting research, analyzing ideas, presenting conclusions, and applying acquired understanding by taking informed action. Inquiry serves to deepen conceptual understanding of content, moving beyond basic knowledge. The C3 Framework 's inquiry arc concludes with taking informed action, a practice that prepares students with the skills and dispositions to take an active role in their civic, community, and democratic institutions. In a constitutional democracy, we inquire in order to act well, which is why the C3 Framework inquiry arc concludes in taking action.

Absolutely! The was designed as an advisory document that identifies high priority content areas for all K-12 students. Its seven major themes are centered around design challenges and thematic questions, which were intentionally created to be used within and amplify the efficacy of many different state standards. Our research team conducted an extensive review of every state's social studies standards and found a strong alignment between the themes and state standards, though states are diverse in terms of which themes are emphasized and when. What makes the different from most state standards is its focus on inquiry, presenting content in the form of questions that should be explored over the course of a K-12 education. Read more about the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Roadmap - Educating for American Democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy is an inquiry-based content framework for excellence in history and civics for all learners that is organized by major themes and questions, supported by key concepts. It is vertically spiraled across four grade bands (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12), and offers a vision for the integration of history and civic education throughout grades K-12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Civic education has long been a mission of public schools. From our nation’s founding, schools have been recognized as important spaces to learn about history, systems of governance, rights and responsibilities, and civic friendship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the Arizona Civics Podcast. This podcast aims to share our journey of sustaining Arizona’s interests in reforms to civic education by working with civic educators in our state. This work is being done by the Center for American Civics a…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using foundational evidence, inquiry-based instruction, & edtech tools

# data[].attributes.headline
InquirED new Social Studies Curriculum Review Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
InquirED new Social Studies Curriculum Review Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Studies Curriculum Review Guide | inquirED Resource | inquirED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use inquirED’s Curriculum Review Guide to evaluate and adopt high-quality, inquiry-based social studies curriculum. It helps district leaders assess instruction design, multiple perspectives, literacy, and educator support. ￼

# data[].attributes.headline
TPS Teachers Network (meet other force multipliers)

# data[].attributes.subject
TPS Teachers Network (meet other force multipliers)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Funded by a grant from the Library of Congress and housed at the Metropolitan State University of Denver, the TPS Teachers Network promotes educators professional development and learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Social Studies FIELD Guide: Inquiry in Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To be successful, our kids desperately need to level up their historical thinking skills. The FIELD Guide is a research-based framework designed specifically to build critical thinking through the use of primary sources and inquiry-based activities. Joe and Glenn will highlight how you can incorporate compelling foundational evidence, create engaging lessons around authentic problems, and integrate powerful tech tools into your instruction. You’ll walk away smarter with specific strategies that you can immediately embed into your classroom, as well as the tools needed to develop your own!