Case Summary
Case 1 for: LMBC02
General Information
Task title: Newspaper Article on Boston Massacre
Collection Date: 4/2/10
Class period: 5th grade self-contained
Identifiers: ___Document Analysis ___Technology-enhanced __x_Groupwork
___Extended Writing ___Concept Lesson ___Simulation
___Lecture ___Seminar Discussion ___Deliberative Discussion
___Culminating Activity ___IRE recitation ___Perspective-Taking
Exercise
___Published Curriculum Package ____Other
Observation Scoring: [Enter numerical scores for the primary and secondary rater]
Rating Type Researcher
High
Order
Thinking
Deep
Knowledge
Substantitive
Conversation
Connectedness
1 Primary Rater –
Initial
Secondary rater-
Initial
Consensus
Howell 4 4 4
Task Scoring: [Enter numerical scores for the primary and secondary rater]
Rating Type Researcher
Construction of
Knowledge
Elaborated
Communication
Connection
Primary Rater
- Initial
Howell 3 4 2
Scored
After
Observation
Yes
Secondary
Rater – Initial
Yes

Consensus
Class Map:
S9 X
BF
3
S10 S8
WM WF
White Board
S7 S5
WF BM
2
X S6
WF
Door
S3 S1
WM WM
1
S4 S2
WM WM
S20 S18
BM WF
6
S21 S19
WF WM
S17 S15
BF WM
5
X S16
WF
S13 S11
BM WF
4
S14 S12
AF WM
Teacher
Desk
Reading
Table
Reading
Table
Lesson Summary Narrative:
Time: 8:12 AM – 9:50 AM
Context:
This lesson took place in early April nearing the end of the school year. It fit within a larger unit on the American Revolution. The class was arranged in 6 large groups where students sat facing each other. In discussions with me, the teacher indicated that students had watched a History
Channel film about the Boston Massacre on the day before this lesson. The film interpreted the
Boston Massacre differently than the students’ textbook. Students’ homework the night before this lesson was to decided, based on the film and their textbook reading, whether they thought the Boston Massacre was a massacre or self-defense.
Demographic Breakdown:
WF: 8
WM: 7
BF: 2
BM: 3
AF: 1
Lesson Time Breakdown:
8:12 – 8:18 – Review (6 min)

8:18 – 8:25 – Procedures (7 min)
8:25 – 9:15 – Group work (50 min)
9:15 – 9:50 – Group Presentations (35 min)
The Task:
Students were give oral instructions to complete a newspaper article on the Boston Massacre.
Student groups first completed a graphic organizer on the Boston Massacre that asked them to fill in the 5W’s – who, what, when, where, why. The teacher did not assist students with What and Why but told groups that their graphic organizers and their newspapers should address their group’s view on what happened at Boston and why. The teacher also distributed a black and white picture of the Boston Massacre for groups to include in their newspapers. The teacher included a broadly defined rubric with her oral directions – neatness (25 points), 5Ws (50 points), and presentation (25 points).
Lesson Summary:
The class began with a review of the previous lesson and of the prior night’s homework. On the day prior, students had watched a History Channel film clip on the Boston Massacre. Their homework had been to read the textbook account and to compare the two versions. To begin the review the teacher asked what was different between the film clip and the book accounts.
Fourteen different students responded to this initial question; responses were uniformly brief and directed back to the teacher. The teacher, however, interjected rarely and instead called on students to respond. Differences between the two historical accounts voiced by students included: who died first, who shot first, death place for those killed, number of shooters.
Following this initial review, the teacher next described the students’ task. Groups of students were directed to take a stand on whether what happened in Boston was a massacre or selfdefense within a newspaper article. The teacher told students they would decide what goes in the article but they would use a graphic organizer to gather their thoughts.
Next the teacher projected an overview on the board containing a 5W graphic organizer chart – who, what, when, where, why. She told students that the name of the event would be “Boston
Massacre” and that they needed a catchy title for their article. The teacher then reviewed the questions on the graphic organizer and asked students to copy them into their notes. She solicited students’ help in answering some, but not all of them. Questions and answers included:
1.
Who was part of this event? a.
British soldiers and colonists.
2.
When did it happen? a.
March 5, 1770
3.
Where did it happen? a.
Boston, MA
4.
What happened?
5.
Why did this happen?

For the last two questions, the teacher allowed students to begin offering their ideas but she asked them to hold off on using adjectives or on making judgments. The consensus was that the
Boston citizens did not want to pay taxes and that people died in a protest as a result. The teacher concluded the procedural review by telling students to create a group graphic organizer and to write the article. She assigned four roles: leader, recorder, reporter, and materials handler.
She reviewed a rubric orally with students: neatness (25 points), 5 Ws answered (50 points), and presentation (25 points). The teacher reminded students to do the graphic organizer on their own papers but to do the article on cardstock and to glue a provided picture of the massacre near their article. Students were released to work in their groups.
During group work, I moved between 5 groups and recorded students conversations.
Descriptions of these group interactions follow:
I visited Group 6 first when they were in the early stages of trying to decide if the Boston
Massacre was a massacre or self-defense. S19 argued that it was self-defense and played the protagonist role in the group. S21 assumed the role of harmonizer –seeking the answer. Initially S21 simply asked for a vote to decide the question. S20 and S19 refused however and moved straight to arguing that the colonists acted in self-defense.
S21 noted that 3 people thought it was a massacre so it was. It was unclear if she meant her 3 peers or 3 people from the time period. S19 countered that the British did everything on their own. S18 pointed out that a British soldier – Hugh Montgomery - shot first and then everyone else fired. S20 then changed his initial thoughts by arguing that it was not self-defense. S21, again playing role of harmonizer, asked for a catchy title so they could get started but S19 cut her off by saying that it was self-defense but that the British soldiers started it all – it was a little of both. The group eventually decided on a “self-defense or massacre” as the title. The teacher arrived at this point and told the group they needed to find details. S19 offered that Montgomery responded in self-defense because he was hit which then led to the massacre. S19 continued that the crowd taunted Montgomery and that led to the massacre. S21, however, countered that the British soldier, Montgomery, lied about what happened because he had been ordered not to fire but had done so anyway.
I visited group 4 after students had divided up their tasks. They had already decided to take the colonists’ view and that what occurred was a massacre. Much of this group’s conversation surrounded what should actually be written on the paper. S14 seemed concerned that all parts of the newspaper article work together to make their overall point. The group seemed frustrated because they were not reaching a consensus quickly.
As I got up to move, the group had concluded that both sides at the Boston Massacre were to blame.

I visited Group 1 next. The students were arguing about the picture they were to include in the newspaper. S2 argued that the picture was not accurate because several colonists’ backs were turned away from the British soldiers. S1 argued that the actual fighting occurred closer to the building. S2 and S4 then momentarily got into an argument about what to write. S4 was concerned that they write their article like it was a real newspaper
– he even asked S2 if he’d ever read a newspaper. S4 became more frustrated as he tried to write something for their article. Students debated again whether it was a massacre or self-defense before giving S4 something to write as an intro.
I next visited Group 2, 3, and 5. Group 2 was working separately on various components of the newspaper task. This group’s talk was procedurally focused or focused on detailed depiction. S6 seemed particularly concerned that the reporter make the depiction really sound like self-defense. Group 3 was also working on a draft of their article. One student emphasized that the newspaper needed to put the reader there in the action.
Groups 5 was finishing up when I arrived and had taken a divide and conquer approach.
Following group work, the teacher asked students to present their work to the class. Group 4 presented first by taking turns reading from their article. The group took the position that they did not know if it was self defense or not and argued that no one knows – it’s just an opinion.
Students seemed unsure about how history is written when a broken evidentiary trail exists. The group concluded their presentation by asking knowledge level review questions of the class.
Group 6 then presented using an act it out approach. Like Group 4, this group did not take a clear position on whether Boston was a massacre or self-defense when they said, “the question goes on today.” There were no questions from other groups, which might have allowed for deeper knowledge to develop. Group 2 presented next. This group took a clear position – arguing that the British soldiers panicked and fired upon “patriots.” Like Group 4, this group concluded with a review game of knowledge level questions. Group 1 presented next and argued as other had that no one could know if it was a massacre or not – that the world will never know.
The presentation then digressed into one student explaining colonial muskets. Group 3 presented next. This group took view of textbook and recounted the facts presented therein. Group 5 was the last to present, arguing that Boston was a massacre because the soldiers fired out of anger and that colonists were killed.
Once presentations were over, the teacher told me they were done and hinted it was time for me to leave.

[For each of the AIW standards below, provide an explanation/rationale for the rating. Include an additional explanation if the 2 nd
rater came up with a different score than the primary rater.
Note the consensus score if one was reached.]
Observation: Higher Order Thinking – 4
Students engaged in a newspaper writing activity that called for them to decide whether events in
Boston were a massacre or self-defense. Because students had competing information to pull from in answering this question, they could not simply cut and paste from a single source. The teacher expected students to think historically and to use detail to support their conclusions. The newspaper-writing portion of the class constituted over half of the class time. In a class of 21, 6 students were observed performing HOT – S13, S14, S18, S19, S21, and S1. It can be reasonably assumed that a 7 th
student performed HOT at some point in the lesson. Therefore, the
“many students” portion of score 4 is also met.
Observation: Deep Knowledge – 4
The teacher structured the task such that it focused completely on the Boston Massacre and whether it should be called a “massacre” of colonists or “self-defense” on the part of the British soldiers stationed there. The teacher provided students with two competing views on these events – the textbook which appeared to blame the British and honor the colonists and a History
Channel film which questioned long held views on the innocence of the colonists. Within their groups, students sustained a focus on this question. The topic itself is important because the
Boston Massacre became a tipping point for the American Revolution. Finally, throughout their discussions, students demonstrated their understanding of the complexity of interpreting the events of the Boston Massacre. So much so, that they often proved incapable of making a decision between those competing claims.
Observation: Substantive Conversation - 4
All features of substantive conversation were observed during group work, particularly in the initial stages when groups were trying to decide if events in Boston were a massacre or selfdefense. Group 6’s interactions best typify substantive conversations. Student talk was on subject matter (feature #1) throughout my observation of Group 6 and included examples of
HOT – students raised questions of one another, made distinctions when they disagreed with a point, and tried to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. The conversation did involve sharing and was not scripted (feature #2). One student for example, changed his view in the middle of the conversation. Students most definitely responded to each other – refuting facts or asking for clarification. Finally, the dialogue did build coherently although students were unable to summarize their final conclusion. Coherent building can be seen as students moved from an initial conclusion based on personal view to a more nuanced view of the problem. The difficulty in scoring comes with the “many” criteria for score 4. Group six contained four students. I believe it can be reasonably assumed that I would have recorded similar conversations in other groups had I been there for the initial discussion. As a result, I argue that the “many” strand was met and that at least 3 other students were likely to have engaged in similar conversations.

Observation: Connectedness to Real World – 1
The teacher did not make an effort to connect the classroom activity – Whether events in Boston were a massacre or self-defense – to anything beyond the classroom itself so a score of 2 cannot be given. The teacher could have argued, for example, that deciding what happened and who is to blame is an important civic skill especially when evidence is fragmentary. She might have also argued that events often quickly unravel into war and that understanding the initial hostilities is important for preventing future wars. No such justifications, however, were provided.
Task: Construction of Knowledge – 3
The task specifically called for students to interpret complex historical accounts in order to decide who was to blame for the Boston Massacre. The task required students to examine competing claims about these events and to read for subtext in making their decision.
Task: Elaborated Communication – 4
The task called for students to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about whether events in Boston were a massacre or self-defense. To do this well, students had to address “who, what, when, where, and why” of these events but do so in a persuasive manner. Throughout the group work, the teacher pressed students for additional details and examples. During group presentations, students who did well offered numerous reasons for their interpretations.
Task: Connection to Students’ Lives – 2
Writing a newspaper article that takes a position on a controversial even resembles something students might do in their future lives. In fact, several students during the observation seemed concerned about writing in a way that resembled an actual contemporary newspaper. The connections in the content area, however, were not immediately apparent. Students are not asked, for example, to connect events of the Boston Massacre to their lives or the act of newspaper writing to their lives.