I think that primary sources could be really neat to tie into social studies lessons. For instance, you could use a journal entry recounting an event from someone as a primary source, and then learn about that event and have students write what it would be like if they lived through that event. To tie in culturally relevant pedagogy, I think it would be creative to use a journal entry from someone in history discussing a tradition or important part of their culture, and then students in the class can write their own journal entries about their own culture and an important tradition or aspect of it.
Educational information, activities and resources for educators, families, and students. Educational materials emphasize inquiry based learning with primary sources and museum collections. Smithsonian visit planning for educators, students and families.
This site is an incredible resource for a teacher involved in any discipline.
In this age of increasing cutbacks in school funding, it is rare for students to be able to take field trips to museums. Thus, it is more important than ever to take advantage of virtual field trips where students can be exposed to primary sources and museum collections without leaving the classroom.
There are so many treasures within this site, but one I use frequently is the "Educators" section. Here, you will find all the information needed to make history come alive for your students. It is quite remarkable and well worth a visit!
This site has units and lesson plans on: Lewis and Clark preparing for the trip, politics, mapping, women, animals, language, trade and property, plants. There is a section on exploring and using primary and secondary sources.
"There are 2 (and only 2) primary sources for the events of autumn 1621 in Plymouth :
Edward Winslow writing in Mourt's Relation and William Bradford writing in
Of Plymouth Plantation"
How do we contextualize this for learners today? If this primary source is accurate, how can they understand that a government agency was actively unsupportive of MLK? If a government agency was against MLK in 1964, what might a government agency might not be supportive of today that will be similarly shocking to us in forty years?