“I wanted to go to war and I did go”: an investigation of Civil War primary sources and United States history textbooks

In this study, I examined the presentation of the Civil War within U.S. history textbooks and primary sources. The textbook has been a significant element of the history curriculum (Apple, 2009; Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991). However, it is problematic to expect that these books alone are enough to achieve educational goals. Primary source use in classrooms has become increasingly important. When used properly, these sources engage students and help them develop critical thinking skills and historical empathy. I used a research design that relied upon a combination of materials to attain a representative sample, using major history textbooks and primary sources produced by and for eight demographics of people. The end goal was to determine if the “lived” experiences of primary source subjects aligned with the portrayal of experiences of similar demographics in the textbooks. This study included the creation of an evaluation instrument (Appendix A) to analyze and interpret narrative features and themes. From my analysis, there was evidence that Civil War primary source documents and U.S. history textbooks’ chapters on the Civil War represent the nature of war differently. Although primary source sets and textbooks contained some of the same content, the textbooks were organized chronologically around major themes that emphasized shallow content coverage and generally, authors neglected or only superficially addressed events or people that might have been relevant to students. The problem of covering a large, complex topic in a small space was evident throughout. War was presented chiefly through battles, impacted or noticed mostly by well-known men. Few paragraphs prompted questions about the morality, conduct, or nature of war. Although they presented many facts, they did not engage students with content in a lively way or through multiple and complex perspectives. The textbooks were relentlessly neutral in that they rarely made any value judgements that weren’t obvious. The primary source documents humanized the war in a way the textbooks did not, and conveyed details about gender, race, and social and economic positions of regular people, including charming anecdotes and relatable circumstances. They contained often-overlooked perspectives about conflicts and demonstrated that the war greatly impacted all segments of society. They showed there were profound and complicated social, economic, and political repercussions to the Civil War

Past possible paths

Grazed: A shy expatriate woman in Paris desires connection, but finds that when she reaches out for it, it’s not what she expected. Ailments: A recent college grad takes up work with an aging man who is trying to sell off his comic books, the last treasure of his life, but as their relationship progresses, she is forced to ask herself some questions about what it means to care for someone. Misbegotten: A young woman in an unsuccessful relationship struggles through multiple pregnancies and complications, forcing herself to question her place in life, and the situation she’s found herself in. Model Day: A man with a very particular way of seeing the world loses his sister and caretaker to a bicycle accident, and he has to navigate a photo shoot with a model who was scheduled to arrive at his home that day

CTSA Consortium Consensus Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Working Group Report on the SRC Processes

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided