As I reflect back on our two weeks in New York it is hard to pinpoint just one activity or site that would stand out as my favorite. There were bits and pieces from almost every place we went that combine into a very useful, resourceful adventure.
One of the most beneficial aspects of being able to travel with a group like this is the contacts you make. Not only with the people you travel with but with the presenters, education coordinators and museum docents. This creates a very eminence network of collaboration and resources. You learn about so many available resources that are free to educators. We were quite lucky on this trip and received some phenomenal resources from Ellis Island, the New York Historical Society and the Museum of the City of New York. Also having links to their collections and expertise via the internet is like being given a pot of gold.
If I was forced to choose I would have to say the information and lessons we were given in regard to the object based learning will be the most beneficial for me. Even though it is a rather simple concept, it adds another dimension to document based questions and primary sources. You don’t always have to use printed material as a primary source; objects can be primary sources too!
Of the places we visited I would have to put the New York Historical Society, Ellis Island, the William Seward House, Sagamore Hill, the Tenement Museum and the Erie Canal at the top of my list. They are all different types of venues and were all very useful.
There is one thing that is troubling to me after this trip. The majority of the places we visited (in regard to historical sites) are usually not the original buildings or have been altered in such a way as to make them nothing like the “historical” site you really wanted to see. For example, Federal Hall. I had been to New York five times prior to this trip and had never visited Federal Hall. I was very excited to stand in the place where George Washington was sworn in as the first President of this great nation. Then I find out that the building that is there is not the original building. The original was completely torn down! Another example is Fort Ticonderoga. Obviously seeing a fully built fort lends to the display of what the fort probably looked like, but the fort we visited is not the actual “ruins” of the place. Another such place would be the Wesleyan Chapel where the first Women’s Rights Convention occurred. So this brings up the question; is it better to recreate these venues in order to show what the original houses, buildings, etc. probably looked like? Or would it be better from a historical perspective to keep the ruined or damaged facilities in their run down state (maintaining them as best as possible) and rebuild a replica in an adjacent area? What affect does the recreation have on the historical value of the area?
If you look at the main blog page and look at all the posts in response to the question about what our favorite site on June 15th was, the majority of the responses are the Seward House. The reasons given are because it was original, without replicated furniture, etc. It was more real because the family really lived in that place with the furnishings that are there. We know that it went from a house to a museum without being torn down, turned into a rental, etc.
Lesson Plan - I believe that I am going to create a unit on bridges, using the Brooklyn Bridge and its history as the main example. I will include vocabulary, information on Roman arches and how they are incorporated into bridges, we will create several different designs/structures and possibly even a field trip to the site of a bridge being built. (The 4th street bridge would be a good example) I purchased a book from the Museum of the City of New York about bridges. When I was making the purchase EY commented that they have a whole unit that they did on bridges, so I will be contacting her and picking her brain to see what they have done and how it could tie into my plan.
Filed under: Uncategorized
