Materials & Prep
- Project or print Arthur Rothstein’s photograph Dust Storm, Cimarron County, Oklahoma (April 1936) and Dorothea Lange’s photograph Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California (March 1936), both available through the Library of Congress.
- Prepare a source packet with those photographs, a located excerpt from Soil Erosion: A National Menace by Hugh H. Bennett and W. R. Chapline, U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular No. 33 (1928), and two short oral-history excerpts from the Library of Congress collection Voices from the Dust Bowl: The Charles L. Todd and Robert Sonkin Migrant Workers Collection, 1940–1941. Include each source’s title, creator, date, location, and original purpose.
- Copy a source-analysis organizer with columns for observation, context and purpose, evidence, cause or consequence, and inference. Put the question “How did this factor affect people?” at the bottom.
Opening puzzle
DisplayShow Rothstein’s Dust Storm without its title or caption. Ask students to commit in writing: “Which was the main cause of the Dust Bowl: drought, farming practices, or economic pressure? Choose one and give one reason.” Do not correct answers yet.
ConnectHave students recall, from memory, one feature of the Great Depression that could have made a farming crisis worse for families. Accept brief written responses, then take two or three possibilities.
Ask“What would have to be true for a drought to become a disaster that removes soil, destroys farms, and forces families to move?” Tell students they will test their predictions against photographs, government evidence, and migrants’ own accounts.
Source investigation
ModelUsing Rothstein’s photograph, think aloud: “I can observe soil or dust moving across the landscape, but I cannot conclude from the image alone that drought caused it. I need the date, place, and another source. The photographer also chose what to include in the frame, so this is evidence of conditions, not a neutral picture of everything happening.” Model recording one observation, one contextual question, and one cautious inference on the organizer.
ExplainEstablish the causal chain students will investigate: drought reduced moisture, intensive cultivation left exposed soil, strong winds carried that soil, and economic pressure encouraged farmers to keep planting or remain on vulnerable land. Emphasize that no single factor explains the whole crisis.
StudentsIn pairs, analyze the USDA source and Lange’s photograph. For each, record one piece of evidence, identify whether it helps explain a cause or a consequence, and write one question the source cannot answer.
ScaffoldProvide this sentence frame for students who need a clear entry point: “The source shows . Because the source was created by in for , it suggests ; however, it cannot prove .” Students may first label evidence as environmental, agricultural, economic, health, or migration before writing a full inference.
Check for understandingAsk pairs to answer without notes: “Would drought alone create the same level of soil erosion if the land were covered by native grass?” Require students to use either Rothstein’s photograph or the USDA source in their response. Listen for the idea that drought interacted with exposed soil and wind.
Evidence jigsaw
StudentsForm groups of four. Assign each student one source: Rothstein’s photograph, Lange’s photograph, the USDA excerpt, or an oral-history excerpt from Voices from the Dust Bowl. Students explain their source to the group using this sequence: what it shows or says, who created it and why, what it reveals about causes or consequences, and what its perspective leaves out.
ConfrontAsk groups to revisit the opening choice. If a student originally selected drought as the single main cause, the student must now revise the claim to show the interaction among drought, farming practices, and economic pressure. If the student selected another factor, the student must explain why that factor still depended on environmental conditions and affected people through specific consequences.
Discuss“Which source best explains why the disaster happened, and which best communicates what the disaster felt like for people? Can one source do both jobs equally well?” Groups must cite a detail from at least two sources.
ExtensionStudents ready for a deeper challenge should rank the three contributing causes from most to least important and defend the ranking with two different types of evidence, while acknowledging one limitation in their evidence.
Synthesis and argument
DisplayWrite the claim prompt: “The Dust Bowl became a human disaster because .” Require students to include at least two connected causes and two consequences for people who lived through it.
Think aloudDemonstrate the difference between a list and an explanation. “Drought, erosion, and migration” is only a list. A stronger explanation shows the relationship: drought and intensive cultivation left soil exposed, winds removed that soil, and farm losses and economic pressure contributed to migration. The common mistake is to name consequences without explaining how the causes produced them.
WriteStudents independently draft a four-sentence response using evidence from at least three sources. They must include one environmental or agricultural cause, one economic cause or condition, and two consequences such as displacement, health problems, poverty, family disruption, or federal intervention. They must identify one source’s perspective or limitation.
CirculateLook for evidence that students distinguish observation from inference and cause from consequence. Prompt students who are listing facts with “What changed for people because of that condition?”
Closing check
Exit ticketAnswer both questions in a focused paragraph. “What combination of factors caused the Dust Bowl?” and “What was one major consequence for people who lived through it?” Include one specific piece of evidence from a photograph and one from a written or recorded source. End by naming whether your original opening prediction changed and why.
Collect the exit tickets. A complete response explains an interaction among at least two causes, identifies a concrete consequence for people, and uses evidence accurately rather than treating a source as neutral fact.