Week 12 Community History Workshop: Three Roads in One Display

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A heritage display is a small record of how a community wants to be remembered, and what a display leaves out matters as much as what it shows. This week you learned that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the national-origins quotas, that students coined the term Asian American in 1968 to join communities with different histories, that the model-minority image is a stereotype the field critiques, that the Refugee Act of 1980 defined a refugee, and that Native Hawaiians became part of the United States when it annexed their islands in 1898 and received an apology in 1993. In this workshop you code an illustrative ten-caption display by road, count and compare the codes, set two government apologies side by side across two groups, catch a chatbot folding three roads into one story, and reflect on what your own position lets you see.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which of this week's roads (immigration, refuge, movement, and annexation) show up in one heritage display, how are they shared across the ten captions, and what can one display not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative heritage display of ten captions at a public library

Source: A ten-caption heritage display from a public library, written for this workshop as an illustrative example; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real library, family, or person, and names nobody.

• Rows: 10 captions, one row each in the data table
• Columns: caption number, what the caption describes, and two blank columns for your code and your dated link
• Scope: one display at one illustrative library

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A notebook or any free note-taking app for reading a record and for oral-history notes (identified by role and decade, never by name); a free spreadsheet for the lending table's rates and gaps and for any year-stamped figure; any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline, for the law-and-case timeline; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real people, laws, and dates the student checks against an issuing-body or primary source before trusting them
• a free spreadsheet
• any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline
• a notebook or any free note-taking app
• one approved chatbot

Ways of working

• read-the-record
• oral-history
• compare-and-connect

Procedure

1. Read the ten captions in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative display, built for this workshop, from a public library; no real library, family, or person is described, and people appear only by role. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: You can say in one sentence what the display shows and that it is illustrative.
2. Give each caption one code: I for immigration under the 1965 law, R for refuge and the 1980 law, M for the 1968 movement and the term Asian American, H for Native Hawaiian history and the federal category, or S for a stereotype to examine. Write the code in the data table's code column, and in the last column write the dated law, event, or decade the caption connects to. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every one of the ten rows carries one code and one dated link.
3. Open a blank sheet. Type Caption, Code, and Dated link in cells A1 to C1, enter your ten rows in rows 2 to 11, then count each code with =COUNTIF(B2:B11,"I") and the same formula for R, M, H, and S. Tool: a free spreadsheet. Check: The five counts add up to 10, the number of captions.
4. Turn each count into a percent of all captions: divide the count by 10 and multiply by 100. Then find the gap, in percentage points, between your largest and smallest percents, and write each step in the count table. Tool: a free spreadsheet. Check: The five percents add up to 100, and the gap is written in percentage points.
5. Draw the law-and-case timeline from 1893 to the 2000s and mark 1893, 1898, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1988, 1993, and 1997. Place one caption from each code beside the year it connects to. Tool: any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline. Check: Each code's caption sits beside its year or decade on the timeline.
6. Complete the comparison table: set the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which apologized for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, beside the 1993 apology to Native Hawaiians, using only the dated facts the course gives, and work each gap from the wrong to the apology. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every row of the comparison table is filled for both apologies.
7. Paste your coding table into one approved chatbot, then paste the Part 6 prompt. Check every claim it makes about a real person, law, or date against the chapter's dated record before trusting it, or take the equivalent route instead. Tool: one approved chatbot. Check: You have quoted at least three chatbot claims and corrected at least three by hand.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet or timeline tool is available.

Code and count the captions by hand from the data table: mark one code beside each caption, count each mark, divide each count by 10, and multiply by 100. Draw the timeline by hand on paper, complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: ten captions from an illustrative heritage display at a public library, with two columns for your work.

Student scaffold table 1

Caption	What the caption describes	Your code (I, R, M, H, or S)	Dated law, event, or decade it connects to
1	A nursing-school diploma that a nurse carried on coming alone in 1972 to work at a hospital.
2	A sponsorship letter a family kept, written when one relative sponsored a sister to join the family here.
3	An identification card from a refugee camp, kept by a family that waited two years before resettlement.
4	A church bulletin welcoming a newly resettled Southeast Asian family to a small town in the early 1980s.
5	A campus button reading Asian American Political Alliance, kept by a student from 1968.
6	A flyer from a 1969 campus strike that pressed for ethnic studies.
7	A copy of the 1898 joint resolution annexing the Hawaiian Islands, kept in a Native Hawaiian family's papers.
8	A printed copy of the 1993 apology resolution, kept in the same family's papers.
9	A census form from the 2000s with its own box for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
10	A magazine page from 1966 that praises one community as a success story to hold up to others.

Count each code, turn each count into a percent of the ten captions, and name the year each code connects to.

Student scaffold table 2

Code	Count	Percent of all captions	Year or decade it connects to
I — immigration under the 1965 law
R — refuge and the 1980 law
M — the 1968 movement and the term
H — Native Hawaiian history and the federal category
S — a stereotype to examine
All captions	10	100

Compare two apologies on the course's apology, redress, and return thread, using only the dated facts the course gives.

Student scaffold table 3

Question	The Civil Liberties Act of 1988	The 1993 apology to Native Hawaiians
Who apologized, and in what form
To whom, and for what wrong
What came with the apology
Years from the wrong to the apology

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your sheet or a hand count, how many captions carry each code, what percent of all captions is each, and what is the gap between your largest and smallest percents, in percentage points? Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
2. Compare captions 1 and 2 with captions 3 and 4. What different roads do the two pairs show, and which law of 1965 or 1980 does each pair connect to?
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain why captions 7, 8, and 9 do not belong to an immigration story, naming the dated events they connect to and the line between immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples.
4. Using your comparison table, set the 1988 apology beside the 1993 apology. In 3–4 sentences, say what the two share, one difference in what came with each, and what caption 10 would need to change before it could stand in the same display without carrying a stereotype.
5. Positionality memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) What about your own background (where you grew up, the languages you speak, how your family answers where are you from) shaped which captions seemed familiar to you and which stood out? (b) What can an illustrative display not tell you about the families whose objects it shows, and which dated record or consenting interview would you need to check it?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed coding table above. It codes ten captions from an illustrative heritage display at a public library, built for a class activity; it describes no real library, family, or person. In about 200 words, please do six things. First, summarize what the display shows about what Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are like and how they came to the United States. Second, say what the 1965 immigration law did, and in what years the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown and annexed. Third, say whether the 1893 overthrow had good and bad sides, staying neutral. Fourth, explain whether Asian American is a race, a nationality, or an ethnicity, and whether the 1997 census category Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander is a biological group. Fifth, give one quotation from a founder of the 1968 Asian American Political Alliance and one figure for how many refugees came after 1975. Sixth, tell me what the government now owes Native Hawaiians.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often sum up the display as one Asian American and Pacific Islander story of arriving and succeeding.
• A chatbot may explain caption 10 by agreeing that the community really is a model for others because of its hard work.
• Asked for a quotation, a chatbot will often invent a line for a student founder of the 1968 alliance or a figure for how many refugees came.
• A chatbot may write that Native Hawaiians were the islands' original people before they disappeared into the general population.
• A chatbot may say the 1893 overthrow had pros and cons because it brought the islands into the United States.
• Asked about the apology, a chatbot may announce what the government now owes Native Hawaiians as if that were decided.
• Chatbots commonly say the 1965 law opened immigration only for Asians, or date the overthrow to 1898.
• A chatbot may call the 1968 students Orientals, an outdated term, as if it were current.
• Chatbots often call Asian American a nationality, a race, and an ethnicity at once.
• A chatbot may say the 1997 split created a new race that the census discovered.
• A balanced-sounding summary may say the display celebrates immigrant success while a few people complain about labels.

In 3–5 sentences, quote at least three things the chatbot wrote, say what it got right, and correct at least three of its errors by hand, naming for each the dated record or course definition you checked it against.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 7 and Objective 3) for comparable effort, about 30 of the 90 minutes, under the same scoring criteria and the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "This display shows that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders share one story: they all came as immigrants and succeeded through hard work, which makes them a model for every other group. As a founder of the 1968 alliance famously said, 'We came to show America how it is done,' and about 2 million refugees came after 1975. Native Hawaiians were the islands' first people before they faded into the population. The 1893 overthrow had good and bad sides, since it brought Hawaii into the country. Since the 1993 apology, the government's debt to Native Hawaiians is settled. The 1965 law opened the door for Asian immigrants only, and the kingdom was overthrown in 1898. The 1968 students were proud Orientals. Asian American is a race, a nationality, and an ethnicity all at once. In 1997 the census discovered a new race, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. To stay neutral: the display mostly celebrates success, though a few people complain about labels." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (many communities read as one uniform experience, a stereotype stated as fact, an invented quotation and figure, Native Hawaiians described as gone, a documented injustice framed as both sides, a current question declared settled, a law and a date misstated, an outdated term used without comment, race, nationality, and ethnicity used as one thing, a federal category read as biology, and a neutral-sounding summary that quietly takes a side), and correct at least three errors by hand, naming the dated record or course definition behind each correction. Submit the marked-up analysis in place of the chatbot report and share link; it earns the same credit.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed data table with your codes and dated links
• The completed count table and comparison table
• Your hand-drawn or tool-made timeline with one caption placed for each code
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your positionality memo
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Community History Workshop report on an illustrative heritage display: the completed data table with your codes and dated links, the count and comparison tables, a timeline with one caption placed for each code, written answers to five analysis questions including a positionality memo, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same display, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Coding the display and counting the codes	Every caption carries a defensible code, the five counts add to ten, each percent is correct with its division shown, and the gap is given in percentage points.	The codes or counts are attempted but one count or percent is wrong or unshown, the gap is missing or given in percent, or several captions lack a code.	No codes, counts, or percents appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Placing the captions in time and reading them in the field's terms	Each code is tied to its correct dated law, event, or decade on the timeline, captions 1 to 4 are read as two different roads, and captions 7, 8, and 9 are read as Native Hawaiian history rather than immigration.	The timeline or readings are attempted, but a date is wrong, a reading is thin, or Native Hawaiians are folded into an immigration story.	No timeline or reading of the captions appears.
A documented comparison across groups	The comparison table is complete with dated facts for both apologies, and the answer names what they share, one difference in what came with each, and what caption 10 would need to change.	The table or answer is attempted but a row is empty, a fact is undated, or the comparison stops at listing.	No comparison appears.
The AI slip caught and corrected	Through the chatbot report with its share link or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, equally, at least three quoted errors are each named and corrected by hand against the dated record or a course definition.	Through either route, equally, one or two errors are corrected, or corrections lack the record or definition behind them.	Through either route, equally, no critique appears, or model output is pasted without any checking.
An honest reflection on positionality	The memo answers one of the two options in specific terms, naming what the student's own position let them see or miss, or naming the record or consenting interview that would check the display.	The memo answers an option in general terms without a specific example.	No memo appears.

Quality Gate

• Every count and percent comes from your own sheet or hand count of the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
• Each count divided by 10 and multiplied by 100 equals the percent you report for it, and the gap between two percents is reported in percentage points.
• Every group is named as its members most commonly name themselves, Native Hawaiians are named as their own group, every person in the display is named only by role, and every date matches the chapter's dated record.
• No law, date, quotation, statistic, or detail about any real person or community is invented anywhere in the submission, and no stereotype is stated as a fact.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from the chapter or Part 6.