Up to this point, the teacher primarily prompts students to identify main ideas in the second document, but here the teacher asks evaluative questions: Do you believe them? Do you believe Jackson? Do you think his motives are pure? Students almost unanimously say ‘no’ and the teacher begins to elicit students’ reasoning, explicitly prompting students to build on one another’s ideas (e.g., @ 7:09 do you agree?) 

The teacher directs students’ attention to the documents, to identify evidence that they might use to back their claims. 

What’s notable in this clip is how thoughtful the students are in their analysis of President Jackson’s and Elias Boudinot’s motivations. @9:30 One student questions President Jackson’s sincerity when he claims that the government is being generous to the Cherokee. The student picks up on Jackson asking “How many of our people would love to have that given to them?" and responds, assuming the perspective of the Cherokee, “well just give it to them and we can still be safe in our land.”

The teacher then asked whether students found Boudinot believable and several students were conflicted. Because Boudinot is Cherokee, students assume he has the Cherokees’ best interests in mind. But students wonder why he would have supported Indian Removal (“he says that he wants them to leave, but he also wants to give them special treatment somewhere else. So it's kind of like you don't really know if you should believe him”). As it happens, the majority of Cherokee opposed Indian Removal and Boudinot was ultimately assassinated for his betrayal. That students began to discern the conflicted nature of his position in such a short time is quite impressive.