9+Apr+10+MHTC+Session+5+Log

Each member responded to Neil and Nicole about what we learned from their classroom investigation on content learning. Responses were posted on their wiki page Trace shared her response to Neil. It was a writing on the “boodidley”. The writing intentionally made no sense and was not in English. Even though we could not understand what it said, most of us where able to do the knowledge questions and the lower level questions of Bloom. But as we went to higher levels of thinking such as comprehension… it was impossible to do this. Most tests stay in the knowledge level so a good question for standardized testing is, does a passing score reflect any real learning of a concept? Paulette presented her content work. Although an elementary teacher so she is very interdisciplinary, her work focused on Social Studies. Her studies were funded through an American History Grant NYS, through Ulster BOOCES. She teaches third grade classifies most of her students as readers. So reading at this level is focused on reading to learn as opposed to learning to read. She begins her unit in social studies by pre-introducing vocabulary. The purpose of this is to provide various exposure of v vocabulary words to her students. She then uses a number of books to introduce content to the students. These books include: Content Literature; Reading Strategies Lessons, Social Studies Strategies, and Primary Source Documents. The books are used to present the material, and create background knowledge that will help student comprehension. This is a long process. She does it over the course of the entire academic school year. She also uses film clips to help build background knowledge. The reading prepares the students so they can decipher primary source documents. As a class the students make observations and create conclusions about what the documents are telling about a period of history. Once this is done students individually make inferences about what the history is teaching. To facilitate the primary source document reading, the class does “accountable talk” about documents. For this they discuss what they notice, and point out words that are confusing or difficult. Our team discussed the noticing technique as a good reading strategy and wondered if it was included in the book we are reading. To assess the learning the students write a reflection. The students are directed to stay with text in their reflections and not just write about general knowledge. To facilitate the reflection writing she has the students complete a three column worksheet after reading the primary source document. The first column has the students record their observation/noticing. In the second column they record their inferences and conclusions (they do this as a group) and the last column records their reflections/interpretation. They do the last column on their own. This is used as part of their comprehension assessment. We noticed that the student work showed most of the writing in the conclusion involved higher level of thinking than just knowledge. Once the sttudents read and wrote about the primary source documents, they looked at a political comic and made connections to their learning and the document. Pictures showed different concepts that she wanted students to write consider. For example pictures were statements about women voting. These comics and primary source documents are available at various websites. Eric noticed that the work seems to ask the question, “what is relationship to prior knowledge and reading.” It provides for good research concerning the impact of prior knowledge on reading and how to keep the two separate. Jack reflected that picture books provide a good mechanism to make overt connections between history text and the outside world. Trace began to question how it is possible to analyze documents without using prior knowledge. This type of writring forces students to stay with the text and use only relevant information in their discussion. Laura saw a strong connection between this and science writing that must stick to data inspite of the scientist’s beliefs or prior knowledge. It is very difficult it is to do this as either a student or a professional. Eric discussed how Paulette’s model is a good schema to teach students so they can use it when analyzing a document. Paulette noted that she found a tension between writing from a text and using prior knowledge to help the writing. Many noted that tests tend to limit points for using background knowledge in an attempt to level the playing field for those that do not have the knowledge but do have the skills to learn the material once exposed to it. Paulette’s research highlights the relationship about building and creating prior knowledge to help learn content but then being able to set aside the knowledge when analyzing a document. Tom noted that this tension is found in many subjects not just Social Studies. Nicole noted that science texts have a lot of diagrams included that must be used in student answers but most students skip them and instead write mainly from background knowledge rather than sticking with the material presented. Paulette stressed that tests are snapshots of student knowledge. Teachers need to build interpreting and writing skills so they can master the test. Test writing is just one genre of writing. Students need opportunities to write for a test and still write for other reasons such as making connections and inferences. She also stressed that this type of knowledge building requires a lot of work from the teacher and they must be careful about selecting books that accurately portray the history. Ellen noted that the work done to build the background knowledge, provided students with the language they will need later when trying to read and interpret a primary source document. Paulette noted that graphic organizers, timeline and charts are used to help students process their reading. She also uses role playing to learn. She found pictures help students make connections. This type of teaching helps students see social studies as inquiry rather than facts to be memorized. We responded to Paulette’s work on our wiki page and discussed what we want to do more of in the future.
 * SESSION # **: 5 (April 9, 2010)
 * Reflections: **
 * New Work: **

Next Steps: - We discussed our last meeting which will occur at the HVWP Saturday seminar. The seminar is focused on using technology as learning tool. This idea came up frequently in our content area research so it will be a good place to see different techniques that involve technology. - We discussed how to keep the content learning conversation going in the future. Ellen felt that face to face meeting is important. Sharing on the wiki wouldn’t be enough because without the group meetings, she didn’t visit the site. A blog would not fix that. We lose the connection that our meetings built. - All felt the text was important. It provided a good spring board for discussion, reflections, and interpretation. - The technology piece that spontaneously arose from the group was also found to bevery valuable. It helped push members into investigating new technology and provided a safe environment to discuss and learn about it. The group made members feel saft to experiment with unfamiliar techniques and technology. - Eric was challenged by Ellen’s and Sarah’s work to try out the flip camera. He still has it and will return it to MHTC for the group. All who used the camera felt it was a good tool but was very limited due to the poor quality of the microphone. - Trace encouraged members to think about what they learned by developing a professional article. - The nonHVWP members want to be kept on a mailing list of future HVWP offerings. All were open to sponsoring a professional development highlighting what they studied with the team. - Kristen alerted the team to the upcoming Brewster Writing Institute. It will occur around June 5 and will involve studying and sharing writing work amongst K-12 teachers. Each day will be devoted to a different part of writing process. Trace will forward the announcement as it comes from the HVWP. - All like the composition of the group. Having cross content members helped the learning.