Inquiring into Inquiry and the C3 Framework

I am attempting to re-write my third Social Studies unit to be more aligned with the C3 Framework, which has as its core the inquiry "arc": starting with a compelling question, students then explore a variety of source documents to answer the question, and then report out their understanding. It sounds simple enough.

Fortunately for me, the great borrower of others' work, there are lots of C3-aligned resources available for me to access via the internet. One that very neatly fell into my lap was created by Engage NY for their Grade 7 unit on the American Revolution. The compelling question, Was the American Revolution avoidable?, is pretty compelling. It is interesting to ponder whether change was inevitable, and if so, did there have to be a war to make it happen. The supporting questions are also interesting: How did the French and Indian War change British relations with the colonists?, How did British policies inflame tensions in the American colonies?, How did colonial responses inflame tensions?, and What efforts were made to avoid war? This unit comes complete with a variety of primary source documents to examine, formative assessments for each supporting question, a final project that addresses the compelling question, and a suggested informed action step to bring relevancy to the unit. I could just take the unit as is and start implementing it tomorrow. Sweet!

But here's my big question about inquiry: Do students get enough understanding of the content through their constructed responses to the primary source documents? Nowhere in this unit are students reading textbooks or other secondary sources to build background knowledge. Nowhere are they watching live action reconstructions to help them visualize the events. Nowhere are they putting themselves into roles to wrestle with the varying perspectives of the time. 

If I implement the unit as is, I can anticipate that I will be having to fill in a lot of knowledge gaps. I like to think of our brains as having a clothesline of background information in our long-term memory, and new learning gets hung on that line, connecting new learning to old to deepen understanding. Being thrown a bunch of data and newspaper articles and diary entries without the necessary background knowledge means students are trying to formulate concepts without anything to hang the information on, and those unconnected pieces just pile up in a jumble. There could be a lot of disconnections and misconceptions.

I anticipate that some students will easily make the necessary abstract connections and inferences to get the point, and others will just be confused. These are middle schoolers, after all, who are just now developing their abstract thinking brains. Some are there, some are still very concrete thinkers, and everyone else is somewhere in between. I will have to scaffold a lot of the deductive and inductive thinking required. 

I also wonder about motivation. Spending weeks looking at primary source documents to understand history is a historian's work-- I get that. But these are 13-year-olds, and they need a bit more action and excitement. They are immersed in YouTube and Instagram and movies; they play soccer and tag at recess; they sing and play instruments and act in plays. History needs to come alive to be interesting.

CC image from Shelbyhistorysite

So I am adding things to the Engage NY unit. I am adding textbook readings that relate to each supporting question to build their background knowledge. I am adding role play: Patriot, Loyalist, and Neutralist colonists debate their response during this "Road to Revolution" period in Town Hall Meetings. I am adding bits and pieces from History Channel's The Revolution and HBO's John Adams mini-series.

image from wikipedia.org

Maybe this isn't "pure" C3 Framework teaching, but I know my kids and I know what helps them learn. The inquiry arc is still there, the compelling and supporting questions are driving the unit, and they will be wrestling with a lot of primary source documents. But they will also be watching movies, reading background information, and debating a historical perspective in a role play activity. That gives them enough information to build on and deepen content knowledge and makes Social Studies fun and engaging. Both of these things make learning happen.

This is all new to me. If you are experienced in the C3 Framework and see that I am way off base, please help me out in the comment section below. How do you implement the C3 while also making learning complete and motivating for middle schoolers?

Considering the Connotations of Word Choice in Media

CC photo by J. Pohl

My family just returned from a winter break trip to Vietnam. One of our first stops was the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. It's called "War Remnants" because it is filled with the flotsam and jetsam the American military left behind when they retreated, including tanks, helicopters, boats, bombs, shells, and the long-term effects from Agent Orange. The big vehicles fill the outdoor courtyard, while inside the Museum building photographs document the horrors of war. It was very disturbing.

CC photo by J. Pohl

But I'm writing about it here on my blog because it was fascinating to view a world event from the opposite perspective from the one I grew up with. I was a child when the Vietnam War was happening, so it was background noise in my happy-go-lucky existence. I have vague memories, reinforced by movie images no doubt, of soldiers in muddy tropical jungles, of drawing the line between the "good guys" (South Vietnamese) and the "bad guys" (North Vietnamese), and of feeling sad for those families who lost a son to the war. The Museum had American journalists' articles and photographs displayed, with headlines like, "Terrorists captured..." accompanying an image of a small shirtless man with his hands tied behind his back being guided into an open jeep. In my memories, Americans were helping the good guys to defend their country from the bad guys and our soldiers were "heroes", but despite our noble aspirations, we "lost" the war.

photo by peregringo.com

In Vietnam, I heard the war called "The American War," a title that jarred me a little (all "our" wars are named for other places: Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, the Korean War). At the Museum, I read signs that called the Americans "the Imperialists" who fought against the "will of the people". The Vietnamese soldiers were "martyrs". An international war crimes committee declared that the U.S. had committed "genocide" against the Vietnamese people. 

Wow, that was so totally different than what I had been fed as a child.

It made me think about the power of words, the connotations behind the words we hear in the media and how they can so strongly spin an event to be one way or another. The "terrorist" the Americans captured was the "martyr" to the Vietnamese cause. Of course I know that governments and media show bias through their word choice, but it takes a certain amount of cognitive effort to stop and analyze that bias. How often do our students make that effort? Probably close to never.

As we move into the second semester and closer to the U.S. Presidential elections, it seems ever more urgent to teach students to notice bias-laden language in the media. The CCSS includes reading and language standards (R8.4, L8.5, H/SS6-8.6) that specifically address understanding the connotative meanings of words and how they affect meaning. It will mean drawing students' attention to word choice options, the subtleties of meaning behind synonyms, and considering the perspectives of the author and audience. 

Pretty abstract stuff. I'm hoping that with consistent practice, students will begin to internalize this process so that they take their critical lens to any reading or viewing, so that they don't just take things like "good guys" and "bad guys" to heart without considering the spin behind it.

In the Technology Groove with Google

I am totally in the technology groove these days. I love it when technology tools exactly fit the learning need, and especially when one tool just keeps on giving. This has been my experience lately with Google Classroom, Google Documents, and Lucidcharts.

I'm loving Google Classroom. I set up an assignment, I attach documents, and I give each student a copy of the Google doc to use which is already named and put into a folder for the student and me. No longer are Google docs "lost" because they didn't get placed into a folder. No longer do I get shared on 23 "Untitled Documents" or "Fantasy Story" documents without knowing who it belongs to. No longer do I send out a group email with attachments. Everything is organized and right at everyone's fingertips.

Google Docs is my best friend when it comes to formative feedback. For some reason, giving feedback to 46 documents feels much easier than facing a towering stack of 46 paper notebooks. Maybe it's the sheer weight, or the challenge of bad handwriting, or the difficulty of transporting all those bulky notebooks home that make them feel so intimidating. Maybe it's knowing that I have to take the notebooks away from the students to grade them (not quickly), which means they can't use them in the meantime, that feels bad. Google Docs fixes all those problems. I can dip in and out of the documents several times over the course of the unit, looking at draft work, making suggestions, staying on top of who is completing things on time and who is not, lifting everyone's level without taking their tool away from them to do it. 

image from commons.wikimedia.com

My new friend is Lucidcharts. I first asked students to use them in the fantasy reading unit as a way to track ideas across a longer text: character development, character interactions, setting and plot events, how elements interact. I had some kids who took off with this, adding shapes, color and keys to make everything connect:

When we moved from fantasy reading to fantasy writing, and we got to the planning stage, I casually suggested, "You know, a Lucidchart could be a good tool for this work. Or you can use paper, or make a timeline in your notebook document. But whatever way you do it, please make sure you get it into your notebook so I can see it and give you feedback." Many kids loved the Lucidchart idea and eagerly jumped in and even figured out on their own how to embed the chart into the notebook instead of adding a link. Here's one that sort-of blew me away:

I have to give credit here to our fantastic tech integrator who regularly checks in with us and asks, "So what are you guys working on? Are you interested in adding a little tech to that? Here, let me show you this tool..." All of these ideas came from her. I am not a huge techie, but I can learn new tricks from time to time, and with the sophistication that our students bring to these tools, it is becoming easier and easier to bring technology into my lessons.

What technology tools do you use that keep on giving?

Using Technology to Grade Book Club Discussions

My school has taken the plunge into standards-based grading. Well, maybe I should say: my school has waded in up to its ankles into standards-based grading. We are grading and reporting on a small, manageable number of "categories" related to standards rather than each individual standard. For English Language Arts, we've chunked the standards into Reading, Writing, and Speaking & Listening (Language standards are incorporated under Reading and Writing). So far this semester I have given 3 Reading summative assessments, 1 Writing summative, and 0 Speaking & Listening assessments. 

Luckily, we are finishing our novel unit this week, which includes their third Book Club discussion. This seems like a perfect opportunity to grade Speaking & Listening standards! But without "fishbowling" six discussions (and taking 2 or 3 class periods to do so), how can I fairly assess each group? Getting around and listening to six discussions for 5-7 minutes each may not catch the normally quiet student who said all their "good stuff" while I was with another group. 

image from commons.wikimedia.com

Technology to the rescue! Students recorded their first two discussions using either QuickTime or Garage Band, and uploaded the audio file into a shared Google folder. Last year we tried using the Photo Booth app on their Macs, but the resulting video file was too large to upload. We discovered that audio files are smaller and easy to upload, and really it's the audio we want anyway. 

The first two discussions were formative. Students received the Book Club Discussion rubric before they began so they were aware of what would be assessed. As students discussed (and recorded), I walked around and spent a few minutes with about 4 groups. I coded the discussion so I could have a sense of how it was going: NT- New Topic, Add- Added to previous comment, TE- used Text Evidence, I- interruption, etc. 

If things seemed dire, I would interrupt and prompt the group; for example, "I've been sitting here for a few minutes, and I've already heard three new topics. See if you can stick with one discussion thread for longer so you can really dig deep into your ideas." Then I would listen for a few more minutes and see if they could make the correction. In all cases, before I left I would interrupt the discussion and give feedback to the group: "So here is what I heard while I was sitting here: 'A' started a new topic about ___, and then 'B' added on with some interpretation, and then 'C' brought in text evidence. This was a great way to keep the discussion going. I also noticed 'C' kept talking and never let 'D' have a chance. Make sure you are giving everyone equal air time. That's everyone's job to monitor. If you notice someone hasn't talked, be sure to invite them in. If you know you've already said a lot, hold your thought until others have a chance to speak. If you know you haven't said much, make sure your voice is heard-- you have important things to contribute!" When the discussion time was finished, the group rated themselves and others for the four categories of Prepared, Quality of Speaking, Quality of Listening, and Behavior. They then made a group goal for the next discussion. 

During the second discussion, they reviewed their goal, and repeated the process. I made sure I sat with the groups I hadn't seen the first round, and went back to those that had the most trouble previously. Again, groups recorded their discussion, rated themselves and others, and made a goal for their final one.

Now that students have had practice in recording (we had some tech issues to resolve the first time around), are familiar with the rubric because they used it for reflection and goal setting, and have gotten teacher and peer feedback, they should be ready for the final summative discussion. On Monday they will repeat the process just like they did the first two times. I will walk around, but I will not interrupt or give feedback this time. I want this to be independent, but I can also get info about body language, preparation (do they have their books and notebooks with them?), and behavior which the audio recordings may not pick up.  

Then I can sit down with their self-rated rubrics and listen to full discussions from the audio files. I will be able to catch the quiet kid who is reluctant to talk when I am sitting with the group. I can hear the "good stuff" come up and not just judge the bits and pieces I overhear for a few minutes. Technology allows me to be everywhere at once, which means I can grade each student fairly.

How do you grade Book Club discussions?

Just the Right Mentor Text: Bringing the CCSS to Life

As I wrote last week, we changed our novel reading unit into a fantasy unit in order to more neatly implement the Common Core Reading Standards. We are now about half way through it, and I am noticing something big: my kids are finding the ideas in the more rigorous standards to be understandable and applicable to their own novels. Whew! In fact, they are kind-of looking at me like, "What's the big deal?"

Which brought me to another realization: With the right mentor text, complex ideas become comprehensible. OK, this idea is not entirely new to me, but as I venture into these new standards that I have to wrestle with first before I can expect my eighth graders to grasp, having the right text in hand has made a huge difference. 

cover from Amazon.com

We are using Rodman Philbrick's The Last Book in the Universe as our mentor text. Originally, I chose it because: 1) I'd read it a couple of years before and remembered that I enjoyed it, 2) it is a fairly slim novel compared to most YA fantasy and dystopian books these days, and 3) the chapters are short-- between 3 and 6 pages usually, which makes for about a 10-minute read aloud. Then I reread it once we had planned out the revised unit, and all of a sudden, examples of the standards were popping out everywhere! As long as the students found the story engaging, I thought I was golden.

The first chapters of the book take a lot of work. This surprised me because it is leveled at a guided reading level W and a Lexile of 740-- for our kids, this indicated a pretty easy read. But what neither of those levels reflect is all the contextualizing students have to do with both setting and dialect. Told from the main character, Spaz's, first person point of view, Philbrick uses a lot of slang terms as he describes his dystopian world: he lives in the "Urb" which is ruled by "Bangers" and people escape from reality by "probing", but there is another utopian place called "Eden" where the "prooves" live. Hoo boy! Fortunately, Philbrick is very good about explaining new words through context or direct definitions. And fortunately for teaching the CCSS literature and language standards, this is the exact kind of work we need to be doing: analyzing the author's use of word choice, including connotations, allusions, and figurative language, to create meaning and tone.

The Last Book in the Universe focuses on two main characters: Spaz, a 14-year-old homeless orphan living under the protection of one of the ruling gangs, and Ryter, an old "gummy" who lives near "the Edge" and owns nothing but a stack of papers that constitute the book he is writing. They strike a classic friendship of mentor and mentee as they go on a quest to visit Spaz's foster sister before she dies. Philbrick writes the dialogue for these two characters in contrasting ways; while Spaz uses a lot of street slang and short sentences, Ryter uses complete, complex sentences with academic words and literary allusions. This is perfect for the CCSS standard for examining how dialogue reveals characters, moves the plot forward, and provokes decisions. Their roles and the plot structure also fit nicely into the standard that examines how contemporary literature uses archetypes from traditional literature and "renders them new." We had a lively discussion yesterday about who the hero, mentor, innocent youth, and villain were in the story, as well as the archetype of situations such as The Fall and The Quest. 

But the best part of using this book as the mentor text? "Are we going to have read aloud today, Ms. Pohl?" "Can we gather in the reading corner?" "Will we finish this book? Please?" And when my answer is "Yes" to any and all of those, I hear a resounding, "Yessssssss!!!" back. 

Despite my interruptions for think alouds and turn-and-talks, my students are hanging on every word, analyzing as well as enjoying, empathizing for the characters and making predictions. Through modeling and active engagement using The Last Book in the Universe, students are seeing how the abstract ideas of purposeful author's craft and language analysis work, and then they apply them to their own fantasy novels. Having just the right mentor text has brought the standards to life!