This week’s reading on inquiry units and book clubs complimented
each other well. As D&Z’s outline of each method show, both put the teacher
in a more facilitator role, allow for choice, encourage critical thinking, and utilize
small group work. Furthermore, and apparently incredibly important, is that
both can be assessed! I says this portion was critical to the authors because
they decided to spend about fourth of Chapter 9 discussing just how to develop
assessment methods and then revisited the topic once again in Chapter 10
(210-215, 227-229). I was tempted to focus solely on assessment as it is the
subject of our next class. However, I decided to start analyzing the concept of
“big ideas” again precisely because we will do a fair job discussing assessment
next class.
“Big ideas” is a
topic we covered through the UBD material so I though chapter 10 would be a reiteration
of concepts I already understood, but I was wrong. During the UBD reading I
kept thinking that the big idea was literally a large concept, which lead me to
think of historical questions on the national level. The examples given in the
essential questions section reinforced my thought process, especially when the
author asked “’When should the United States go to war?’” (77). However, D&Z’s
Chapter 10 really showed me how big ideas could actually be on a smaller scale.
On page 225 right next to the chapter title “Inquiry Units: Exploring Big
Ideas” is a chart entitled “Kinds of Inquiry Project.” Among the list is a
suggestion for the students to explore “their family history.” As much as I
like reading about national history most individuals (myself included) will
never make an impact at this level. That is fine though, because people can
still make a difference in their town, state, neighborhood, school, family,
etc. Yet when I think of a typical social studies class, lessons and projects
encouraging individual engagement in the community (also known as civics) is
typically missing. Just think of our observations of CF, there are no civics
electives. While I realize history isn’t quite high on the priority list in the
education world, especially since RI only requires students take 2 years of the
subject, I wondered why schools don’t try to make the most of engagement during
the short time history classes are mandated.
A Google search lead me to a civics fact sheet (see below)
which indicates that most states have civic standards embedded somewhere within
other subjects that are often not included on state assessments. Rhode Island turns
out to fall among most states, yet it looks like our standards are more clearly
outlined (see below standards). Apparently, between 2008 and 2011 a civic specialist
wrote a whole section of civic standards. Many of them specifically mention local
level history too! However, I put my
excitement on hold because something doesn’t add up. So why create something so
detailed and time consuming, but then never actually require it? According to
one article, it is because of budgeting issues. The Department of Ed fired the
specialist, which we all know occurred as this was the transition to the common
core and other assessments (See below story by FairVote.org).
While I am jealous that assessment enables the STEM subjects
to promote curriculum change, at least the standards I want are written into
the Rhode Island education system (and not judged by a group of bureaucrats who
know little about teaching!). As D&Z stressed, you must always justify your
lesson based on the standards you cover, which will be simple now that I
realize the depth of the civic standards in RI. Of even more help is the “back-mapping”
strategy discussed (227). Here you are going backwards in your lesson to see
what standards are incorporated into the lesson. It is like UBD in a sense because
you doing something backward, but with UBD you are designing the lesson instead
of undoing it. So looking at standards using this strategy does give me a leg
to stand on to an extent. However, since I did make the jump to a change in curriculum
rather than a change in instruction methods its seems standards and assessable lessons
aren’t always the paramount issue in regards to creating engaging lessons like
the past two chapters describes. The fact that civics isn’t its own class is
case and point. Other factors like time, money, and administration, and the
STEM craze probably heavily influence the fate of the history curriculum. Yet,
given the problems that accountability creates for people who use inquiry
lessons, would a national test on civics really help a civic class centered
around inquiry? Probably not. So now I am wondering, what local schools
actually have this more engaging philosophy of teaching and which don’t? Better yet, are the schools without civic
classes open to a change in curriculum and teaching instruction eventually?
Links
*These are in the order I mention them above.
No comments:
Post a Comment