Dialogue Journal:
In
Chapter Three of Janet Allen’s Reading History: A Practical Guide to
Improving Literacy the focus is the transfer of knowledge after students
read social studies text. In order to successful read social studies text
students must read, analyze the text, synthesize, apply, and extend their
learning into historical expertise. This process is necessary to demonstrate
literacy in social studies as well. In
this chapter we see some of the same discussion of historical thinking that we
discuss in our Social Studies methods class. For example when Christine’s
classroom analyzes history and how historical information is communicated from
generation to generation (Its historical thinking). However, this chapter
displayed a multitude of methods for students to retain important historical
information. The story mapping is used to outline different historical events. The
most important aspect of the story mapping was for students to list descriptive
points so that once they read over the outline it would trigger historical
thinking. This chapter is full of different outline methods but overall the
same concepts are demonstrated in each method.
In my opinion the
most important part of this chapter and as we become teachers one of the most
important aspects of teaching will be how students transfer knowledge to the
test. As I’ve been told in my CPD, test
grade will be a huge part of our evaluation process as teachers. The one thing
I agree the most with in this piece on transfer of knowledge to testing is that
as teachers we must teach students how to use text supports, how to read maps,
articles, and difficult historical terms. I loved the spotlight that was put on
teaching students to engage with the test and how to decode state test so they
can understand them better. Many students I’ve observed struggle with the
wording of State test questions.
In Chapter Four of
Janet Allen’s Reading History: A Practical Guide to Improving Literacy the
reading was relatively short. This chapter focused on the best way to read
social studies text. The quote that stuck out the most to me was, “As
reflective practitioners, we are constantly assessing the efficacy of our work
with our student in five areas: time, choice, resources, support, and
connections. We examine the needs of our students, the successes and failures
of our plans and the way we ask students to demonstrate their learning” (Pg.
95). I couldn’t agree more with this statement, I think this is the basis of
teaching to a high degree and it’s a huge part of our job description. I would
like to see everyone else’s response to this quote. Agree or disagree and
why? Is constant revision and critiquing
of our lessons realistic? Will there ever be a perfect lesson plan or a perfect
method of teaching student? Will we ever get the results we are shooting
for?
I hope you got some answers to the good questions you posed. I think decoding a state test has merits but not because it is part of teachers' evaluations. It has to be because we think it has merit that students break that code. If we are reflective practitioners - as your quote suggests - and we consider the needs of our students, then we ought to give them those skills for THEM, not for US.
ReplyDelete