Classroom Observations
- Mr. Teague: 9/12/13 (Thursday), Period 1, Room 7, Math/Algebra I (mixed grade levels)
- Mr. Armhand: 9/13/13 (Friday), Period 1, Room 3, Social Studies/World History (9th grade)
- Mr. John: 9/24/13 (Tuesday), Period 4, Room 10, Social Studies/Civics (12th grade)
- Mrs. Baxter: 9/30/13 (Monday) and 10/3/13 (Thursday), Period 1, Room 127, English 2 Regular (10th grade)
- Mrs. Levi: 10/10/13 (Thursday), Period 1, Room 8, Social Studies/American History (11th grade)
When I observed Mrs. Levi’s 11th grade American history class, the students were learning about the Articles of the Confederation and their role in establishing a new government once American independence from Great Britain had been achieved. The goals, posted on the smartboard, were: (1) understand the Articles of Confederation and (2) analyze and discuss the Articles of the Confederation. As the students arrived, they were instructed to get started on a “Pre-Class,” also projected: We learned about the various tensions which arose between the colonists and Great Britain (government) in the years leading to the American Revolution. Based on those experiences, what kind of new government do you think the representatives of the colonists wanted when they met? Once everyone was seated, Mrs. Levi read the assignment out loud in case students could not see it, and she encouraged them to talk amongst themselves to help them organize their thoughts and decide what to write. Students were given 5 minutes (during which Mrs. Levi had them pass up their homework) before being asked to share with the class.
It seems that the essential question Mrs. Levi wanted the class to explore during this lesson was, “Why didn’t the Articles of the Confederation last?” After the pre-class, she activated prior knowledge by asking if the Articles were still in effect today. Several students shook their heads, and she asked, “What do we have instead?” “The Constitution,” offered one student. Mrs. Levi emphasized that this meant that the Articles failed, and urged students to consider why when examining them. She then introduced them as a primary source document, giving them a worksheet to fill out as they read. The worksheet asked for basic identifying information, such as the type of document, the author(s), and the date, as well as answers to questions such as, “Why do you think this document was written?” and, “List two things the document tells you about life in the U.S. at the time it was written.” Students were instructed to work in groups, but throughout the lesson there was much more independent work than discussion going on.
As I observed this, I kept wondering how this document might have been presented in a way that encouraged a more authentic experience, rather than mere combing for answers. Since there are nine articles, it seems like one possible approach could be to divvy up the articles among the groups and have each group do a close reading of one or two articles, then present their findings to the class. As a whole class, students could then look for overarching themes that might help answer the question of why the Articles were ultimately replaced. How important is it to have every student read every Article? In Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms (1999), Schoenbach et al. outline the benefits of forcing students to “do the reading” in non-literature classrooms, arguing that “the strategy of teaching content without having students read or by asking them to read only small amounts becomes a self-perpetuating instructional practice” (p. 8). However, when it comes to reading primary source documents, how do we balance breadth and depth?
It seems that the essential question Mrs. Levi wanted the class to explore during this lesson was, “Why didn’t the Articles of the Confederation last?” After the pre-class, she activated prior knowledge by asking if the Articles were still in effect today. Several students shook their heads, and she asked, “What do we have instead?” “The Constitution,” offered one student. Mrs. Levi emphasized that this meant that the Articles failed, and urged students to consider why when examining them. She then introduced them as a primary source document, giving them a worksheet to fill out as they read. The worksheet asked for basic identifying information, such as the type of document, the author(s), and the date, as well as answers to questions such as, “Why do you think this document was written?” and, “List two things the document tells you about life in the U.S. at the time it was written.” Students were instructed to work in groups, but throughout the lesson there was much more independent work than discussion going on.
As I observed this, I kept wondering how this document might have been presented in a way that encouraged a more authentic experience, rather than mere combing for answers. Since there are nine articles, it seems like one possible approach could be to divvy up the articles among the groups and have each group do a close reading of one or two articles, then present their findings to the class. As a whole class, students could then look for overarching themes that might help answer the question of why the Articles were ultimately replaced. How important is it to have every student read every Article? In Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms (1999), Schoenbach et al. outline the benefits of forcing students to “do the reading” in non-literature classrooms, arguing that “the strategy of teaching content without having students read or by asking them to read only small amounts becomes a self-perpetuating instructional practice” (p. 8). However, when it comes to reading primary source documents, how do we balance breadth and depth?