Projet+SDCO+Collaborative+enquiry

==== Collaborative Enquiry (SDCO): (ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE MGR BRUYÈRE, ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE L'ESSOR, ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE NOTRE DAME) Cette page est destinée aux enseignants participants à cette initative. Seuls ces enseignants ont le droit de contribuer pour le développement de leur stratégies et la collecte de données dans l'enquête collaborative sur la littératie critique. ====

Stage 1 - Problem Framing
==== [|SDCO CI Session 2.doc] [|CBS_Collborative_Teacher_Inquiry_1.pdf] [|SDCO - Collaborative InquirySESSION_1_Notes.doc] ====

Stage 2 - Data collection
==== [|SDCO Collaborative Inquiry Stage 2.ppt] [|Data Collection Plan.doc] [|Types of Data for School Improvement.doc] ==== ** Oct. 13, 2010 NOTES **

ü Determining a shared vision
==== · We want students to become life-long learners who can read critically, make connections, and present coherent opinions. They can make inferences, and be confident that they can interpret even the most difficult texts. ====

· social justice theme (morality, social networks, intellectual property, evolution of morality, copyright)
==== · Students are in control of their own learning. They have mastered descriptive feedback of their own writing and of that of their peers. They know what they do well, and what they need to do to improve. ====

· purpose statement
==== ◦ The purpose of this inquiry is to explore and evaluate the effectiveness of various strategies to develop critical literacy skills for senior level university-stream students at three of our secondary schools. ====

**c)** Formulating a theory of action

 * ==== If... ==== || ==== Then... ==== ||
 * ==== We model a variety of critical literacy strategies... ==== || ==== Student will become more aware of critical thinking skills and more sensitive to the meaning of a text. ==== ||
 * ==== We provide opportunities for students to connect critical literacy skills with their experience... ==== || ==== Students will better understand the importance of critical literacy. ==== ||
 * ==== We give students opportunities to select and assess a variety of sources... ==== || ==== Students will become more skilled and confident in pursuing their research, including discerning reliable sources. ==== ||

** NEXT STEPS: **
====** 1) **** DETERMINE STRATEGIES TO USE IN CLASSROOM AS A GROUP. DISCUSS POSSIBLE APPROACHES, WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE IN YOUR CLASSROOM. PROCEED TO COLLABORATIVE PLANNING USING THIS SITE OR ANOTHER COLLABORATIVE MEDIUM. **====

**[|Critical thinking consortium] **
[]

[|ppt Garfield G-N.pdf] [|ppt Critical thinkingGarfield-oct30-10.pdf] [|ppt pres critical thinkingGarfield-oct29-10.pdf] [|resource_package.pdf] [|sample_crit_think_tasks.pdf]

Oise - Garfield Gini-Newman - Webinar
[]

Heffernan, Lee. //Critical Literacy and Writer’s Workshop Bringing Purpose and Passion to Student Writing.// ISBN-13-978-0-87207-541-2
Vivian Vasquez. //Getting Beyond « I like the Book » Creating Space for Critical Literacy in K-6 classrooms//. ISBN-13 : 978-0-87207-512-2 2006.

=__Quelles stratégies voulons-nous cibler pendant les prochaines semaines?__= - Thanks for the getting the ball rolling (I assume it was Jason?) Kim posted in discussion area. Jason can you and Christine read her posts? If not I will change authorization privileges. In the meantime I will add Kim's post for everyone to see. To add to content area below, click on MODIFIER, then type and finally, SAVE. There is a tutorial on LIteracy-anglais page if you want to upload a file. Thanks for the conference notes and the focus. So many ideas and so little time! I was hoping to have my grade 10 academic students examine perspective by reading various fairy tales and then re-writing them through another character`s perspective (essentially, writing fractured fairy tales). This particular group of students have already expressed an interest in this idea and so I am hoping to push beyond the fairy tale into probing the social justice element of Critical Literacy. I think that this falls in line with what Jason has written. Maybe we can lean in this direction...
 * Multiple perspectives: ask students to reconsider elements of a text from the perspective of different characters, especially those whose voices go mostly unheard in the text. This requires empathy, rational hypotheses, inferences based on evidence, and sensitivity to issues of culture, gender, social class, age and other distinguishing factors. Eventually students should be able to question the "authoritative" view of the text (the voice of the narrator/protagonist), and understand that all texts are biased. They can begin to "speak" for those who do not have a voice. This can then be transferred to real-world topics, and could lead to a reasearch assignment where students must strive to uncover "missing voices" in important political, social, religious or media contexts.
 * U-shaped discussion...
 * Teaching literary criticism...

As for my grade 9 academic English class, I would like to refine my Media unit using some of the resources (Media Literacy) Monique sent us. As well, I find the internet credibility resource pertinent as it provides an opportunity for students to develop skills they will need beyond the classroom and therefore, I anticipate incorporating it in the same Media unit.

I look forward to seeing you all on Tuesday when we will be able to narrow down a focus and get this research project in action. KIM


 * Diagnostic assessment for critical literacy pertaining to research question.**

1. Have you or anyone you know ever been mislead by a bogus website or by false or biased information found online? If so, please explain the circumstances.

2, Which criteria do you use to assess a reliable website? List and explain your reasoning.

3. Compare the following websites and determine which is the most reliable. Has your criteria changed? If so, add to your list in 1. and explain your reasoning.


 * Objective / Research Question:**

** How does explicitly teaching strategies for assessing the credibility of research sources improve student success in pursuing their research, including discerning reliable sources? **

1) Choose three pairs of reliable / unreliable websites for analysis and post them on the site by _. 2) Diagnostic assessment (data: descriptive, in writing). 3) Explicit teaching / modeling (use documents on pages 69,70 - for comparison at the beginning, from resource package). 4) Practice (cooperative learning). Groups of three choose one website (related to their research project) to evaluate and orally present their findings (data: observation, conversation, descriptive feedback through conferencing). 5) Formative assessment (steps 3 and 4). Incorporate the resources included in the resource package (assessing website credibility - page 71). 6) Summative assessment (annotated bibliography).
 * __Next Steps:__**

Here is the list of reliable/unreliable websites I will include on the diagnostic assessment:

a) The World Trade Organization:  i. []    ii. []

b) The official White House Website is…  i. []    ii. []

c) Cloning:  i. []   ii. [] Kim

March 9th SDCO session notes

 * DATA MATRIX (please feel free to modify and improve as this is a work in progress)**

Student is able to cross-reference sources. Student recalls prior knowledge and considers factors such as currency, authorship, professionalism (correct use of language conventions, etc.) || The student attempts to use criteria, but without sufficient analysis. The student is able to differentiate between good and bad sources, but is unable to detect strengths and weaknesses within each source. Must work on detecting nuances, biases, etc. || The student begins to draw conclusions about credibility of websites based on critical thinking and conversations. The student can assess the degree to which a source is considered a good site. The student understands the concept that there is a continuum of validity of websites depending on context. || The student is able to cross-reference sources and draw conclusions about information available and express a clear opinion based on established criteria. The student demonstrates the ability to detect bias and know when a biased site is valid in a specific context. The student is able to critically evaluate a website based on relevant evidence and validate their findings while adequately defending their opinion. ||
 * Theme1 || Theme 2 || Theme 3 || Theme 4 ||
 * The student lists what he/she knows which consists of surface knowledge of basic elements of valid websites (.org, .edu, .gov).

**Next steps:**

1) Analyze existing data obtained from assignment **Comparing credibility** on Wiki: trends, next steps if inadequate understandings, more explicit teaching required as a follow-up. 2) Explicit instruction will include validating the importance of this exercise with authentic problem solving situations – (examples to follow from group members) Students rank sites on a continuum. 3) Implement formative assessment, where a student would be able to demonstrate levels three and four. Kim will send electronic working document to Christine and Jason cc Monique) 4) **Videoconference March29th 12:30-14:00**. Co-construction of criteria for process. Decide next steps at that stage.

Handout: “I Noticed, This Means, So What?”


 * ** I noticed … ** || ** This means … ** || ** So what? ** ||
 * Behaviour agreements posted and signed by students and the teacher. || Students collaborated in setting the tone of the classroom. Each student feels like they have a voice. || Students understand the norms and have a stake in observing them. ||
 * Texts of all types and levels of difficulty ||  ||   ||

Ok, so I`m trying to upload this thing- seems much more complicated than the OISE wiki... It`s not the technology, it`s me. Alors bien, voici le document pour l`étape 3. Remember - it is a working document!!

Hi guys. Here's a draft of the research project for my 11U class. It is still a work in progress, and the evaluation rubric is from last year. We will need to adjust it as we co-construct criteria with our students. So, feel free to provide some feedback. Hopefully we can get it finalized in the next few days, so that I can get my kids started. Time is quickly evaporating!
 * March 27th:**



Jason

Hi Jason,

Thank you so much for sharing your assignment. I really like the Critical Literacy approach to the IRP. The missing voice or those who are traditionally underrepresented is a focus we were interested in earlier in our project and I still think this is extremely valuable for our students to learn. As the Ministry workshop on Critical Literacy demonstrated, this is something that can be understood (when using the appropriate strategies) by students of all ages. In taking it to the level you did in this project, I think you`ll be able to engage your students by offering them a choice (especially if you have a social-justice crowd). Just a quick question: did you teach this notion, or will you give a mini-lesson on this concept before the project?

As for our collaborative enquiry, I believe that we are focusing on the annotated Bibliography section. I like that you guide the students to the OWL site (I always use this as a reference for my students as well) because it is very useful, especially for MLA formatting. Once again, as for our purposes, I thought that we were supposed to collaboratively create a rubric for this section of the assignment? I see in your student rubric under application, there is mention of the Works Cited page – is this where the annotated bibliography will be evaluated?

Looking back at my notes last night, I imagined our video conference was supposed to allow us to co-construct criteria for the rubric. If this is the case, should be perhaps use this forum to begin this process?

Kim

Here are a few examples that can help us get started in creating our own rubric...

[] [] [] [|https://people.sunyit.edu/~boylank/frc104_ab.pdf]

Talk soon, Kim _

Thanks for the feedback, Kim.

The notion of social justice has come up throughout the course, especially in relation to //Nineteeen-Eighty-Four// and a couple of the short stories and poems we studied earlier.

You are right about constructed the rubrics. I was thinking we could make a completely separate rubric for the annotated bibliography, since our project is focused particularly on that. So, do we want to do that ourselves, or should we co-construct in with the students? In a way I think WE should do it so that we are all working with the exact same criteria for OUR project.

I need to get my students started on the process this week, so perhaps I will give them the instructions, and then give them the evaluation criteria in the next week or so?

Jason _

__I think that we should co-construct a rubric for the annotated bibliography. As you mentioned, it is directly related to OUR project. I sent some examples I found on the internet and perhaps we can use these as a starting point. It should not take too long and I think that we could certainly create something useful for all our courses.__ __Here are those sites again:__

__ [] __ __ [] __ __ [] __ __ [|https://people.sunyit.edu/~boylank/frc104_ab.pdf] __

__ I __ will attempt to make some modifications and get back to you by Wednesday. In the meantime, perhaps you can take a look and think about what changes we should make.

I hope I`m not being too overwhelming, but I understand that Jason needs to have this together in order to present it to his class.

Have a great day, Kim

Ok, here is a quick brainstorm for the rubric for the annotated bibliography. I will be discussing this in more detail with my students over the next week or so. What do you think? Should we have more detailed criteria? How should we word the descriptors? I think the "thinking" category is the most important...how can we highlight that?

__**KU**__ - have you correctly summarized each source? - are you aware of the criteria for evaluating the credibility of a source?

__**T**__ - have you logically evaluated the credibility of each source? (author, currency, publisher, etc.)

__**C**__ - have you organized your annotations clearly and used language conventions accurately?

__**A**__ - have you applied the correct (MLA) format for the annotated bibliography? - have you clearly explained how you will connect** the content of each source to your topic/project?

Jason

_ 11 mai 2011

Bonjour guys,

Update: Mes élèves ont soumis leur "draft" de leur bibliographies annotées aujourd'hui, pour leur projet de recherche final. Voici la grille que j'ai construis, après avoir discuté les critères avec eux.



Je vais leur donner de la rétroaction par écrit, et verbalement lors d'une période de travail mercredi prochain. Ils soumettront les versions retravaillées comme évaluation sommative vers la fin de la semaine prochaine.

J'ai manqué plusieurs journées de classe récemment (présentations, parascolaire, autres), alors les choses avancent lentement!

Pour la visite à l'Essor, je suggère la semaine du 23 mai. Jeudi le 26 peut-être?

Qu'est-ce que vous aimeriez "voir" ou faire cette journée-là? Une période de rétroaction sur les bibliographies? Une période de travail sur leur projet de recherche? Une leçon sur autre chose? Je ne veux pas que ça soit une perte de temps pour vous!

J'espère que tout va bien avec vous. Incroyable que nous approchons le milieu de mai déjà. Jason

Merci Jason, le 26 est impossible pour moi. Une autre date possible? Monique _ Salut Jason et Kim, c'est vraiment super. Le projet se concrétise. Le 19 et le 26 sont impossibles pour moi aussi. Désolé pour le manque de rétroactions ces derniers mois (!?) je suis vraiment débordé de tous côtés.

Christine

Bonjour Kim, Jason et Christine: Si vous pouvez penser à cet encadrement pour votre rencontre - 1) mise en situation des concepts en salle de classe avec les élèves, (rétroaction des élèves, étape métacognitive? ) 2) stade d'exploration en salle de classe (avec Kim et moi-même - observation et prise de notes) 3) galerie de stratégies - se passe à l'extérieur de la salle de classe où l'on discute des observations du groupe, une discussion des stratégies à préconiser pour la littératie critique 4) constats de l'amélioration et des traces des élèves, (analyse des données de Kim, Christine, Jason)

Merci! Monique _ __La date proposée pour notre rencontre à l'Essor est le 27 mai 2011__

__Monique__

Bonjour Jason et Kim, Donc, la date du 27 est maintenant remise suite au 1er juin. Si vous pouvez afficher quelques informations ici, on pourrait soumettre un rapport au SCDO et boucler la boucle plus tard.

Merci! Monique

Bonjour Jason, Christine et Monique,

Voici une copie de mes "notes" pour le gabarit. désolée de la longueur... Au plaisir de vous voir le 1er juin:) Kim _

__Et voici les miens!__

__Bonne fin de semaine!__ __Jason__ __ Merci Kim et Jason,

Excellent! Cela dépasse mes attentes! Je vous remercie du temps que vous avez mis à colliger tout ceci! Bonne fin de semaine à vous tous! Monique

1er juin SCDO - London - séance finale Rapport préliminaire

Rapport de Kim modifié avec donnés quantitatives - 1 juin