My
drive to work usually involves listening to any one of my many favorite
podcasts. In December, The Daily, from the NYTimes, had one about education that got me thinking, especially since we
are prepping to analyze the data collected in the MAP tests that have been
going on Fall semester. I’m eager to see if our diligent and creative efforts
to teach our girls results in improved reading and math skills. Listening to
the podcast and reading the current analysis of the international PISA test,
got me thinking. I’ve been watching the PISA tests for a long time and
every time they come out, I am always sad that there’s a statistic about our
country falling behind in some area. One stat really upset me this year–how
could only 14% of students tested be able to read passages and determine if the
statements were fact or opinion? As a scientist and science teacher, I love
opening my students eyes to the wonder of the details of biology, chemistry or
physics, but most of all I hope that I instill critical thinking skills. This
stat reinforced my current obsession with teaching science practices and data
analysis. I am especially motivated to challenge the students to read more from all kinds of content online, to
make claims about the topics we study, to
back their claims up with evidence from
real data, and to explain their reasoning
about why they chose particular data (CERs). If my students were starting to
get tired of hearing me assign a CER, the recent data release about PISA
testing will unfortunately prompt me to do it more!
drive to work usually involves listening to any one of my many favorite
podcasts. In December, The Daily, from the NYTimes, had one about education that got me thinking, especially since we
are prepping to analyze the data collected in the MAP tests that have been
going on Fall semester. I’m eager to see if our diligent and creative efforts
to teach our girls results in improved reading and math skills. Listening to
the podcast and reading the current analysis of the international PISA test,
got me thinking. I’ve been watching the PISA tests for a long time and
every time they come out, I am always sad that there’s a statistic about our
country falling behind in some area. One stat really upset me this year–how
could only 14% of students tested be able to read passages and determine if the
statements were fact or opinion? As a scientist and science teacher, I love
opening my students eyes to the wonder of the details of biology, chemistry or
physics, but most of all I hope that I instill critical thinking skills. This
stat reinforced my current obsession with teaching science practices and data
analysis. I am especially motivated to challenge the students to read more from all kinds of content online, to
make claims about the topics we study, to
back their claims up with evidence from
real data, and to explain their reasoning
about why they chose particular data (CERs). If my students were starting to
get tired of hearing me assign a CER, the recent data release about PISA
testing will unfortunately prompt me to do it more!
I don't know how many of us realize how much English and science actually have in common, but we do! CER is essentially the foundation for our literary analysis writing program as well. English of course uses different terminology; we us thesis-concrete details-commentary, but it's the same. Make an argument, supply the evidence and discuss how the evidence is relevant to the argument. Neat
I was stopped in my tracks when I heard this last month. I still am in shock by 14%. I look forward to tackling this together.
Right on the money Kate. We should be using the language of both in our classrooms. I just made a note to include CER in my psych realism intro Monday or Tuesday. Thanks for sharing this Susan…I'd love to collaborate on some writing work with your classes and the Psych Realism class.
This is the standard essay and discussion format I use in U.S. History. It sounds like science, English and social studies are on the same page. Let's continue to emphasize those connections.
Love how we are all wrestling with this. I'm noticing that many of us are saying we use this format in one way or another in writing, but the data with my AP students shows they really struggle with this in reading as well. They are good at identifying a big picture purpose and thesis, but need support to accurately identify the sub-claims that make up the author's line of reasoning and how evidence supports that line of reasoning. I would love to norm around strategies and language for reading protocols with non-fiction. I have them chunk texts into sections and identify what each chunk literally says, what it does to the audience that helps the author accomplish his/her/their purpose, and how it does this (literary devices or rhetorical appeals like ethos, logos, and pathos). This can work with a variety of genres, including science and history texts. I'd be happy to share some of the thinking frames I have used to help them understand logos and all the different ways facts, statistics, and logic can be used to advance an argument and support a claim because I have found they often don't have the language to help them express why an author includes evidence. Let's collaborate!
Another idea for helping students identify claims, evidence, and reasoning in non-fiction is to empower them with an understanding of the methods of development (cause/effect, problem/solution, compare/contrast, definition/exemplification, chronological, etc) so they have a lens through which to break down an author's claim, evidence, and reasoning. Students are often intimidated by the idea of crafting their own claims, and reasoning is such an abstract concept for our students until they see the building blocks experts use. Complex texts often use a combination of these methods, and students need to be able to identify them and explain how they work together to become become better readers and writers. What other strategies do you use to help students analyze claims, evidence, and reasoning in non-fiction? Would love to learn from you all.
the stats are scary… i hate standardized tests and yet i am forced to acknowledge that they shed light on things we need to see. Approaching the problem of fact discernment through science is such a valuable thing… we always connect fact/false to politics or issues that create division… approaching it in terms of science really does develop critical thinking skills in our kids in ways that may lower the emotional barriers that other topics do not allow… although I do get that somethings trigger no matter what the subject
Ahhh – that is cray cray: "only 14% of students tested be able to read passages and determine if the statements were fact or opinion" – we are in deep doo doo!
In the religious studies department I know we can be doing more to help our students read more from all kinds of texts: the Bible, the sacred texts from other religious traditions, theological and historical texts, and news stories about social justice and human rights issues … we can be assign more reading and writing. For sure all departments are responsible for teaching reading and writing!