1. New Resource: DLCS Ambassadors Available
|
|
As districts implement the 2016 Digital Literacy and Computer Science (DLCS) standards, DESE encourages educators to take advantage of several resources, including DLCS ambassadors. The ambassadors are talented educators from across the Commonwealth who are trained by DESE in partnership with the Education Development Center to provide one- or two-hour presentations or half- or full-day professional development sessions related to the standards. Possible topics include an overview of the standards, an introduction to integrated curricular resources for elementary grades, or curricular units that integrate computational thinking standards in grades 1-6. The Department follows up after each session to gather feedback and support next steps.
In addition to speaking with groups of educators in individual districts, DLCS Ambassadors regularly present to conferences, regional meetings, informal organizations, and after-school and summer programs.
To schedule an ambassador's visit, district science leaders can email STEMwithCT@gmail.com with a proposed date, time, and audience. In addition, DESE DLCS Education Specialist Anne DeMallie can answer questions by email or at 781-338-3527.
|
|
2. Teacher Reflection: Work vs. Play – An Alternative Approach to Research Papers
|
|
|
Eamon Cunningham, a semifinalist for Massachusetts 2020 Teacher of the Year, is the English Department chair at Milford High School, where he has worked for more than 13 years and specializes in Advanced Placement English Language and Composition. He is also a lecturer in the English Department at Framingham State University, where he has taught composition to undergraduate students since 2015.
|
|
|
In 1930, the term “research paper” first appeared in English Journal, and this mode of writing has remained an invariable ordeal for both teachers and students ever since. On the face of things, the research paper is problematic in almost every way imaginable: It is often a massive event, sometimes spanning several months, where students are asked to generate a topic, find relevant research to support it, and then develop a written response of 10, 15, or even 20-plus pages. The extensive accountability routines – note cards, sentence outlines, paper conferences, and rough drafts – do little to alleviate mounting fears, and students often feel as if they are lost for months at sea. Students are routinely asked to do these things in many of their courses, yet teachers are often frustrated when the exercise fails to yield the desired success. Why don’t the final products look better?
“It’s very clear that [students] don’t how to analyze their sources,” says Rebecca Moore Howard, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Syracuse University; “they don’t understand it and don’t know how to do anything but grab a few sentences and go.” This observation, detailed by Dan Berrett’s “Freshman Composition Is Not Teaching Key Skills in Analysis, Researchers Argue” in The Chronicle of Higher Education (2012), might sound discouragingly familiar to teachers of writing. My experience as a researcher in a 2017 study at Framingham State University similarly showed me that students relied too heavily on summaries of their sources and too little on analysis. Redefining research writing from the outset can help get at this common problem.
The best and most immediate way to invite students to do more original analysis is to let them determine their own topic. Research writing can and should be approached in a spirit of play. It’s an opportunity to explore something interesting and to make connections across disciplines, and I’ve seen papers on fascinating topics, including the ethics of self-driving cars, the political consequences of annexing the Arctic, and the psychological effects of a surveillance state upon its citizens.
Research writing isn’t merely a rundown of other people’s ideas. It is a constructive process that promotes a writer’s discovery, inquiry, and formation of knowledge. Students must know how to consider sources critically, discuss them knowledgeably, and describe how their own conclusions are derived from the consideration of opposing views. When students and teachers interpret the task in this light, things start heading in a productive direction.
For fuller discussions of this topic by the same author, please consider reading: “Authentic Questioning as a Form of Inquiry: Writing in the Dialogic Classroom,” “Teaching Invention: Leveraging the Power of Low-Stakes Writing," and Understanding Rhetoric: A Guide to Critical Reading and Argumentation (https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Rhetoric-Critical-Reading-Argumentation/dp/1627347054).
|
|
3. Get Involved: MTEL Item Review Conference
|
|
The Department and Pearson’s Evaluation Systems group are seeking Massachusetts educators to participate in an item review conference for the Massachusetts Tests for Teacher Licensure (MTEL) program.
Committees will meet for two days between October 21 and 25. The different committees include: Bias Review, Foundations of Reading, Mathematics (Secondary), General Science, Middle School Mathematics, and English. More information, including a link to the application, is available online. Anyone with questions can email evaluationsystemscrg@pearson.com.
|
|
|
|
