ReichardFieldExperienceLessonVideo

**Time:** 50 minutes
 * Lesson:** Researching and Presenting

**Common Core Standards:**
 * CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.7 Analyze various accounts of a subject told in different mediums (e.g., a person’s life story in both print and multimedia), determining which details are emphasized in each account.
 * CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.

**Objectives:**
 * Students will read various online articles in order to analyze the information and details provided and determine what’s emphasized within each article.
 * Students will conduct online research in order to evaluate various claims and articles from websites and determine whether or not their online source is reliable or not.

**Materials Needed:**
 * 30 Computers
 * Projector
 * PowerPoint

**Assessment:**
 * Students will be assessed according to what they produced during the introduction activity, as well as what they have presented in their PowerPoint

**Differentiated Instruction:**
 * Tier I || Tier II || Tier III ||
 * * **All students will be expected to participate in the introduction activity as well independent practice.** || * Students within Tier II will be given the option to research any topic in any medium that best fits their style of learning: YouTube, books, film, audio tapes, research articles, etc. But they are still expected to summarize the information presented and explain why their resource(s) are credible and reliable. || * Students within Tier III will be assessed and accommodated according to their IEP/giftedness. ||

**Activities:** **Closure:**
 * Introduction (10 minutes)
 * Introduce lesson of conducting credible research by asking students to watch these two campaign commercials:
 * **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2EscdZ1rK0&feature=share&list=PLD40C7430BEEE0D66&index=64**
 * **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_oK5mbcg8Y&feature=share&list=PLD40C7430BEEE0D66&index=67**
 * Before they watch, ask students to…
 * Think about how these campaign commercials use resources to support their claims.
 * Think about how they have the ability to distort truth and/or seem to be truthful.
 * Once they have watched the two campaign videos, ask them to compare and contrast these two websites:
 * **http://itthing.com/interesting-facts-about-martin-luther-king-jr**
 * **http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html**
 * Open the floor for discussion
 * How do these websites compare and contrast?
 * How can we sort out a truthful website from a false website?
 * In the campaign adds, the politicians relied on research to support their claims; however, sometimes our research and what we believe to be “truth” can be distorted depending on where we get our information from.
 * Independent Practice (35 minutes)
 * Students will research a controversial or interesting topic that appeals to them and find credible sources that support their claim
 * Students must briefly summarize:
 * What they’ve read about
 * Why they chose to research that topic and how it’s meaningful to them
 * Why their source is credible and reliable
 * Students will then create a PowerPoint in order to briefly illustrate a summary of their research.
 * *Before they move into this part of their work demonstrate how they can condense and summarize their research to fit a Ppt. slide*
 * Monitor while students work, helping and guiding as needed
 * Closure (5 minutes)
 * Ask students to submit their brief analysis of the two websites before they leave.
 * Ask students to continue to think about the importance of reliable research and how easily our truth can be distorted by the sources we turn to—especially as they move into their graduation projects and presentations.
 * Review PowerPoints as students finish them.

http://www.viddler.com/v/723a9aff?secret=102604758 media type="custom" key="24684184"

NOOOOOOOOOO!!! Viddler stopped the comments I was able to make. But there are so many things about this documented lesson I would change...that I did change; however, the battery died before I could tape the second lesson/my second chance to redeem this awful teaching...But the things that I would/did change the second time around were my introduction, my activities, the way I delivered relevance and instructions, how I monitored the class, and hopefully more that I'm just not thinking of now. I don't think I changed my nervous hands. But I realized that in the first lesson--everything just went completely wrong; I stumbled, messed up, nothing worked, I put students awkwardly on the spot, I rushed certain learning moments, and I definitely just didn't do as well as I'd hoped.

The original lesson I planned to do was in relation to their research papers and it was going to cover the concept of codeswitching and how they can use it as a tool to travel between formal and informal communicative contexts; however, because of unseen circumstances, I didn't have the chance to teach that lesson during a time that was purposeful to the students. So, in attempts to get this project in before the end of the semester, my co-op worked with my schedule and allowed me to teach a lesson that he already had planned for that week. I was incredibly thankful that he provided me the opportunity, so I just went with what he gave me and created my own spin on it. After observing the students for some time, I knew that lectures and PowerPoints did not work for them. I knew that they needed engagement and it needed to be meaningful, so I originally intended for them to watch these YouTube clips showcases different political campaigns that allowed them to see how similarly to commercials, websites have the ability to sway our audience in a particular direction which means that credible resources are vital in developing a valid research paper and compelling argument. I also wanted them to analyze different websites that informed them about the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior. I chose him as someone to read about because many of my students were of the African American culture and I knew through different interactions with my co-ops classes, Martin Luther King was someone of extreme relevance to them. I planned for them to compare and contrast the two websites, recognizing the uses of both of them, when we could use one and when we need to use the other depending on the rhetorical situation, and allowing them to play with this guided practice. But, when I got into the computer lab to set everything up, the sound didn't work for YouTube and when they went to their sites, they didn't end up working on the Windows 8 program. I was SO. disappointed, nervous, and flustered that I just went immediately into lecture mode and started rambling about all this information that I thought would be valuable to them, but it was just too. much. sensory/information. overload. I also originally intended for the students to write down the C.R.A.A.P principles and demonstrate how they are seen within the website they've picked out to support their graduation topic; however, my co-op had a different worksheet called "Research Helper" that he wanted them to complete, so they ended up doing that instead. Looking back, I should have had them still write down the C.R.A.A.P. principles and asked them to explain how they apply to the website, but I didn't.

Once they got moving on their activity, all I had to do was monitor and just help them out, but I could see they were suffering from not being able to participate in the guided practice and I feel as though I failed the learning goal: Find credible resource(s) using the C.R.A.A.P. principles and apply them to your graduation project. Thinking about the questions I received and how they were manipulating websites to fit their papers was really confusing to me. For example, my co-op told me that I should tell them how Wikipedia can be useful to start off because it helps them to get reading about their topic; however, I didn't really agree with that because I knew that if you told students that, they may take advantage of using it as a resource and use it for their research project, so instead, I tried telling them what he told me to, but also adding on that they should look at where the authors of the Wikipedia article received their information and go off that...but I don't think it came out that way. I also got confused because I always learned to pass up .com anything when doing a research paper; however, Livestrong was called to my attention when some students were planning on discussing sports for their graduation project. Livestrong is known as a national, perhaps even worldwide, sports company and I felt that their information may be credible; however, they were .com and some students were hesitant on whether or not it'd be credible, and although I asked them to apply the principles, I could tell that some were hesitant, while others jumped at the opportunity to justify their .com website as well.

If I had to do the lesson over again (for a third time) I would definitely stick with a cleaner, more professional introduction; I would have backup plans for when my technology fails; I would make sure the lesson stuck to a way that would ensure the learning objective is achieved--and a way that I would be able to check it; and I would make sure it scaffolded a lot better so that they were able to be sure of their decisions on websites. I also think it was a little different because their projects could either demonstrate a particular skill or propose a community service project. So, in this case, I could see the need for credible research in proposing a community service project; however, I'm not sure students would necessarily need an academic resource in order to perform a skill. For example, some students wanted to showcase cooking skills. Some picked out different websites in which their recipe could be found and it just wasn't connecting for me...I felt like this was a different purpose that couldn't be achieved through the direction that the lesson was taking: looking for academic, scholarly resources.

When I think about how this lesson went, I realize that even though everything went wrong and completely unexpected, it made me want to do it again and again until I achieved the learning outcomes the students needed and what I intended. I also feel like even though I was disappointed, I was anxious to get back in there and redeem myself because I know I could do it better, and the second lesson did go better and more smoothly, but I still feel like had I taped that lesson, I would still find things that could have been better.

So, the truth is, before this (my first lesson in a real classroom) lesson, I felt really nervous for student teaching; however, after falling and biffing the delivery of this lesson, rather than feeling even more discouraged for student teaching, I just feel more excited for it and anxious to get in the classroom so that I can learn more about delivering my lessons and ways in which I can improve to make things better.