Future Action Plan---ANWR (LInC ACT)

Fall 2004

By Yvonne John

**Authentic Task:** I liked this particular topic---to drill or not to
drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is timely. It
is current. It is something students can relate to---our dependence on
oil. (Most of the students are juniors and seniors so they drive; some
have to pay for their own gas.) It also helps students connect science
(environmental issues) with other areas of study---government, politics,
and economics for example. ANWR is constantly coming up for vote in the
federal government. Students find that there is compelling evidence for
both sides of the issues. They must take a stand and present a
convincing argument for their stance. I don't feel that I will make any
changes in the Authentic Task (except for some spelling and/or grammar
mistakes.) Students commented that this project differed from others in
that it was a current issue.

**Hook:** The hook letter was effective. Students seemed to believe the
letter was real. I did not give them a copy of it; I took it out of an
envelope and read it to them. I told them that I received it in the
mail. One student even commented that he felt we shouldn't get

Involved in this issue because it was political. Funny, no one has ever
asked yet (even two weeks after the project) if the letter was real or
not. For this to happen, the hook had to be convincing.

**Student Direction:** Students were allowed to pick their side of the
argument after they had time to research the issue. Students were
positive in their comments that they were given choices to make---what
side, how to support, and how to present, and also they could focus on
what *they* thought was important. They also liked the amount of time
given to research and put together. . Some students noticed that this
was NOT a teacher directed project and embraced the freedom given for
their choices. Other students were not comfortable with the non-teacher
directed approached. They wanted me to set everything out for
them\--This is what you need to do and when you need to do it.

I like the non-teacher directed approach. I believe it is appropriate
for this grade level (junior and seniors in high school.). These
students will be entering college in 1 to 2 years. I truly believe that
this is good practice for them. I will continue with the non-teacher
directed approach and next time be more aware of students who are
uncomfortable with this approach and, as a facilitator, help wean them
from the teacher-directed to the student-directed approach.

**Assessment and Evaluation:** The biggest complaint was that the rubric
was not given sooner. I would agree with this. They received the rubric
about 1 ½ weeks (about ½ of the way into the project). At this time, I
did sit down with each group and go through the rubric with them and
help them figure out what they already had in their presentation that
would fit the rubric and what needed to be added. I did have a rubric
ready to go, however at our class session, I realized that the rubric
was too vague and useless. The objects were not even covered on the
first rubric. I then went on to revise the rubric and had the lit center
director look at the rubric for additions/modifications. I then gave the
students the final rubric. Some students think the rubric is fine. Some
think it is too complicated. One student suggested two
categories---either present or not. I think I need a minimum of 3
categories---meets, developing, or not present. I was able to use the
rubric with ease when grading the presentation. This is telling me that
there are not too many categories. I would like to present the rubric at
the beginning of the project next year---before they begin their
research\-- and then have the class comment on the rubric and make
changes to fit their needs. One thing that I have to do is move the
dependence on oil section on the presentation rubric to the objective
part of the rubric. Some students would like to see a time limit on the
presentation. I'm not sure about this because then you are taking away a
students choice. I think students should be given the time they ask for
to present a presentation they feel is compelling. An interesting and
engaging presentation could go as long as 20 minutes.

**Teacher Role:** Students commented that they liked the flexible nature
of the project. They could work as a group whenever they asked for it.
They could leave the computers and go out in the hall and collaborate if
need be. They could go to the lit center if need be. They liked how I
made other resources available. I liked talking with students during the
class period and monitoring their research. There were times when they
would call me over to the computer and say, "Mrs. John, look at this.
Did you know this?" Some of the information was new to me. That was fun
learning new facts. It is amazing what you can learn. Gosh, I could
never read what 26 students can read in 50 minutes. So their sharing
helped me to learn more about ANWR. .

I think it was very good to set up the timeline with students. Students
felt they had an input into what they would be doing and how long they
needed. They took control. I simply did the administration job of
signing up for everything. I would keep this for next year.

Conferencing with students/groups will continue. I would like to do this
twice during the research phase and twice during the formation of
presentation phase. I would continue with making the lit center
available for those who need it. I think I would also like to make
myself available before or after school to have students present to me
and I can give them feedback (using the rubric) so they can make changes
to before the final presentation to the class. I did this for one group
and I saw a big improvement in the presentation skills.

**Classroom Management:** From student feedback, I think I did a rather
good job. I have to figure out some way to work in scaffolding for
student independence for those students who feel the need more
direction. I think more formal conferencing will find this problem
sooner and then I can support those students more (and then less) as the
project continues. I think for most of them it is simply the need to
hear from me that it is OK to pick their own direction. I would also
like to work in one day after about 3 days of research to meet with the
class as a whole to see what else they need for me to do that wasn't set
up with the original timeline. This will allow me to find out if all
resources are available and meeting students' needs or if I have to add
(find) more resources. Students likes that I gave them some web sites to
get started. The web sites were non-opinion---stating the facts from the
USGS to sites that were pro and sites that were con.

**Effective Technology Integration (collaboration):** This was the big
area that needs work. It was difficult for students to get responses
back from their e-mails. This spring, I would like to contact some
science teachers at some high schools to see if students can e-mail
their students to get their opinions on ANWR. After all these students
live in the state and their views would be important. I also wonder if a
scientist at Fermi Lab or Argon and/or BP Amoco would be willing to
comment on what is being done to help remove our dependence on oil. I
wonder if any of our congress people will give us their views on the
issue. I could write to them this spring. It would be really neat to
have others involved in this, even if it is to express their opinions as
scientists and political figures. I should see if there is not a
grass-root group in the area that would be willing to send in a

Speaker to the school. I'll have to contact Kay McKee again and see if I
can't get the name of that person from Downer's Grove. There is a lot of
ground work to be put into place in this category.

**Effective Technology Integration (sharing work):** This is another
area that needs work.

I'm having students edit their PowerPoint's for spelling/grammar and/or
additional slides they want to add. This is optional at this point. I
will then take the final project and see if we can't post it to our
science web site. I think next year, I would like to have a parent night
in the lit center to present the power points or invite parents in when
then child is presenting. If I could get any congress person to respond
to letters, it would be neat to invite him/her also. I think it is
important to expand these projects to an audience outside of the
classroom. However, the logistics of this can sometimes be time
consuming. Humm, I was just thinking of having a group present their
PowerPoint to the Environmental Club here at the high school at one of
their meetings after school.

Some ideas to begin with for next year.

**Effective Technology Integration (more research resources):** The
students did a pretty good job of this because of the topic being so
current. I think that newspapers in Alaska would be a good place to
start. I also think that perhaps I should list on the websites for
students the website for the Native American tribes that are most
affected by ANWR. I'm sure they would be posting current information on
this issue.

**Other:** I would like to do more artifact collection:

Article for the viewpoint of each stakeholder that will be used in the
presentation.

Article for dependence on oil.

Article for each of the three biodiversity issues that will be used in
the presentation.

Split page notes of each article (I may have to do some
teaching/modeling on split-page notes)

An outline of their presentation (as well as who is presenting what
part)

The first part of their presentation (minimum of 4 slides) (I can easily
access this through the G drive)

Due dates for the above will need to be made. I can be flexible with
these. I can use a span of 3 days for each artifact.

**Comments from Students:**

***How did this project differ from other projects you have done?***

No rigid schedule---has it done by (due date)

Rubric given the last ¼ of project

Done in class (little outside time needed)

Choices---what side, how to support, how to present

Longer time period to complete

Gave starting websites

All research on internet because it is a current issue

Current issue

***What was "bad" about this project? What did you not like?***

Rubric---getting it late

No set guidelines for what you were suppose to do.---NOT TEACHER
DIRECTED

No time limit on presentation

No standardized end results --have this; don't have this

Group size smaller then 4/5---3 would be ideal

***What was "good" about this project? What did you like?***

Time to research and put together

Unstructured---let students pick what they thought was important

NOT TEACHER DIRECTED

Finally got a rubric

Group time whenever asked for it

Flexible

Other resources made available

***Needs to change***

Rubric---made simpler

Rubric---at beginning of project

Didn't like how you got points---with tutors---should be able to choose
to work with or not---don't make it a requirement

Tutors (in lit center) should be extra credit

Personal points

***Need to keep***

Amount of time (right amount of time)

Group project---let pick size and who you work with

Flexibility