My lesson was designed to teach the law making process in the United States. Next door, they were working on a “Civlization” project that incorporated Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Since law is pivotal in providing safety for a civilization, my lesson set out to supplement Maslow’s second layer. Prior to the lesson, students had exposure to the two branches of Congress through a Webquest, simulation activity, and Q & A session. Students at least understood that they were a part of the lawmaking process as they were all given representatives’ names from either the House or Senate.
The objective of my lesson was twofold. I wanted to teach them how a bill becomes a law, along with the vocabulary associated with the process. I started by showing them the School House Rock Video, “I’m Just a Bill.” While the students appreciated this simple breakdown of the lawmaking process, monumental confusion still lingered in regards to the inherent intricacies. What constitutes a majority? Does the bill undergo changes in either house?
While I did not intend to differentiate at this point, I felt it vital to their understanding of such complex concepts. I wrote each of the vocabulary words onto construction paper and taped them to the board. Students were asked to inform me with their fingers as to how many of the words they understood. Most student s held up 4-5 fingers; this was problematic given there were 12 words total. I decided to break them into two groups. One group was for the vocabulary “novices;” they would learn the words with me inside the classroom; the other was for the vocabulary “experts;” they would take a dictionary and their vocabulary sheets and define the words in the main commons.
The division turned out to be a great success. I was able to work very closely indoors with the confused students while those in the commons challenged each other to see the words in a new light. My conversation indoors was more of a facilitation of learning. Each student while not knowing a great deal about ALL the words, at least knew a little about one. Therefore, they taught each other. I intervened when necessary; however they were very proficient in drilling each other and clearing up any misconceptions surrounding the terms. One student even drew a diagram on the board differentiating between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government! I was impressed.
Since students were already seated according to their branch of Congress (House or Senate), having them participate in a simulation was just a matter of having the right subject for a bill. The solution came from my classroom aid Christine. She mentioned that students had already created “mock” laws for their imaginary civilizations next door. PERFECT! Those laws could be the “bills” each committee proposed within my classroom. I divided the students into groups of three within their particular branch of government.
Once divided into their “committees,” students would discuss one law that they could agree upon. This became the “bill” they would urge Congress to sign. I provided each committee with a white board so that their bill could be visible to the other members of Congress.
Problems arose during each “committees’” discussion. Some students felt drowned out by others. Others refused to come to agreement. And still others remained disengaged. While this happened organically and reflected what generally happens in any discussion, it was an outcome contrary to what I desired.
After around 10 minutes with their committees, I invited both branches of Congress back to their seats. We debriefed the process. Many students vocalized their concern of being either silenced or disrespected during the committee discussions. I asked students to devise solutions that would counteract the tendency for some students to “step up” too far and others to “step back” too greatly. Students agreed that we needed some kind of system to ensure equal representation by all members of Congress. I met students halfway. Being an avid poker player, I keep a set of chips in my classroom. The chips would represent each student’s opportunity to speak! All students would now have a voice! I passed 2 chips out to each student.
Congress could now convene in a thoughtful, equivocal matter. Christine presided over the House while I led the Senate. Committees had the opportunity to propose their bill while receiving equal amount of input from other Representatives on how the bill should be amended. What resulted amazed me! The students after making several amendments UNANIMOUSLY passed each bill! They took part in the HARDEST part of the lawmaking process and succeeded in getting a bill past the first stage.
I expressed my pleasure with the class while alluding to the difficulties even our hired representatives have in coming to some kind of consensus. They seemed pretty pleased.
In short, I felt the lesson was a great success at inclusiveness. Students had the opportunity to learn the law making process through several mediums. There was a simulation, catchy song, a guided webquest, opportunities for pair/ share, and individual reflection all built into the lesson. Had I not been mindful of inclusive strategies, I may have elected to only include one medium of delivering the content.
The “inclusive classroom” allowed me to become a better teacher in several capacities. Now, before even planning a lesson, I consider ALL the diverse learning styles in the room. It’s no longer acceptable to be satisfied with a majority of students grasping the content. Unless EVERY student in the room has access to the content, I am not doing my job. Seeing the light bulbs go off in each of my students brought joy I have rarely experienced as a teacher. One student who seems to ALWAYS struggle with vocabulary couldn’t wait to get this particular vocabulary test back. She passed her first test! Not only did she pass, she got one of the top grades in the class! She seemed empowered. She finally had access to the content!
No comments:
Post a Comment