 |
 |
|
What is ELS?
Support Expeditionary Learning
Our Publications |
Volume VII, Issue No.2
The
Aquarium Architects: Sixth Graders as Urban Planners In early November, Students arrived to classrooms decorated with blue prints, tool charts, aquatic life posters, and aquarium pictures. We had enlarged and posted a newspaper article about a group of business leaders and community members pursuing a plan for building a local aquarium. The article had inspired the new version of the learning expedition "Dream On" in which students wrote proposals and designed their own aquariums for the city.
We worked hard to foster a sense of students' responsibility in helping out the Portland aquarium committee early on. Students wrote business letters to aquariums around the world asking for pictures, features, and if possible, blueprints. Next, they wrote friendly letters to a middle school in Baltimore, asking students for information about their local aquarium. The majority of our sixth graders had never been to an aquarium. These activities helped in our efforts to gather resources and also helped students begin to see what it takes for an aquarium to be successful.
Our kickoff activity was a trip to the New England Aquarium in Boston. The sixth graders entered the building with a questionnaire developed by teachers and students. Questions about lighting, exhibit space, flow of traffic, and features that encourage learning needed to be answered before they completed their tour. The students met with the curator of exhibit design and learned how the aquarium put together exhibits. A small group had a "behind the scenes" tour in which they viewed the inner workings of an aquarium, viewing all of the machinery and background space required to take care of the animals. This was fieldwork at its best, focused and purposeful, and it was absolutely necessary for these students to see this model before they began their own design. It was great to watch students view a museum with a critical eye, visiting each exhibit to gather information, and then taking a step back to analyze how effectively it was done.
On the way back to Portland it was evident through listening to the conversations that the students were anxious to design their own aquariums. Most of the students lived near the proposed sites and were familiar with the area. They had only positive comments on the tourists it would bring in, the business the area stores and restaurants would receive, and how it would help to put the "port" back into Portland. We realized how proud they were to live in Portland, and how much they thought this would improve their community.
After the kickoff activity, all of our students made a working portfolio, a color-coded folder that organized all of their work and provided information about the overall trail they would be taking to complete the expedition. We asked students to assemble their portfolios for the expedition, which incorporated math, science, language arts, and computer science. The portfolios became more and more valuable to the students as the expedition rolled along. Moving from class to class became easier; instead of carrying four to five different books and notebooks, each student carried her portfolio. It held all of their product descriptors, work in progress and final drafts, notes and information sheets, and a list of what they still needed to do. At a quick glance, they could tell where they were in the expedition and where they were going.
Our math teacher, Phil Dyer, contacted Don Perkins, the president of the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Committee, prior to the start of the expedition. Mr. Perkins agreed to listen to ideas developed by the students. His pending visit clearly motivated students to do high quality work. In middle school, students tend to focus on their peers within the walls of the building and center their actions on what will impress them. These walls were gone during this expedition since their peers were not the only ones passing judgment on their ideas. The atmosphere was more serious because of their role in providing ideas to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Committee. Students started asking questions about Mr. Perkins. When will Mr. Perkins be coming? How will he share our ideas with the rest of the committee? Do you think Mr. Perkins will like this idea? We quickly realized that they were hooked.
Besides providing the important real-life connection, Don Perkins shared information on the four potential sites for the aquarium. We sent a group of 10 students, accompanied by two teachers and a video camera, to investigate the four proposed sites. (Staff availability dictated sending a small group out to complete this fieldwork.) At each site they videotaped the landscape and added comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the site based on the criteria that the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Committee was using to assess these potential locations. These students then shared the video and their personal reflections with the rest of the student body so that students had a potential site in mind as they began the design process.
During the next week, students designed a logo and a company name and established themselves as president of their own architectural firm. They printed business cards in the computer room. In math class, students learned the skills of drawing to scale from Charlie Pressey, director of School Renovations. They learned about universal symbols, drafting tools, and drafting skills from an architect, Jeff Verreault. They did extensive work on geometry skills including area, perimeter and volume with Mr. Dyer.
As the expedition continued to progress some students felt they were going to work in the morning instead of school. The attendance was at an all time high, discipline problems at an all time low. If they missed a day, they might miss important information that would help them with their design.
Science teacher Kim Verreault filled her classroom with resources related to aquatic habitats in general, as well as books on very specific topics such as blue holes, coral reefs, and mangrove swamps. Each student researched five aquatic habitats and detailed the habitat as well as the animal and plant life that thrived in the region. They would need this content as they developed their design and described it in detail for their written proposal.
When they had all the tools, skills, and materials, they were introduced to Joe Hemes, an architect with Blatt Architects in Portland. His plan was to take an existing abandoned structure in the city and turn it into a productive building. He chose Fort Gorges, a Revolutionary War island fort seen from every shore of the city, and designed an imaginary aquarium at the site. His design was created solely for the purpose of a national architectural design competition, and he graciously agreed to share his creativity with our students. Through a slide show Mr. Hemes presented his designs, his blueprints, his artistic renderings of his dream and provided the inspiration, enthusiasm, and creativity they needed to dream on. Now that they had seen an example of exemplary work they were ready to begin their own design process.
There was a heightened level of excitement in the air the day that each student started outlining floor plan ideas on drafting paper. Due to the nature of the design process, the students had to spread themselves throughout the Windsor Wing of King Middle School. We borrowed several large tables and set them up in the hall and in our project room. Visitors who walked through our hall during the expedition were amazed at how focused, yet excited, these sixth-grade students were. They would invariably stop to ask a student what they were doing or how it was coming, and before they knew it they were involved in a 20-minute session with this new "architect" who was very anxious to begin sharing his/her ideas with an audience.
Throughout the design process the students would informally discuss and critique design ideas as they worked on their floor plans. Many had to adapt and revise their original vision once they started to work within the limits of the project, which included a set area of 30,000 to 35,000 square feet and a scale of one inch to eight feet. They also had to make sure their design matched their research on aquatic habitats. Yes, there were points of frustration for students. It was challenging work, which required a marriage of creativity, scientific knowledge and exact mathematical calculations. But minor bumps along the way were expected and allowed students to experience a situation where perseverance paid off.
As the sixth graders put their pencils, rulers, protractors, and T-squares to work on the first draft of their floor plan, we used the language arts class to examine the elements of a written proposal, which would accompany their design.
Direct writing instruction was integral to this phase of "Dream On." These students had not completed much informational writing at the elementary level, and so they needed practice turning research and notes into a piece of writing that informs, yet engages their audience. The note-taking process was modeled and the students had practice activities that followed the instruction. Follow-up work included instruction on turning the notes into interesting and informative paragraphs. Again, the modeling approach was used. Mini lessons were held on the difference between recopying and revising. Lively engaging writing was shared and pages of a dull, repetitive proposal were created for the students to review.
As the students neared the completion of the first draft of their floor plan, a large critique session was scheduled. Local architects graciously gave a morning of their time to meet with individual students and review their plans. Each architect was given information on the parameters of the project, and they completed a critique sheet for each student. The architects loved the excitement and enthusiasm of the students. Once again, the students found a new audience with whom to share their vision. These architects proved to be a wonderful connection for our students, and the students were able to educate these professionals about some of the exciting activities occurring in a local public school.
As the deadline drew near, the pace of the work increased. A presentation day was scheduled with a guest panel including Don Perkins, and it was fast approaching. Students began to move toward producing final drafts of their floor plans and their proposals. At this point every class was devoted to "Dream On." Students were typing and editing during their computer class time, and all of the extra periods we could reserve. The hallway was full of students working at tables, trying to make error free final drafts of their floor plans.
At this point in the process it was evident how much the service learning component was driving the work. Often it is at this stage when we see students fall behind, lose interest, or express frustration with a project. The connection with the community kept these students focused and pushed them to have their best work ready for presentation. When we viewed the proposals and floor plans as they neared completion we were amazed. They showed the quality and precision of the blueprints shared by the visiting architects. The fact that these blueprints were going to be shared with community members helped raise the expectations, and the students delivered.
As the expedition continued, students honed their public speaking skills and presented their plans before their classmates. Sixteen representatives from the class continued to present to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Committee, and finally two students were elected to the Aquarium board. This piece is from an article by Karen MacDonald and Christine Griffin, teachers at King Middle Schools in Portland, Maine, which will be published in its entirety this summer in an Expeditionary Learning book of teacher writings on service within learning expeditions.
Steward
of the Elements: An Experience in Constructivist Service Learning
Chapter Four Arrives The bear spoke again. "Pathfinders!" We have been watching you, and you have done well. You have learned a lot. You know where your water, electricity, and food come from. You have studied how you use the elements, and how much you use. In fact, you have learned more than we ever hoped." The children were feeling good now. "We believe you are ready for the next step. But first, we think it is time to tell you why you and your clans have been chosen. Frog?" Frog, the one who warns people of danger, spoke: We are dying. Every day, somewhere in the world, an animal species goes extinct. You two-legged ones are in danger, too, as is the Earth itself. Frog spoke again: "I warn people of danger, but I also teach about things that are connected, because I connect the land and the water. You must ask yourselves: When you use water, earth, or fire, does it affect the animals, the earth, even other people? How?" Salmon spoke. "I teach about respect. Now, you should be able to answer your last two questions: "How can you use Water, Earth, and Fire more responsibly? What actions can you take in your homes and school to be more respectful toward and responsible with the elements? You must decide on something you think should change, write a proposal, and make it happen. When you have made change, then, and only then, will you be Stewards of the Elements." With this fourth chapter of the story, the groundwork was laid for student-initiated service projects. The story gave us the words "responsible" and "respectful" to guide us in choosing actions relating to our use of the elements. The Eagle Clan: Water--Proposals for Change Winter Break was over, and some were ready for the expedition to be as well. However, all of our learning and research had laid the groundwork for stewardship projects. The students understood the natural water cycle, the human water system, and their relationship. I had not explicitly brought up stewardship or service as yet, but many of our guest speakers and field speakers had mentioned ideas of what we could do to treat water with more respect, and some of the students had already come up with their own ideas. Now it was time to go back to those seeds and help them bear fruit. After hearing the charge given to us in part four of the story, we met as a class and brainstormed potential projects according to the criteria mentioned in the chapter: "What actions can you take to be more respectful toward and responsible for water?" Some of the ideas came from guest speakers, like making non-toxic soap and turning the school into a "toxic-free" zone, and replacing non-native plants with native species near a local stream. Others came from students' own interests, such as designing a water web page and building a three-dimensional model of a local park's watershed showing how people do and do not respect it. One student brought in the idea of building a "living machine," or biological wastewater treatment plant which would treat the classroom wastewater using bacteria, plants, and fish instead of chemicals. Most projects met the criteria; several students wanted most of all to use our new plumbing knowledge to build a drinking fountain in the classroom. Though the idea does not represent respect or responsibility for water, it was the project those students loved, and it provided a service to their classmates, who were tired of trekking down the hall to get a drink. We narrowed it down to ten choices and then the students each wrote their top three on an index card, which I used to make project groups. But before the groups could begin their work, they had to write Proposals for Change. We had already practiced this kind of writing in other contexts, like writing letters to the school site council requesting that the building's urinals be turned off at night and weekends. We had discussed what makes good persuasive writing using samples of student work. Now we were ready to write something with more purpose. I asked the school principal to stop by and hear about their ideas. He was impressed, but informed them that you cannot treat your own wastewater, or do work in a local park, or add to the school web site, or replace all the toxic cleaners in the school, or build a permanent drinking fountain in the classroom, or any of the other projects, without first getting permission. Each group had to decide on its audience. Some were writing to the school site council, others to the city parks department, still others to a local historical museum to request that their model be exhibited there. A couple of the projects did not suggest an obvious audience, such as the video group and the play group. In the end I had them write to other schools asking if we could perform for them. Our next step was for each group to write an "Action Plan" detailing the problem they were trying to solve, the solution, the steps needed to carry out the solution, the materials required, and who it would affect. These action plans became the pre-write step for their Proposals for Change. Each student wrote his or her own proposal, and each proposal went through several drafts. "Expedition Fieldwork Fridays," as well as Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, were devoted to working on the proposals. We discussed "what makes a good proposal for change" and they came up with things like "convincing," "makes sense," "easy for the audience to understand," and "interesting." We tried to think of examples of how to make a persuasive piece demonstrate these criteria. Special bordered paper was provided for the final copies, which for many students became one of the pieces of writing they were most proud of for the year. Indeed, the clear audiences they were writing for and the connection to their work inspired more interest in multiple drafts and in many cases, higher quality work than I had seen previously that year. As students finished their Proposals For Change (most of which were submitted to the proper audiences), they began to work on their projects. Fridays-"Expedition Fieldwork Days"-became project days. If you had walked into the classroom on a typical Friday in late January, you might have seen only a few students: the "living machine" group clustered around their three fish tanks, trying to figure out how to pump water from one tank to another (their knowledge of how a siphon works ended up being very useful), and the legs of two members of the "drinking fountain" group sticking out from under the sink as they worked with a wrench. The "plants" group would have been down at the park, replacing non-native English Ivy and False Bamboo with native plants donated by a local nursery. The "watershed model" group would have been with a parent volunteer at the parks department office downtown copying topographical maps. The "play" group would have been rehearsing on-stage. The "video" group would have been filming with a parent in an empty classroom. The "nontoxic soap" group would have been going from classroom to classroom, doing a survey of the building's supplies to see what toxic cleaners need to be replaced. The "water web page" group was in the library, researching other web pages to get ideas for their own. And the teacher would have been running from group to group, discovering that he really was not needed for much. The students generally only asked
for help when they had problems working together. But when it came
to the task at hand, they were determined to figure it out themselves.
The drinking fountain group, with one member who is commonly referred
to as a behavior problem, spent two and a half hours under the sink,
first wrestling with a stuck screw and then trying to figure out
how the pieces of our new fountain fit together. The students never
wanted help, and successfully solved both problems themselves. They
not only learned how a drinking fountain is put together; they also
learned about the rewards of perseverance. There were similar character-building
experiences in every project group. By this time, the students had
a passion for their projects-on many levels-and they were not going
to let any social conflicts or technical difficulties get in the
way.
"What's
In The Water You Drink?" "What in the water you drink?" I put this question to my eighth-grade earth science classes "H2O," one student responded. "It's nothing but water," said another. Then, I asked, "Would you drink water from your bathroom sink?" Some gasped in horror as they exclaimed, "No way!" Other shrugged their shoulders and said, "Sure why not?"
I was curious as to why some thought it was okay to drink bathroom water and others thought it was repulsive. "After all," I continued, "it is just H2O, nothing more; isn't it?"
As they debated a response to my last question, I challenged them to figure out a way they could determine if there was a physical difference between kitchen and bathroom water. The students gathered in small groups, then shared their solutions as a whole class. They decided that in order to settle the debate they would have to test samples of water from each student's kitchen and bathroom.
There was only one problem with this solution, they had no idea what they would be looking for. What is in water besides hydrogen and oxygen? Why don't we drink water from a rain barrel outside our windows instead of relying on the city to pump water through pipes from reservoirs? Who takes care of our water? How do we know our water is truly safe to drink?
This is how I introduced the "How safe is the water we drink?" expedition to my students at School for the Physical City (SPC) in New York City. I reviewed the water expedition with them and informed them that they would be expected to do a service project on New York City's drinking water during the expedition. After initial research and fieldwork involving testing the water supply, students would compile their knowledge in a brochure and a final report presented to environmental agencies as well as the general public.
We visited a chemical analysis and two microbiology labs at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which is the institution responsible for supplying New York City's water. They saw samples tested for microbes and color indicators. They were quizzed after each lab tour about controls and variables they observed, as well as about reporting procedures. Students asked questions about why certain procedures were followed, such as heating instruments before use and incubating cultures for set periods of time. They also asked questions about the organisms they viewed under microscopes. More importantly, they went there seeking answers to questions such as, Why does the water come out of the faucet cloudy? How can one tell if microorganisms are in the water? How could they get their water checked if they suspected something was wrong with it? Some of their questions were answered at the lab and others had to wait until we completed our research.
The students made a list of things they or people they knew would want to know about their water: How safe is the water in schools? Does the quality of drinking water change from borough to borough? Do filters really make a difference? If so, what are those differences? How can one tell if bottled water is better than tap water? Does temperature affect the quality of water? If so, how? What is the quality of water served in food places? They included in the list my initial question: Is there a difference between kitchen and bathroom water? If so, why?
Students did some of their research at home and some at school; they used the Internet, texts, a Mayo Clinic reference CD-ROM, newspaper articles, and magazines. In addition, they made phone calls to government agencies and wrote to bottled water and filter companies. Realizing they would not receive any negative press from the companies, we compared brochures from Poland Springs, Evian, Perrier, Dannon, and a few lesser known companies. By the time students finished going through them they learned interesting facts about bottled water and understood the meaning of propaganda.
Once students had finished their initial research, reflected on the practices of the DEP testing, and had determined how they would proceed with controls and variables in their own experiments with the supplies available, they were ready to perform their own water quality testing. They collected water samples from schools, community centers, places of worship, homes, and restaurants in all five boroughs of New York City.
They worked in small groups setting up tests to address the questions from the list that interested them most. The two classes ran tests on more than 155 samples of drinking water. Due to time constraints some samples did not get tested; however, they performed enough water quality tests to get a general sense of how scientists conduct scientific investigations, and to understand the limits of their results based on materials, testing techniques, and quantity of samples.
The water tests themselves were designed for students to determine the presence of copper, iron, chlorine, calcium, magnesium, and sodium as well as to ascertain pH levels. Lead testing was one thing I would have liked students to have performed, but was not able to get sufficient materials to accomplish it. We did however, send samples of water from our school and from a students home to be analyzed by a professional laboratory in North Carolina for lead results. Both samples came back negative.
After the samples were tested, students wrote reports that outlined their findings regarding their questions. Their individual reports explained the question they were pursuing, materials used, method of testing, source of their samples, graphs and charts of their data, and conclusions they had drawn. Since these reports contained specific information about people's households, businesses or schools, the reports were kept confidential among classes, the clients, and myself. Students consolidated the individual findings into general summaries in a final report to submit to DEP. I had asked them to write a final report to give them an authentic audience and to give them practice writing a narrative report from a narrative procedure.
I asked them to look at a sample of student writing and take notes regarding the quality of the work based on a rubric we developed together. Next they recorded their reflections on how their writing compared with the sample, and then they rewrote their drafts making the necessary changes. We practiced this technique at intervals throughout the year. As a result by the time they were writing their water quality testing reports, they had an understanding of what a narrative procedure should look like. This process also made it easier for the two classes to collaboratively write the narrative report.
For their final presentation, students set up a gallery of work. They displayed poster boards illustrating data relating to their guiding questions and brochures they created. The brochures contained information on how to contact DEP for free water testing and tips for handling common water concerns. In addition student representatives from both classes did demonstrations of water testing, gave summaries explaining what their tests and research revealed regarding health concerns, and provided samples for viewing of microorganisms found in some bodies of water. Their audience consisted of a representative from DEP and the Environmental Protection Agency, clients of the water study, parents, students from other classes, SPC faculty, staff developers from local colleges, and Expeditionary Learning staff.
During the presentations students submitted their narrative report to the DEP representative. Both representatives from DEP and the EPA read the report, asked students questions, and declared they were impressed with their responses.
The final step for the expedition was for students to notify participants of the water study about the quality of their water samples. A discussion took place to determine the best way to serve their clients. They decided on a letter outlining the general findings of the classes unless a test result was significant in anyway. They also decided to mail only one brochure with each letter. They voted on which group's brochure to send based on criteria they felt met standards for written communication.
One student gave his father the letter and brochure at his office. When his father showed the brochure to his co-workers, they wanted to know if they could get more of them to take home to their families and friends.
I plan to have students do another water study, but next time I would like them to sample water from natural water sources. I will also have them do more microbiology tests when working in the field. I felt that extensive investigation in this field could have significantly enhanced student learning in the area of scientific investigations.
When I first wrote this curriculum, many people thought I was expecting too much from my students, after all they were only in eighth grade. At the conclusion of the final presentation, my students and I exchanged congratulatory looks for we knew they had done more than test water samples and report results; they got people to believe that they could accomplish much learning as long as they persevered.
Book
Review "Children at the Center" by Kathe Taylor and Sherry Walton offers educators a way to address the literacy format of standardized tests while, through a workshop approach, allowing students to share, reflect, and refine winning strategies for demonstrating knowledge on these assessment tools.
Much of Taylor and Walton's book deals with the ethical issues of how norm-referenced standardized tests are used to rank students for use in educational and economic opportunities, and how these issues are particularly problematic in schools where in-depth, collaborative investigations are valued over "surface" learning. The sections of the book that discuss how standardized tests fit into constructivist curricula may be useful for Expeditionary Learning teachers and school leaders who are trying to align their curriculum with their assessment system.
Taylor and Walton do a good job of explaining the conditions that lead educators to question the role of standardized tests in their schools. They detail how standardized test scores routinely correlate to demographic characteristics unrelated to "aptitude," such as race and wealth. In addition, they describe how there is a direct relationship between low scores and decreased future educational and economic opportunities, norm-referenced standardized tests may justly be called a tool of social oppression. Further, the connection between test scores and a student's actual knowledge in any given area is tenuous enough to entertain charges of not only misleading all who use them, but of wasting school time and public money as well. Since neither students, teachers, nor parents may compare test takers' responses to the correct ones, no possible learning opportunities exist, save for those associated with having students learn specific test-taking skills. In light of these issues, the authors say administering these tests is a serious educational matter. For those who successfully resolve these issues, further ethical considerations await educators interested in maintaining the integrity of the test itself, an issue which the book conscientiously addresses.
The premise of this series of eight, one-hour workshops is that standardized tests are written in a format employing predictable patterns, and that learning the rules of this format is one key to students accurately showing what they know on them. The workshops do not attempt to increase students' knowledge of any content area, but rather aim at familiarizing students with the format of standardized tests. After field-testing the workshops on 79 students in different K-8 grades, Taylor and Walton report dramatic improvements in overall test results, but particularly in those academic areas the school already taught. These results tend to indicate the strong effect increased familiarity with the test format seems to have on scores.
The plans for the workshops are easy to understand and appear equally easy to execute. Over the course of a week immediately prior to a real test, students are asked to reflect on and articulate their experiences and feelings around standardized tests, and to share their practices for solving test problems. Students then participate in assembling a set of these methods, which they get the chance to practice using two preliminary tests. There is also a very helpful section that gives teachers enough of a grounding in the mechanics of test making to help them clearly explain test results to parents interested in what scores really mean.
"Children at the Center" presents a practical, accessible, and easy-to- implement program of helping students learn how to perform better in the particular format of a standardized test. If your goal is to help make your students more comfortable with the increasing number of standardized tests they are asked to take and thereby increase their scores, then this book may well make your work a lot easier.
J Jasper is a school designer with Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
|
