Hello sixth graders, I trust your Thanksgiving was restful and that you enjoyed your turkey.  I happily watched the Dallas Cowboys beat the Oakland Raiders. WOOT WOOT!  I was a little disappointed to see the Baltimore Ravens beat the Pitsburgh Steelers, but only because I used to live in Pittsburgh.

Now here is a bit of information to help you study for your post test.  Memorize and think of examples from Judith Viorst's poem "Who's Who" to help you.

Rhyme Scheme=The pattern of rhyming words in a poem or song.

Alliteration=The repetition of consonant sounds in words that are close together in literature.

Alliteration: 

Alliteration is the repetition of consonant sounds in literature.

Answer the following questions.  Tweet your responses to #alliterationjv or respond in the comments section.

What are some examples of alliteration from the poem?
Can you find two words that do not begin with the same letter, but have the same sound?
Find one example of alliteration using the m sound.

Rhyme Scheme:  Take a look at the poem above.  What are some words that rhyme?  Remember, rhyming words usually sound the same at the end of the word, right?  Tweet your response to #who'swhorhymes or enter your answer in the comment section below.

In class we assigned letters in each stanza to words that rhyme.

Check out the first stanza:

What are the words that rhyme at the ends of the lines?

We assign the lines a letter based on the words that rhyme in order of the alphabet.  

Agrees rhymes with Louise so we name or assign lines 1 and 3 the letter A. 

Undeniable rhymes with reliable so we assign lines 2 and 4the  line B.  

The rhyme scheme tells us which LINES rhyme with with which lines.  The rhyme scheme for stanza one is ABAB.  

With a new stanza, there are new rhyming words so we assign new letters to the new stanza.  Let's take a look at stanza 2:

Find the rhyming words and assign new letters to the lines containing rhyming words.  Remember to assign new letters to the lines.  What is the rhyme scheme.  Include your reply on Twitter, via email (nleary@hawaii.edu).  

Point of View=The vantage point from which a story or narrative is being told.

In the first person point of view the narrator, the person telling the story,  is a character in the story.  The pronouns used to describe himself or herself and others around him  or her include I, me, us, we, my.  One way to remember the first person narrative is I=1st person

In third person point of view, the narrator is telling the story from the outside, Perhaps he is watching the scenario from far away.  The pronouns used to describe third person are he, she, they,  etc.  One way to remember third person is Three=she or he.  

Here is a link to Haiku learning for a bit more information and some practice worksheets that you can print and try on your own for practice.

www.myhaikuclass.com/nwleary/owlenglish/cms_page/view.

Thanks for visiting my blog and I'll see you on campus at CKMS!  I am looking forward to reading your responses on twitter, in comments or via email!

A hui ho!

Aloha everyone.  Here is a link to my Haiku Learning Management  System page.  I hope you will enjoy watching a short video clip "The Lion King."

https://www.myhaikuclass.com/nwleary/owlenglish/cms_page/view

Aloha and a hui ho!

Here is a link to my Jing.com presentation on unwrapping an embedded assessment.

http://screencast.com/t/qT0pweFDd

Now I can see why I everyone is flipping out!

Blog 7: Assessments

Post: 

• How do you assess student learning in your classroom?  What might you do differently to prepare student for the next generation of assessments based on the readings, activities and resources explored?

Currently I use Jumpro.pe, a mastery based grading program which allows me to look at the most recent work and to assign assessments to particular standards.   The assessments I include are major projects that highlight certain standards.  Formative assessment includes my ticket out the door and journal entries on standards related topics.  At our school, this is our second year of incorporating the Common Core State State Standards.  Students are subjected to a pre and post test schedule to indicate growth from the inception of the content.    Teachers are asked to submit detailed data that follows the six-step data teams process pioneered by Douglas Reeves.  These pre-tests and post-test are supposed to be formative in nature.

In our current text, SpringBoard by the College Board, we have just begun the first unit. The process for every unit seems to follow the pattern established by an the article in education week.  I have created a Powerpoint on the unwrapping phase here: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1COlHSQ7R8Suj5wDMqTR9zuz4d-oT6K9-0S9VYh3Enak/edit
It is key to remember that there are many formative assessments or worksheets that fill the pagges between the unit overview and the Embedded Assessment.  Throughout the process of unwrapping the unit prior to the embedded assessment, students are constantly reminded of their goal.  Self-assessment is part of the process as well as peer review.  I believe the writers of SpringBoard, a product of the College Board, have this is in mind as they develop units for this consumable text.  Further, collaboration is part and parcel of the process of learning in several assessments between unwrapping the unit and the final result.  Feed back from students and peers is part and parcel of the process of leading the students through each unit so that they might understand what the end product looks like.   

At our school, we are in the process of trying to improve our school's outcomes by the Data Teams Process in which we provide formative assessments frequently in pre and post test cycles.  The danger here is that the data becomes more important than the feedback students should be receiving.  Not enough feedback is given since students are not viewing the assessments in a timely manner.  The records do show that students are improving  overall.  However, I am not sure teachers fully understand that formative assessment is not a type of assessment. CITE  Rather, it is a process in which scaffolding and feedback are embedded.

If I were to do anything differently, I would try to find ways to guide students incorporation of new knowledge during the learning process by developing better questioning skills.  I will seek their feed back in new and innovative ways, such as Twitter and other programs that invite feedback online.  Further, I will do my best to implement the suggestions of students whenever possible.

The ear mouse, a scientific abstract.

Through his abstract art, Picasso could distort the human face in some kind of a beautiful irony. Now it seems scientists can shock the public in equally appalling ways.  Scores of earthlings have scrutinized the alien image of a hairless mouse with a human ear growing from its back.

Perhaps even more curious is the fact that the ear is not human at all; rather, the cells are of bovine origin. Nonetheless, the photograph of the mouse lends the supposition that the mouse was cultivated in a petri dish and that the human ear growing from its back is a result of genetic engineering, that somehow, scientists have spawned a new evolution that will save humankind from all its ailments.

One such ailment is the failing liver.  Many patients requiring liver transplants often die before they placed on a growing list of transplant patients, states an article in the BBC news suggests that scientists are on the path to growing functioning human livers with the aid of the hairless mouse.  While  the article hooks the reader with marvelous possibilities in its opening, it falsely claims that the mouse has human genes growing inside of it.  It turns out the cells are not human at all and the mouse is just a host for a sort cellular mold using bio-degradable polymers as the form.  More alarming, given the photograph's implications, the reader is led to believe that a cure for liver disease is eminent. If the reader continues, the article becomes more technical and spells out the details of the scientific quest to recreate human organs.  In reality, the idea of recreating a human liver is very far away.  No genetic engineering is really taking place: rather, cell cultivation, growth and scaffolding the structure of the organ represent the  path to human organ replacement.  Further, the mouse is no longer mentioned; the focus is the scientist, Jay Vacanti, and the seemingly formidable task he has undertaken to grow and cultivate a functioning liver to contain hundreds of millions of human cells.
    Others take a less sensational approach to the matter of the ear mouse.  In Australia, ABC presents no photo of the ear mouse at all.  Instead, the focus is on the history of cell cultivation and growth, providing a buffering zone against the sensational photographs and rate bolstering science features.  The focus is not on genetic engineering, nor a 3D liver.  Instead, the ABC article focuses on a more mundane topic, cell cultivation.  The ear mouse is mentioned but only as an historical account of what has  happened until now in the scientific realm of cell growth and cultivation.  While the title is somewhat intriguing, the author, a scientist named Dr. Karl, quickly refutes any claims that the mouse born ear contains human tissue and that the mouse and ear were genetically engineered to benefit humans, that the cells were implanted in the mouse over the muscle layer so that the mouse's blood supply could nurture the cells implanted.  In fact, the cells that made up the ear were from a cow's cartilage, which would quickly be rejected by human immunity systems.
     Wikipedia provides a brief description of the ear mouse, choosing not to invoke sensationalism at all, not even in the title.  The Wikipedia entry is entitled "The Vacanti Mouse."  Like the ABC article , the truth about the mouse and ear are told, but the scientific facts are highlighted.  It seems ironic that the very figure that spawned a controversy over genetic engineering is now used to defend it.
   With the truth being told the matter  makes more sense and practical applications of cultivating cells can be exposed.  Of the three articles provided, I found Dr. Karl's take on the ear mouse to be most credible.  He high lights the truth and does not extend hype and fraud.  Instead he highlights the real good that can come from science, such as ear reconstruction and the case of the star baseball player born with chest plate covering his heart and lungs, whose cartilaginous chest plate was grown in the same manner as the cow cartilage grown in the mouse.  In either case, the truth is that no genetic engineering took place: rather, human ingenuity.
     As to the question, What would I do next to ensure accuracy?  I would continue my research of the ear mouse and get as much information about the experiment as possible.   Developing good sources for research requires answering essential questions about the material.  While the BBC information is useful, its intent seems cloaked in hype and sensationalism rather than the truth.  As for me, seeing how Dr. Karl refutes implications that the mouse rose out of a petri dish in a clinical lab bearing, not only a human ear, but a new evolution for the benefit of mankind is highly valuable.  However, I feel the best information comes from the source of ty he experimenters, Dr. Vacanti and his team.  I would take the time to read the work of his team and utilize the implications directly from the source.
     I think the most valuable lesson taken from having taken a closer look at topic of the ear mouse is that even refutable sources can be questionable.  Even then, the information, though somewhat dubious, may provide inside into some research topics.  I have learned to go directly to the source when sources are cited and to glean information first hand.  When it comes to teaching students how to evaluate sources, my primary advice is to avoid websites flooded with advertisements and to be sure to continue beyond that dubious source to find core of the matter, perhaps from the original author, researcher or scientist.  In my own practice, I gravitate toward source from online libraries or journals that are available to me as a student.  While researching topics, students should be given lessons which help them to evaluate the credibility of the source and to avoid plagiarism. Some of these sources can be found through John Hopkins University or Scholastic.   I will embed these guidelines in my personal learning network, share them on my blogs and with colleagues at school. In addition, students can evaluate each other's sources through peer evaluation. It is important  to also teach students about the ramifications of plagiarism.  Further, I will model the process of researching the ear mouse to my students whenever possible.  In this way, students may still enjoy the shock and awe of a Picasso or an ear mouse, but they will be able to better filter the truth and the intent of such shocking images.

Check out the ear mouse articles here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1949073.stm
-www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/06/02/1644154.htm
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmfQoSx8wVN_Z-2E1zoWXv4RvM8jxtVoCXdf5NAvQV4/edit

The above link should take you to a Prezi on the skills and knowledge needed to complete Embedded Assessment One.  Look at EA 1, attached and examine the Prezi.  To what skill or knowledge base does each task apply?