subject: Students' Connections to the U.S. History State Test [print this page] Erika reviewed, every dayErika reviewed, every day. She began each period with various forms of review using the interactive whiteboard, handouts, or student interaction. It was quick, fast-paced, and important. The students learned the information they needed to know for the state test, and Erika's responses of, "You are too smart" kept their energy high. Erika pointed out nuances of the wording in various forms of a test question, and repeatedly called various students by name for short responses. They knew Erika was reviewing information that counted; in Virginia students must past the U.S. history test to graduate. These fast-paced reviews, led by a teacher who ran track in college, invigorated the class. Erika, who sees a movie a week, slipped movie comments into her pep talks. Her students and she connected at many levels. They were on a roll.
When we reviewed World War I, Erika engaged the students in the following actions during the first few minutes of three class periods. She placed sentences with blank Links Of London Earrings spaces on the interactive whiteboard and students scurried forward to fill in the blanks. Erika showed political cartoons, asking the class, "What does this mean" and students offered answers. Erika showed posters and asked, "Why are they propaganda" Moira said, "They persuaded Americans to go to war against Germany." We all quickly took a one-page, seven-question practice test and discussed it.
At one point Erika stage-whispered, "Let's whisper debate, Zharlaine. We're running against each other for an office. I'm a Republican!" Zharlaine immediately caught on, "I'm a Democrat!" In less than a minute Erika ended the debate and turned to the class, "How many will vote for me" No one. "How many for Zharlaine" All hands went up! Erika made a few comments about this dramatization of democracy, high fived Zharlaine, and this student smiled her way to her seat at the back of the classroom.
Review continued as we each completed and discussed a chart in which we compared a few points of President Woodrow Wilson's plan for peace and a plan for peace the class started to create for their own school. Finally, the students wrote (in class and for homework) their individual versions of Wilson's Fourteen Points for their school. In essence, as it turned out, the students (of course) gave themselves more control than they currently had. They also created their own version of the League of Nations.
Review was constant and real. It included all modes of learning: talking, writing, dramatizing, practicing, and connecting to self. The review worked. Given their form of block scheduling (two long and one short period each week), the quick reviews left considerable time to pursue new information. These pursuits took the forms I have shown throughout this article, and others, all of which I recorded in field notes gathered during the two long periods each week. For example, the class studied the Vietnam War by listening toand discussingthe songs of that era.
Throughout the year Erika prepared for each class by creating a DVD. She pulled Links Of London Bracelets information from multiple websites and other sources, popped the disk into the projector when she and her cart entered the classroom where she taught this class (a physics classroom), and taught from the interactive whiteboard. The students saw and heard video clips, segments of speeches, music, and old photos. With the abundance of primary source documents available (Molebash, 2004), they had much to talk about as a class, with partners at their two-person tables, and in clusters of four. They wrote, read, used laptops, and drew. These students were busy; this class was engaged.
All but one of the 26 students in Erika's general-track class passed the state test. Overall, at their high school, less than 80% of the U.S. history students passed. General-track classrooms can work. Large numbers of students do not need to feel disenfranchised (Epstein, 2007).
This was an empowering classroom, the kind advocated by Tatum (2005), in which the teacher acknowledges that credible test scores, the development of academic skills, and the nurturing of students' identities are "fundamentally compatible.... The emphasis is on engagement and outcomes". When these elements are kept in mind, educators are less likely to place an unreasonable emphasis on tests sponsored by governments who insist that literacy is learning to "read, write, and spell".
Students' Connections to the U.S. History State Test
