Alliances Lesson- Pictures and Reflections
Lesson Analysis and Reflections
Judging purely by student engagement, the class was extremely relevant to a vast majority of my students. One student actually proclaimed, ‘why don’t we do this stuff more, I like all of this reasoning and plotting!’ I asked the students if they felt a similar way and a vast majority of the class raised their hands. Her comment suggests that many students were able to relate to the activity as a challenging practice in critical thinking. Additionally, through the map activity, students were able to find meaning in the border changes from pre-WWI to post-WWI today. While I had not intended to, students posed theories on why their where more countries today as opposed to 100 years ago. They were largely able to identify that some level of imperialism and militarism led to the larger countries in pre-WWI. I plan to revisit this unintended conversation, when we revisit boundaries and nation-building post WWI.
I realize that I used rather unconventional artifacts for analysis in this case. Since I could not take home their visual representation of the alliance system. I attempted to document the work with a photograph. Both photographs were taken during the conclusion of the activity when students were asked to determine which countries they needed to declare war on based on the classroom diagram they had created. The second photograph really documents the welcomed chaos that ensued when each group was asked to decide who to declare war on. One student (seen in photograph 2) was able to help multiple groups by getting a better aerial look at the alliances.
The first photograph, really demonstrates the multiple levels of work and understanding that was required in the activity. The boy in the front is filling out his guided note packet based on the results he sees. While clearly you cannot hear her, the girl in the front is correcting her teammate, using evidence she took from the class diagram. The boy and the girl in the back are determining together who to declare war on, using both the evidence from the diagram and the evidence in their packet.
I also conducted informal assessments throughout the lesson to check students reasoning and discuss the domino effect in relationship to the alliances system. I attempted to ensure that most students were able to explain their group’s reasoning. All but two students had the opportunity to speak, (the last two did not have a chance because of time restrictions).
Practices and Technique Analysis
I anticipated the high level of chaos that resulted with this interactive activity. To guide students through the process, and aid them as they attempted to write down notes and themes, I created a guided note-taking packet. The packet included maps and an easy to follow empty timeline that helped them organize their alliance information. I have used guided note-taking packets for students who struggled with note taking in the past and it has helped them tremendously. I felt that in this specific occasion it would benefit the whole class.
I also used a guided simulation activity because of my students’ feedback about exciting and useful activities. In the past, simulation activities have consistently achieved high ratings in my student surveys and feedback. But this simulation was more guided in nature. While the complexities, advantages and disadvantages of the alliance was the main theme of the activity, students still had to record and apply a large amount of specific content information (alliances). I was concerned that students may confuse their suggested alliances as the actual historical alliances. So students were only able to represent the documented historical alliances in their classroom diagram.
In addition to the very successful simulation activity that engaged all of the class, the choice to anchor the activity with map work really helped focus the students. It required them to fill out a map of pre-war Europe before the lesson and fill out/color code a map of alliance-entangled Europe after the activity. The final map activity helped students, who felt less comfortable with the very active and loud simulation activity, demonstrate their comprehension of the activity and its significance.
Impacting Future Practice
I will definitely use this activity in the future to demonstrate the alliance systems. The largest problem with the lesson is the time constraints of the traditional 55-minute class time. I found that I rushed my students to come to conclusions and suggestions. I would love to have a slightly longer class so students, especially those students who feel less comfortable volunteering their ideas right away, have the chance to really think and reflect. In the future, I might only have one map activity at the end so I do not have to rush the guided simulation activity.
While I feel like I was able to address multiple intelligences with this activity, I believe that my evidence needed to be more extensive to prove this. I had only a short time to take pictures. In the future, I would like to ask how I could incorporate differing assessments to ensure understanding from all of my students. Ultimately, if I am going to vary activities based on multiple intelligence theory, I also need to be more willing to vary final assessment work based on that philosophy as well.
I would have also liked to create a better context for the students. In an ideal world, the students would have conducted research beforehand to become experts on their country at the turn of the century. I would have also liked to fit this classroom within a larger unit that focuses on diplomacy. If I had the chance to establish a basic understanding of diplomacy, students would have been able to connect the class to even larger themes and ideas.
Overall, in this guided activity, students were required to adopt the role of specific European nations. While their historical actor was not specifically defined they did need to understand the basics of their country's diplomatic and military position in Europe. If students had the chance to research both their role as diplomats and the concept of diplomacy itself, I would have been more capable of connecting this simulation to historical empathy and imagination. This simulation provides a perfect example of when my need to address content compromised my commitment to incorporating historical empathy. I did not find a way to assess if they understood how these European countries felt as they formed these alliances. I did however, assess their ability to practice interpolation. When I asked students to assess what alliances they would make in their position, they were attempting to fill in an artificial gap in the historical record that I created. They were also largely successful at guessing specific alliances. Once I filled in the gap and they created their alliance, students were able to see that they were capable of using their logic and imagination to correctly predict actions of historical actors.
Judging purely by student engagement, the class was extremely relevant to a vast majority of my students. One student actually proclaimed, ‘why don’t we do this stuff more, I like all of this reasoning and plotting!’ I asked the students if they felt a similar way and a vast majority of the class raised their hands. Her comment suggests that many students were able to relate to the activity as a challenging practice in critical thinking. Additionally, through the map activity, students were able to find meaning in the border changes from pre-WWI to post-WWI today. While I had not intended to, students posed theories on why their where more countries today as opposed to 100 years ago. They were largely able to identify that some level of imperialism and militarism led to the larger countries in pre-WWI. I plan to revisit this unintended conversation, when we revisit boundaries and nation-building post WWI.
I realize that I used rather unconventional artifacts for analysis in this case. Since I could not take home their visual representation of the alliance system. I attempted to document the work with a photograph. Both photographs were taken during the conclusion of the activity when students were asked to determine which countries they needed to declare war on based on the classroom diagram they had created. The second photograph really documents the welcomed chaos that ensued when each group was asked to decide who to declare war on. One student (seen in photograph 2) was able to help multiple groups by getting a better aerial look at the alliances.
The first photograph, really demonstrates the multiple levels of work and understanding that was required in the activity. The boy in the front is filling out his guided note packet based on the results he sees. While clearly you cannot hear her, the girl in the front is correcting her teammate, using evidence she took from the class diagram. The boy and the girl in the back are determining together who to declare war on, using both the evidence from the diagram and the evidence in their packet.
I also conducted informal assessments throughout the lesson to check students reasoning and discuss the domino effect in relationship to the alliances system. I attempted to ensure that most students were able to explain their group’s reasoning. All but two students had the opportunity to speak, (the last two did not have a chance because of time restrictions).
Practices and Technique Analysis
I anticipated the high level of chaos that resulted with this interactive activity. To guide students through the process, and aid them as they attempted to write down notes and themes, I created a guided note-taking packet. The packet included maps and an easy to follow empty timeline that helped them organize their alliance information. I have used guided note-taking packets for students who struggled with note taking in the past and it has helped them tremendously. I felt that in this specific occasion it would benefit the whole class.
I also used a guided simulation activity because of my students’ feedback about exciting and useful activities. In the past, simulation activities have consistently achieved high ratings in my student surveys and feedback. But this simulation was more guided in nature. While the complexities, advantages and disadvantages of the alliance was the main theme of the activity, students still had to record and apply a large amount of specific content information (alliances). I was concerned that students may confuse their suggested alliances as the actual historical alliances. So students were only able to represent the documented historical alliances in their classroom diagram.
In addition to the very successful simulation activity that engaged all of the class, the choice to anchor the activity with map work really helped focus the students. It required them to fill out a map of pre-war Europe before the lesson and fill out/color code a map of alliance-entangled Europe after the activity. The final map activity helped students, who felt less comfortable with the very active and loud simulation activity, demonstrate their comprehension of the activity and its significance.
Impacting Future Practice
I will definitely use this activity in the future to demonstrate the alliance systems. The largest problem with the lesson is the time constraints of the traditional 55-minute class time. I found that I rushed my students to come to conclusions and suggestions. I would love to have a slightly longer class so students, especially those students who feel less comfortable volunteering their ideas right away, have the chance to really think and reflect. In the future, I might only have one map activity at the end so I do not have to rush the guided simulation activity.
While I feel like I was able to address multiple intelligences with this activity, I believe that my evidence needed to be more extensive to prove this. I had only a short time to take pictures. In the future, I would like to ask how I could incorporate differing assessments to ensure understanding from all of my students. Ultimately, if I am going to vary activities based on multiple intelligence theory, I also need to be more willing to vary final assessment work based on that philosophy as well.
I would have also liked to create a better context for the students. In an ideal world, the students would have conducted research beforehand to become experts on their country at the turn of the century. I would have also liked to fit this classroom within a larger unit that focuses on diplomacy. If I had the chance to establish a basic understanding of diplomacy, students would have been able to connect the class to even larger themes and ideas.
Overall, in this guided activity, students were required to adopt the role of specific European nations. While their historical actor was not specifically defined they did need to understand the basics of their country's diplomatic and military position in Europe. If students had the chance to research both their role as diplomats and the concept of diplomacy itself, I would have been more capable of connecting this simulation to historical empathy and imagination. This simulation provides a perfect example of when my need to address content compromised my commitment to incorporating historical empathy. I did not find a way to assess if they understood how these European countries felt as they formed these alliances. I did however, assess their ability to practice interpolation. When I asked students to assess what alliances they would make in their position, they were attempting to fill in an artificial gap in the historical record that I created. They were also largely successful at guessing specific alliances. Once I filled in the gap and they created their alliance, students were able to see that they were capable of using their logic and imagination to correctly predict actions of historical actors.