Today s seating session one
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 42

Today’s Seating: Session One PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 40 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Today’s Seating: Session One. Front of the room. Group: A Anna Valle Tad Bixler Genevieve Phillips Jimmy Palacios Stuart Young. Group: C Susie Rodriguez Cameron Clarno Lisa Boyer Rosa Estarellas Rob Hill. Group: B Sandy Slobig David Jackson Alfonso Gonzales Erik Wordal

Download Presentation

Today’s Seating: Session One

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Today s seating session one

Today’s Seating: Session One

Front of the room

Group: A

Anna Valle

Tad Bixler

Genevieve Phillips

Jimmy Palacios

Stuart Young

Group: C

Susie Rodriguez

Cameron Clarno

Lisa Boyer

Rosa Estarellas

Rob Hill

Group: B

Sandy Slobig

David Jackson

Alfonso Gonzales

Erik Wordal

Dave Bisbee

Group: E

Cris Avery

Joanna Lara

Melanie Dickey

Heather Clement

Group: D

Priya Patel

Peggy Yarnell

Tory Babcock

Shirley Bax

Kathy Bibby

  • Group: F

  • Suzanne Phipps

  • Ashley Coelho

  • Jeff Reck

  • Chip Fenenga


Today s seating session one

Today’s Seating: Session Two

Front of the room

Group

Danielle Lageman

Stephanie Gogonis

Jeff McKinnon

Brian Wallace

Jon Morris

Group

Doris Badger

David Daugherty

Jen Rasmussen

Diane Siegal

Nancy Thompson

Group

Jen Croll

Gretchen Smith

Billy Sivola

Mandy Ganz

Steve Gunning

Group

Jenele Martin

Denise Hamilton

John Connolly

Mark Peterschick

Group

Karen Nguyen

Harvey Green

Krista Lishman

Jake Kalkowski

Cassie Cathcart

Group

Ken Frederickson

Cheryl Lee

Agustin Vizcaino

Josh McClurg


Today s seating session one

What we’ve done so far:

  • Reading Difficult Text

  • (We brought our own textbooks)

  • Summarization:

  • (Headlines & 15Word Summaries)


Today s seating session one

What we’re doing today:

CLAIMS

&

EVIDENCE


Today s seating session one

Our Claim:

The Common Core Standards require a close reading of texts along with the creation of claims and the gathering of evidence in a variety of subjects.


Today s seating session one

Our Evidence

Science:

“Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to the precise details of explanations or descriptions.”

Social Science:

“Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.”

Mathematics:

Explain each step in solving a simple equation as following from the equality of numbers asserted at the previous step, starting from the assumption that the original equation has a solution. Construct a viable argument to justify a solution method.


Today s seating session one

And how about some real world evidence as well?

Jeff Bezos,

Founder of Amazon

Career Readiness!

Jeff Bezos always starts a meeting with silent sustained reading followed by discussion.


Today s seating session one

So, in order to illustrate our point, we are going to do a short example of a close reading activity.


Today s seating session one

Close Reading Worksheet: Black and White Photo

Observe:

Look at this photo and take in as much detail as you can.

Mentally list items that might prove relevant in determining what is happening in the picture.

Make a Claim:

Write down a theory or “claim” about what you think is happening in this picture as well as when and where it might have happened.

Gather Evidence:

List the pieces of evidence that might support your claim.

Discuss:

In your small group, take turns sharing each of your claims as well as the supportive evidence you gathered.

Reevaluate:

Write and Discuss: Have you changed or abridged your claim based on the evidence and claims of others?


Today s seating session one

Observe

Make a claim

Gather evidence


Today s seating session one

What am I looking at?

Observe

Make a claim

Gather evidence


Today s seating session one

What supports my claim?

Observe

Make a claim

Gather evidence


Today s seating session one

Reflect:

  • Can you think of contemporary examples of government recognition of military sacrifice?


Today s seating session one

  • We have completed a few anticipatory sets as a way of increasing student engagement in our close reading activity.

  • Music

  • Detective Work

  • Connections

  • Collaboration


Today s seating session one

  • The Gettysburg Address

  • Begin by silently reading the Gettysburg Address to yourself.


Today s seating session one

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


Today s seating session one

  • The Gettysburg Address

  • Now let’s talk about TONE.


Today s seating session one

  • The Gettysburg Address

  • Tone: (noun)

  • Author’s attitude toward the subject and toward the audience implied in a literary work.


Today s seating session one

  • The Gettysburg Address

While someone reads aloud, please underline/circle phrases that you feel are related to the tone of the speech.


Today s seating session one

  • The Gettysburg Address

  • Now as a table group, discuss the tone.

  • Create a list of words which describe the tone.

  • Share your claimswith all of us.


Today s seating session one

  • The Gettysburg Address

  • Now, as a group, gather pieces of evidence from the text that support your claim about the tone.

  • Get ready to share!


Today s seating session one

So, what do Claims, Evidence and Close Reading all have to do with each other?

  • Close reading requires rereading.

  • Effective rereading requires text dependent questions as a focus.

  • 80-90% of the Common Core Reading Standards require text dependent analysis.

  • Presently, 80% of questions asked about reading are not text dependent.


Today s seating session one

Well, that’s ironic!

Now that we have used close reading to make claims and gather evidence about tone, we are going to look for irony in the same text.


Today s seating session one

So what is irony?

Each table create a definition of Irony and share with the whole group.


Today s seating session one

Irony

Now, re-read The Gettysburg Address and find one example of irony.


Today s seating session one

Let’s stop doing the work for the students!

The teacher’s job is to create text dependent questions.

The student’s job is to make claims and find evidence to support their claims.


Today s seating session one

Major Shift in Close Reading

The major shift in reading assessment is away from personal opinion or experiences and toward text dependent questions.


Today s seating session one

Closure

In department meetings next Monday, discuss articles pertaining to your classes that you could use for a close reading assignment.

At our next collaboration, we are going to break you up into groups by department where you will work on text dependent articles.


Today s seating session one

  • Fracking…and you!


Today s seating session one

Fun with Fracking!

Argument A

What is Fracking?

What exactly is fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing? Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain natural gas, which was formed as dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface for our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the rocks can be broken apart, or fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the wells to increase flow. Starting in the 1940s, oil and gas drilling companies began fracking rock by pumping pressurized water into it….Since the 1990s, gas companies have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is accomplished by drilling horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin, horizontal shale layers. This horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures.

Argument A:

The experience of fracking in Pennsylvania has led to industry practices that mitigate the effect of drilling and fracking on the local environment. And while the natural gas produced by fracking does add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through leakage during gas extraction and carbon dioxide release during burning, it in fact holds a significant environmental advantage over coal mining. Shale gas emits half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does coal, and coal burning also emits metals such as mercury into the atmosphere that eventually settle back into our soils and waters. Europe is currently increasing its reliance on coal while discouraging or banning fracking. If we are going to get our energy from hydrocarbons, blocking fracking while relying on coal looks like a bad trade-off for the environment.

What is the claim of this paragraph?

What pieces of evidence in this paragraph support this claim?


Today s seating session one

Fun with Fracking!

Argument B

What is Fracking?

What exactly is fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing? Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain natural gas, which was formed as dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface for our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the rocks can be broken apart, or fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the wells to increase flow. Starting in the 1940s, oil and gas drilling companies began fracking rock by pumping pressurized water into it….Since the 1990s, gas companies have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is accomplished by drilling horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin, horizontal shale layers. This horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures.

Argument B:

Most opponents of fracking focus on potential local environmental consequences. Some of these are specific to the new fracking technology, while others apply more generally to natural gas extraction. The fracking cocktail includes acids, detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws but can be problematic if they seep into drinking water. Fracking since the 1990s has used greater volumes of cocktail-laden water, injected at higher pressures. Methane gas can escape into the environment out of any gas well, creating the real though remote possibility of dangerous explosions. Water from all gas wells often returns to the surface containing extremely low but measurable concentrations of radioactive elements and huge concentrations of salt. This brine can be detrimental if not disposed of properly. Injection of brine into deep wells for disposal has in rare cases triggered small earthquakes. In addition to these local effects, natural gas extraction has global environmental consequences, because the methane gas that is accessed through extraction and the carbon dioxide released during methane burning are both greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. New fracking technologies allow for the extraction of more gas, thus contributing more to climate change than previous natural gas extraction.

What is the claim of this paragraph?

What pieces of evidence in this paragraph support this claim?


Today s seating session one

Notes and Planning

ACT study literacy prepared (What was this again?

Add slide that says improved success if students start as strong readers.

  • What are the 4Cs?

  • Connections

  • Challenge

  • Concepts

  • Changes


Today s seating session one

Why is mastery of text important to Common Core preparation?

  • The Common Core Standards for reading strongly encourage students to gather evidence and insight from what they read.

  • 80-90% of the Reading Standards in each grade require text dependent analysis.

  • This means that our curriculum materials should have a similar percentage of text dependent questions.


Today s seating session one

A close reading is a careful and purposeful reading. Well actually, it’s rereading. It’s a careful and purposeful rereading of a text. It’s an encounter with the text where students really focus on what the author had to say, what the author’s purpose was, what the words mean, and what the structure of the text tells us. It is a transaction between the reader and the text. It is understanding what the author had to say and not impugning those authors’ words, but really getting what the author had to say and bringing some of your own ideas to bear on that text.

In a close reading, we have to have students reread the text. We give them questions; text dependent questions that require that they go back into the text and search for answers. These aren’t simply recall questions, just the facts of the text, but rather questions that allow students to think about the text, and the author’s purpose, the structure, and the flow of the text.

Close reading requires that students actually think and understand what they are reading.


Today s seating session one

Fracking: Full Article

Opposition to fracking has been considerable, if not unanimous, in the global green community, and in Europe in particular. France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland and England. Opposition to fracking has entered popular culture with the release of “The Promised Land,” starring Matt Damon. Even the Rolling Stones have weighed in with a reference to fracking in their new single, “Doom and Gloom.” But do the facts on fracking support this opposition? There is no doubt that natural gas extraction does sometimes have negative consequences for the local environment in which it takes place, as does all fossil fuel extraction. And because fracking allows us to put a previously inaccessible reservoir of carbon from beneath our feet into the atmosphere, it also contributes to global climate change. But as we assess the pros and cons, decisions should be based on existing empirical evidence and fracking should be evaluated relative to other available energy sources.

What exactly is fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing? Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain natural gas, which was formed as dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface for our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the rocks can be broken apart, or fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the wells to increase flow. Starting in the 1940s, oil and gas drilling companies began fracking rock by pumping pressurized water into it. Approximately one million American wells have been fracked since the 1940s. Most of these are vertical wells that tap into porous sandstone or limestone. Since the 1990s, however, gas companies have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is accomplished by drilling horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin, horizontal shale layers. This horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures.

Most opponents of fracking focus on potential local environmental consequences. Some of these are specific to the new fracking technology, while others apply more generally to natural gas extraction. The fracking cocktail includes acids, detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws but can be problematic if they seep into drinking water. Fracking since the 1990s has used greater volumes of cocktail-laden water, injected at higher pressures. Methane gas can escape into the environment out of any gas well, creating the real though remote possibility of dangerous explosions. Water from all gas wells often returns to the surface containing extremely low but measurable concentrations of radioactive elements and huge concentrations of salt. This brine can be detrimental if not disposed of properly. Injection of brine into deep wells for disposal has in rare cases triggered small earthquakes. In addition to these local effects, natural gas extraction has global environmental consequences, because the methane gas that is accessed through extraction and the carbon dioxide released during methane burning are both greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. New fracking technologies allow for the extraction of more gas, thus contributing more to climate change than previous natural gas extraction.

As politicians in Europe and the United States consider whether, and under what conditions, fracking should be allowed, the experience of Pennsylvania is instructive. Pennsylvania has seen rapid development of the Marcellus shale, a geological formation that could contain nearly 500 trillion cubic feet of gas — enough to power all American homes for 50 years at recent rates of residential use. Some of the local effects of drilling and fracking have gotten a lot of press but caused few problems, while others are more serious. For example, of the tens of thousands of deep injection wells in use by the energy industry across the United States, only about eight locations have experienced injection-induced earthquakes, most too weak to feel and none causing significant damage. The Pennsylvania experience with water contamination is also instructive.


Today s seating session one

Fracking: Full Article continued

In Pennsylvania, shale gas is accessed at depths of thousands of feet while drinking water is extracted from depths of only hundreds of feet. Nowhere in the state have fracking compounds injected at depth been shown to contaminate drinking water. In one study of 200 private water wells in the fracking regions of Pennsylvania, water quality was the same before and soon after drilling in all wells except one. The only surprise from that study was that many of the wells failed drinking water regulations before drilling started. But trucking and storage accidents have spilled fracking fluids and brines, leading to contamination of water and soils that had to be cleaned up.

The fact that gas companies do not always disclose the composition of all fracking and drilling compounds makes it difficult to monitor for injected chemicals in streams and groundwater. Pennsylvania has also seen instances of methane leaking into aquifers in regions where shale-gas drilling is ongoing. Some of this gas is “drift gas” that forms naturally in deposits left behind by the last glaciation. But sometimes methane leaks out of gas wells because, in 1 to 2 percent of the wells, casings are not structurally sound. The casings can be fixed to address these minor leaks, and the risk of such methane leaks could further decrease if casings were designed specifically for each geological location. The disposal of shale gas brine was initially addressed in Pennsylvania by allowing the industry to use municipal water treatment plants that were not equipped to handle the unhealthy components. Since new regulations in 2011, however, Pennsylvania companies now recycle 90 percent of this briny water by using it to frack more shale.

In sum, the experience of fracking in Pennsylvania has led to industry practices that mitigate the effect of drilling and fracking on the local environment. And while the natural gas produced by fracking does add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through leakage during gas extraction and carbon dioxide release during burning, it in fact holds a significant environmental advantage over coal mining. Shale gas emits half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does coal, and coal burning also emits metals such as mercury into the atmosphere that eventually settle back into our soils and waters. Europe is currently increasing its reliance on coal while discouraging or banning fracking. If we are going to get our energy from hydrocarbons, blocking fracking while relying on coal looks like a bad trade-off for the environment.

So, should the United States and Europe encourage fracking or ban it? Short-run economic interests support fracking. In the experience of Pennsylvania, natural gas prices fall and jobs are created both directly in the gas industry and indirectly as regional and national economies benefit from lower energy costs. Europe can benefit from lessons learned in Pennsylvania, minimizing damage to the local environment. The geopolitical shift that would result from decreasing reliance on oil, and more specifically on Russian oil and gas, is one that European politicians might not want to ignore. And if natural gas displaces coal, then fracking is good not only for the economy but also for the global environment. But if fracked gas merely displaces efforts to develop cleaner, non-carbon, energy sources without decreasing reliance on coal, the doom and gloom of more rapid global climate change will be realized.


  • Login