10-11+MAS+Chris+Schwab

SEMESTER 2:
Chris Schwab

6th Grade

Appropriate Online Conduct and Literature Discussions Unit (Technology/Writing/Reading)

Web 2.0 Tools Used: Collaborize

Unit Description:
In this unit students used Collaborize to engage in online discussions on appropriate online conduct and the literature they are reading in reading class. In all of their online, written communication, they were taught and encouraged to use appropriate, respectful and formal language; to write with a lot of detail; and to follow the conventions of standard English. They specifically posted comments about what they think the most important aspect of appropriate online conduct is, the plot of their literature circle book, and whether or not they would recommend the book they most recently finished or are currently reading for independent reading. Students were required to read and respond to their classmates' posts again using appropriate, respectful, and formal language; a lot of detail; and to follow the conventions of standard English. Before the unit, they were given a pre-test covering appropriate and formal language, standard Engish, appropriate online conduct, and plot and took a post-test covering the same information after the unit to measure learning and growth. Students written communication on Collaborize was graded using a rubric that assessed content/detail, language/tone/word choice, and grammar.

[|Our class's Collaborize page]

Guest Log in: cschwab@mascience.org Password: guest1

Unit Plan:
[|Unit Plan - Online conduct and literature discussion.pdf]

Day 1:
===[|Pre-test.pdf]===

[|Collaborize Registration and Discussion Instructions.pdf]

[|Writing Rubric.pdf]

Day 2:
[|Actual Student Responses from Day 1 Discussions.pdf]

Day 3:
===[|Post-test.pdf]﻿===

Above Expectation:
[|Kiarra Pre-test.pdf]

Met Expectation:
[|Diamond Pre-test.pdf]

Below Expectation:
[|Keishaun Pre-test.pdf]

Above Expectation:
[|Written Comments - K'Lynn.pdf]

[|K'Lynn Rubric.pdf]

Met Expectation:
[|Written Comments - Keishaun.pdf]

[|Keishaun Rubric.pdf]

Below Expectation:
[|Written Comments - Carnell.pdf]

[|Carnell Writing Rubric.pdf]

Below Expectation:


SEMESTER 1:

Chris Schwab

6th Grade

6th Grade Intel Weather Unit (Science)

Web 2.0 Tools Used: Wikispaces Today's Meet Google Voki


 * Unit Description: **

In this unit students used their prior knowledge from a previous weather unit to research the weather of a city in the United States for one week using the Google search enginge. Before researching, they were taught what a credible online source was and how to determine if a source was credible. While researching they used Today's Meet to digitally communicate their findings with a partner and then individually kept track of data they found, wrote a prediction of their city's annual climate, and posted their findings and predictions on to our class's Wikispace. Students also created a Voki to present their findings and predictions, but due to a lack of time, an underestimate of the necessary amount of time needed, and running into registration problems with Voki.com, they were not able to save and share their Vokis with me or the class as a whole. My personal assignment for this unit was to create the task checklist, the step by step Google search instructions, and the rubric used to assess student writing in their final climate predictions.

Our class's Wiki Homepage


 * Unit Plan: **

[|Intel Weather Unit Plan.PDF]


 * Unit Worksheets/Handouts/Assessments: **

Day 1:

[|Weather Summary Task Checklist.pdf]

[|Intel Weather Unit Pre-Post test.pdf] [|Credible Sources Powerpoint.ppt] [|Weather Sample Webpage (good).pdf] [|Weather Sample Webpage (bad).pdf] [|Credible Sources Activity.pdf] [|Intel Weather Unit city assignment chart.pdf]

Day 2:

[|Searching with Google.pdf] [|Todays Meet Directions.PDF] [|Intel Weather Unit research pages.pdf]

Day 3:

[|Instructions for Using the Wikispace.PDF] [|City Weather Summary Writing Rubric.pdf]

Day 4:

[|Voki Instructions.PDF]


 * Student Work Samples (Above expectation, expectation, below expectation): **


 * Unit Pre-Test: **

Above Expectation (Students struggled with this and work samples are relative. No one really achieved above my expectations):

[|Chassidy Pre-Test.PDF]

Expectation:

[|Klynn Pret-Test.PDF]

Below Expectation:

[|Desmonique Pre-Test.PDF]


 * Credible Sources Activity (We ran out of time for part III of this activity): **

Above Expectation:

[|Donovan Credible Sources.PDF]

Expectation:

[|Klynn Credible Sources.PDF]

Below Expectation:

[|Peter Credible Sources.PDF]


 * Student Wikispaces/Written Prediction: **

Above expectation:

K'lynn Wikispace

[|Klynn Writing Rubric.PDF]

Expectation:

Donovan Wikispace

[|Donovan Writing Rubric.PDF]

Below Expectation:

Andra Wikispace

[|Andra Writing Rubric.PDF]


 * Unit Post-Test: **

Above Expectation (Again, not above my expectations, but a relatively high score):

[|Brandon Post-test.PDF]

Expectation:

[|Skylah Post-Test.PDF]

Below Expectation:

[|Darius Post-Test.PDF]