# data[].attributes.body
Students step through a process:

1. Read/Listen/Question

2. Identify Strengths

3. Highlight areas for work

4. Suggest improvements

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a rubric protocol we found that looked good.

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a rubric protocol we found that looked good.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Share the Rubric: Before starting the protocol, share the rubric with the students and explain the criteria for each level of achievement.

2. Self-Evaluation: Have each student evaluate their work using the rubric. They can use a scale of 1-4 or any other scale specified in the rubric.

3. Reflection: Once students have completed their self-evaluation, give them some time to reflect on their results. You may ask them to think about what they did well, what they could improve on, and what they could have done differently.

4. Peer Feedback: Pair students up and ask them to share their self-evaluation with their partner. Then, have their partner provide feedback by asking them to explain their reasoning for their evaluation and provide specific examples to support their assessment.

5. Group Discussion: After students have had time to discuss their work with their peers, bring the class back together for a group discussion. Ask students to share their reflections and the feedback they received from their peers. This can help students gain a better understanding of the rubric criteria and how to apply it to their work.

6. Goal Setting: Finally, have students set goals for improvement based on their self-evaluation and feedback from their peers. Ask them to identify specific actions they can take to improve their work in the future.

This protocol allows students to reflect on their work, receive feedback from their peers, and set goals for improvement. It can be used for any assignment or project that is evaluated using a rubric.

# data[].attributes.body
Feel free to add to it :) (team work makes the dream work)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
This protocol involves having students write a brief response to a prompt or question before leaving the classroom. This protocol allows students to reflect on their learning and identify areas they may need to review or explore further.

# data[].attributes.body
Think-Pair-Share Protocol - This protocol involves having students reflect on a question or prompt individually, then discuss their thoughts with a partner, and finally share their ideas with the larger group. This protocol allows students to hear multiple perspectives and ideas, which can help them think more deeply about their own work.

# data[].attributes.body
This protocol involves having students provide two positive comments (glows) and one suggestion for improvement (grows) on their own work or on the work of their peers. This protocol helps students focus on what they did well and what they can improve upon

# data[].attributes.body
Vocabulary
Historical context
Differentiated, chunked
Embedded comprehension questions to check for understanding

# data[].attributes.headline
French Revolution document based content specific graphic organizers designed to address an essential question and develop a claim statement. 

# data[].attributes.subject
French Revolution document based content specific graphic organizers designed to address an essential question and develop a claim statement. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Used by US in Q1 for analyzing sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Essential question and primary/secondary source material provided by instructor

Students instructed to find good evidence to support their assigned side from the source material provided

Students then work collaboratively to argue both sides of the debate

Students use evidence to compose response, paragraph, or essay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
We use this for opening activities each quarter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A discussion that moves students beyond either/or debates to a more nuanced historical synthesis.

By the time students reach adolescence, many believe that every issue comes neatly packaged in a pro/con format, and that the goal of classroom discussion, rather than to understand your opponent, is to defeat him. The SAC method provides an alternative to the "debate mindset" by shifting the goal from winning classroom discussions to understanding alternative positions and formulating historical syntheses. The SAC's structure demands students listen to each other in new ways and guides them into a world of complex and controversial ideas.

The SAC was developed by cooperative learning researchers David and Roger Johnson of the University of Minnesota as a way to provide structure and focus to classroom discussions. Working in pairs and then coming together in four-person teams, students explore a question by reading about and then presenting contrasting positions. Afterwards, they engage in discussion to reach consensus.

1. Choose a historical question that lends itself to contrasting viewpoints. For example, we illustrate the SAC below with the question "Was Abraham Lincoln a racist?" but many other questions lend themselves to the technique. For example, "Was dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to defeat the Japanese?" or "Could the Constitution have been ratified if slavery had been abolished?" and so on. 2. Find and select two or three documents (primary or secondary sources) that embody each side. (Remember that you can pull these from existing document collections on the web or in print.) 3. Consider timing, make copies of handouts, and plan grouping strategies. The time you will need for a SAC that uses about four documents will depend on the amount of experience your students have with the activity structure and the difficulty and familiarity of the documents. Plan on using about two class periods for your initial SAC.

Modified and adapted countless times by researchers and teachers, the technique has five basic steps ( See Handout 1) with procedures to display for students. 1. Organize students into four-person teams comprised of two dyads. 2. Each dyad reviews materials that represent different positions on a charged issue (e.g., "Was Abraham Lincoln a racist?"). See Handout 2 that helps students track their analysis and prepare their positions. 3. Dyads then come together as a four-person team and present their views to one other, one dyad acting as the presenters, the others as the listeners. 4. Rather than refuting the other position, the listening dyad repeats back to the presenters what they understood. Listeners do not become presenters until the original presenters are fully satisfied that they have been heard and understood. 5. After the sides switch, the dyads abandon their original assignments and work toward reaching consensus. If consensus proves unattainable, the team clarifies where their differences lie.

Students' debate framework starts early and runs deep. Even when told that they need to understand-not undermine-an opposing position, students will try to find holes in their opponent's positions and aim to refute them. We recommend

Introducing the idea of "active listening" to your students and having them practice it in dyads for a few minutes

Establishing the rule: Jot down notes when confused, do not interrupt the presenters

Making sure students can refer to the procedures throughout the activity by posting them or making handouts

As students start to see other perspectives and nuance in the materials, the absence of a certain answer may confuse them. We recommend reassuring students that uncertainty and complexity are expected during this activity. Encourage them to make notes that specify their confusion, new ideas or questions.

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? Background for the teacher: How we judge people in the past is at the core of historical understanding. Should we think less of Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner? How should we regard forms of slavery sanctioned by the Bible? How do we regard people who believed in witches? Or that the ordeal was a way to establish truth? In other words, how do we judge people in the past, people who thought differently from us and perceived the world using different beliefs and assumptions? This question pivots on two opposing stances: first, that there are a set of universal virtues-kindness, fairness, openmindedness, goodness, decency, and tolerance-that transcend time and space. Alternately, the opposing stance sees human virtues as relative, shaped by the dictates of particular settings and circumstances. In this sense, an "enlightened person" looks very different on questions of human decency depending on whether he or she lived in the 13th century, the 19th, or today. Ideas related to the question of how we judge the past will come up in students' conversations. This is how it should be and as directed in the Common Pitfall, students should be encouraged to track these ideas as pairs prepare and present and then to discuss them as they try to reach consensus. In this Structured Academic Controversy, this question of how to judge the past is considered by examining the person and the time of Abraham Lincoln. Specifically we ask, Was Abraham Lincoln a racist?

Racist, n., one who believes that his or her race confers an inherent superiority over others. (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

The two handouts will help you introduce and set up this activity and there are four documents that accompany this SAC. Each dyad should get all four. Acknowledgments. We thank Professor Walter Parker at the University of Washington's College of Education for helping us see the enduring value of the SAC approach in the history classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A discussion that moves students beyond either/or debates to a more nuanced historical synthesis. By the time students reach adolescence, many believe that every issue comes neatly packaged in a pro/con format, and that the goal of classroom discussion, rather than to understand your opponent, is to defeat him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This activity follows an adjustable sequence of steps and rules for engagement to ensure that all students, even in large classes, are able to find each session clear, accessible, rigorous, and relevant and to feel that the classroom culture offers them an equal opportunity to speak. As part of these routines, hands are never immediately called on when the instructor asks a question. Instead, all students are expected to develop an answer and then collaborate with their peers to develop a group answer, and a representative from each group shares the group's response. Rules for engagement, explicit criteria for meeting and exceeding expectations, and transparent discussion routines ensure that all students can access the discussion and be optimally challenged during class.

Introduction: Though academic discussions are not new, the structure and routine of these discussions are, and they are a necessary feature of inclusive classrooms where all students voices are heard and valued. Too often, the social regulation that takes place in group discussions provides certain students more time than others to express their ideas and practice using academic language in class. By including equitable academic discussion routines in every class, the instructor ensures that at least some time is protected for equity and inclusion of all student voices. This also enables the instructor to learn from and listen to all students in every class, increasing the visibility of students who are often marginalized through traditional teaching methods. Students also have a chance to see the talents of peers they would not otherwise meet because student discussions tend to occur where students happen to be sitting. Student learning is deepened through the connection-making and elaboration promoted by the routine, and all students are able to practice using the academic language needed for academic reading and writing.

Goals: This activity aims to ensure that:

(1 ) all students are valued and seen by their instructor and peers during each lesson;

(2) the instructor can listen, observe, and learn from students while they engage in discussion;

(3) students make deeper connections and receive feedback on their learning in every class;

(4) students form relationships with course peers, not just students who happen to be sitting near them;

(5) the product or outcome of these discussions (answers, questions, connections) can be used to tailor the next part of class to student learning strengths and needs; and

(6) students never leave class feeling confused about the material.

Procedure- Before Class: The instructor must prepare a purpose for the outcome of the discussion, e.g., student-generated questions, responses to a question, comparisons, arguments, or connections. He or she must also prepare "quality" criteria, which are requirements for the discussion product or outcome, and "amazing" criteria, which students meet when they go above and beyond. All students should exhibit at least one amazing criterion in each of their responses. When groups share their responses, listeners should be challenged to listen for quality criteria. Because groups will have chosen different amazing criteria, it is fun for listeners to look out for them. Instructors should also plan rules for engagement. So, for example, students who were absent from the previous class should serve as reporters for their groups, sharing summaries of the previous lesson. Rules ensure equity and equal opportunity for all students. Finally, instructors should plan how to adjust their instruction based on student responses, reflecting on how and why these products or outcomes matter.

Procedure- During Class: Equitable discussion routines are taught during the first class and used approximately 5 or 6 times each lesson. They proceed in a sequence that always includes writing, free discussion, teacher direction or explicit instruction, and a structured discussion, which involves the instructor controlling turns and time for speaking so that students can focus on learning instead of social regulation in their discussion groups.

Group sizes may vary, ranging from elbow partners to triad stations to groups of 6 to 10 students. This instructor assigns four or five different student groupings that can be used for discussion. This helps students get to know everyone, even in large classes. She forms these groups based on different purposes for discussion. One grouping might be organized by student interests, another by learning goals for the course, and a third by diversity of background experiences. She uses the same academic discussion routine three times during the first class with groups of different sizes so that she can establish the routine. She teaches the rules for engagement and explains how students should use the quality criteria to develop the discussion and their responses. Together with students, the instructor may add rules and adjust the routine to best meet the class's needs.

Tip: The instructor recommends starting small, with structured exchanges with elbow partners or assigned groups of three, and using the routine at least once each class.

The routine proceeds as follows:

1. Students jot, draw, or write their responses to a question or reading.

2. Then, students form the assigned groups. Following the rules (the instructor determines who speaks first, the time each person has to speak, and how much silent thinking time should pass between speakers), each student shares his or her response. Students proceed to discuss freely and openly.

3. Students then individually write or revise their responses, and they write reflections comparing their before-discussion responses to their after-discussion responses. This reflection measures how much they have learned from the discussion.

4. Each group submits its response-through a group representative, Google Doc, or survey-so that the teacher can immediately collect one response from each group. The entire class listens to or looks at the responses, and students participate in a short discussion with their groups about how their response compares with the responses of other groups.

5. The teacher uses these responses to shape the next part of instruction. For example, the teacher might invite students to listen for answers to the questions generated by the groups in the next part of a lecture.

Instructions can be presented in a slideshow. However, once students know the routine, the instructor can call out "Triad Stations" or and students will form their groups and engage in discussion because it will have become routine.

Post-Activity: These equitable academic discussions end with reflection and goal-setting. Students write down their reflections, revisiting their pre-discussion thoughts and considering how their thinking has been confirmed, challenged, and/or changed as a result of discussion with peers. Students consult the quality criteria to evaluate whether these qualities are present in their responses. They are also asked to specify something new they have learned from or about a peer through these discussions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This activity follows an adjustable sequence of steps and rules for engagement to ensure that all students, even in large classes, are able to find each session clear, accessible, rigorous, and relevant and to feel that the classroom culture offers them an equal opportunity to speak.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aronson, E. (2000-2008). Jigsaw Classroom: Overview of the technique .

Aronson, E., & Goode, E. (1980). Training teachers to implement jigsaw learning: A manual for teachers. In S. Sharan, P. Hare, C. Webb, and R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in Education (pp. 47-81). Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press.

Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Clarke, J. (1994). Pieces of the puzzle: The jigsaw method. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.

Colorín Colorado. (2007). Cooperative Learning Strategies.

Crone, T. S., & Portillo, M. C. (2013). Jigsaw variations and attitudes about learning and the self in cognitive psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 246-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313487451

Hattie, J. (2017). 256 influences related to achievement. Visible Learning .

Law, Y.-K. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong Kong fifth graders' achievement goals, autonomous motivation and reading proficiency. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(4), 402-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01445.x

Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 433-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.018

Moskowitz, J. M., Malvin, J. H., Schaeffer, G. A., & Schaps, E. (1985). Evaluation of jigsaw, a cooperative learning technique. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(85)90011-6

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: State of the art. Educational Psychologist, 15, 93-111.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Tierney, R. (1995) Reading Strategies and Practices. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stanczak, A., Darnon, C., Robert, A., Demolliens, M., Sanrey, C., Bressoux, P., Huguet, P., Buchs, C., Butera, F., & PROFAN Consortium. (2022). Do jigsaw classrooms improve learning outcomes? Five experiments and an internal meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1461-1476.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jigsaw is a cooperative learning strategy that enables each student of a "home" group to specialize in one aspect of a topic (for example, one group studies habitats of rainforest animals, another group studies predators of rainforest animals).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Guidelines/protocol for Socratic Seminar

# data[].attributes.body
Post any documents, research, products, etc under your group's section.