Hakim/Wood Comparison

As my lesson plan will focus on The Declaration of Independence, I was interested in Wood's description of the event. His writing is very concise and tends to read like a college-level text offering his readers a 'bare bones' explanation of the events leading up to the Revolution and the founding of our nation's government. When referencing the Declaration, he does however, address the fact that "Congress removed a quarter of Jefferson's original draft, including a passage that blamed George III for the horrors of the slave trade." (pg. 56) This was new (and fascinating) information for me. I felt Hakim's book does a better job describing the issue of slavery and the impact it had on writing the Declaration. Her text makes it very clear to the reader that slavery is the moral antitheses of the essence that "all men are created equal." Hakim's writing provides a greater sense of the depth of difficulty the issue over slavery presented to the establishment of a 'free society.' In my opinion, Wood's skims the surface of the struggle the signers had over slavery. Wood's text did not give me a new understanding of the event; it merely reinforced the difficulty Hakim presents to her readers.

I personally preferred Hakim's book to Wood's. I am very visual so the use of pictures, portraits, political cartoons, timelines, documents, and maps held my interest and enhanced my learning. Also, I really preferred Joy's personalized style of writing; I like the way she 'speaks' to her reader with comments and questions that make them reflect on what they have read. And as a teacher, I appreciate the subtle way she introduces vocabulary. Her use of vignettes and trivia made me want to dig deeper. While I realize Hakim's text is written for a younger audience, she does not 'dummy down' the significance of the historical information. She is like a gracious hostess presenting a full-course meal for her guests to savor, whereas Wood's book in comparison is a plate of cheese and crackers! When it comes to fascinating history, I prefer the full-course meal

April Readings

The opening paragraph of "Teaching for HIstorical Literacy" could have been a paraphrase of conversations that have taken place between my 4th grade team members and myself.  We continually share our frustration that the subject of history and social studies are constantly pushed to the "back burner" or are entirely nonexistant in our emphasis to prepare our students for standardized tests.  It is so sad to think that we as educators are missing golden opportunities to plant the seeds of good citizenship within our young people.  I am in agreement with authors Goudvis and Harvey when they state "in a democracy, history and social studies shouldn't be optional."  In our classrooms we are forced to somehow fit those subjects into our day and more often than not they do not get taught. 

The four generative practices discussed in the article support and enhance the idea of brain-based learning. And the core principles of brain-based learning were evident in the strategies used in Matthew Reif's classroom. He provides an excellent example of 'teaching to the whole child.'   

I believe my big 'takeaway' is knowing I do implement some of the practices outlined in the readings. However, as a classroom teacher I need to allow my students to 'connect logic and inagination' and bring encourage more creative thinking and activities for my students.