Ms. M's Class Ideas: Reading Integrated with Government/Law/Ethics

This unit was designed to integrate reading into lessons on Government and Law. Each lesson focuses on a different issue, using a different reading strategy. 13 strategies are used and each focuses on different components (oral language, word study, comprehension, vocabulary, and writing) The topics covered and suggested with books, journals, and articles are: euthanasia, immigration, child labor, capital punishment, bullying/harassment. Rubrics are provided as well as suggested formative/summative assessments.
Please contact me and I will send you the corresponding Webquest!

The Reading Strategies used in this unit are:
Say Something, Bookmark, Mind and Alternative Mind Portraits, Venn Diagram, Reciprocal Questioning/ReQuest, Press Conference, List-Group-Label, Semantic Mapping, Readers Theater, Vocabulary Self Selection, Exclusion Brainstorming, Learning logs, and QuIP,

Each lesson includes: Standards (Florida), a description of the reading strategy, rational for using the reading strategy, a suggested book/journal/news article, a short summary of the resource suggested, an example of how to use the strategy with the resource, suggestions for integrating writing and technology, and how to assess the students.

Example of the grading rubric (for Press Conference)

Grading Rubric for Immigration Press Conference
Score	Description
A	.”A” quality work will be enticing, engaging, and informational to viewers. It will include at least 3 references (2 of which are retrieved from .org or .gov sources). The partners equally distributed oral presentation time. The partners worked together as a team to produce an informative and engaging mock press conference. During presentations from other partners, the student responded as an audience member at least twice.
B	“B” quality work is informational and engaging to viewers. It includes at least 3 references however, two sites were not retrieved from .org or .gov sources. At least 1 source was from .org or .gov website. The partners equally distributed oral presentation time. During presentations from other partners, the student responded as an audience member twice.
C	“C” quality work is lacking background information. The sources used are either: a) Less than the required number or b) did not include at least two sources from .org or .gov sites along with a .com site. The partners may or may not have distributed the oral presentation time equally. During presentations from other partners, the student responded as an audience member only once.
D	“D” quality work was attempted but did not follow guidelines. The presentation was lacking in all areas and resources were not stated. During presentation from other partners, the student did not use his/her response cards to respond and contribute as an audience member.
F	No response/task not attempted.