<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Deep and wide&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inpractice.edublogs.org/2008/02/25/deep-and-wide/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inpractice.edublogs.org/2008/02/25/deep-and-wide/</link>
	<description>Theory is nice, but we are working in practice...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:27:30 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mathew</title>
		<link>http://inpractice.edublogs.org/2008/02/25/deep-and-wide/comment-page-1/#comment-293</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inpractice.edublogs.org/2008/02/25/deep-and-wide/#comment-293</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see a problem with putting science in the language arts textbooks as I think the most effective teaching would be an integrated curriculum where you study fossils (or whatever) and relate it to math, social studies, geography, language arts, and of course science.  

However, many administrators and teachers stop at the language arts textbook and don&#039;t bring any other subject areas or teach the unit in any more depth than the few stories in the text.  

Also, sometimes we assume that because it&#039;s in the mandated text that it&#039;s a standard.  Fossils and camouflage are in the second grade reader but the standards are broader and richer like animal adaptation and how life has changed from long ago to now, I believe.  

If you teach to the standards, then you relate the language arts text to those standards rather than the other way around.  The standards in this case give you license to include additional material and investigation in your units that isn&#039;t there if you stop where the basal ends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see a problem with putting science in the language arts textbooks as I think the most effective teaching would be an integrated curriculum where you study fossils (or whatever) and relate it to math, social studies, geography, language arts, and of course science.  </p>
<p>However, many administrators and teachers stop at the language arts textbook and don&#8217;t bring any other subject areas or teach the unit in any more depth than the few stories in the text.  </p>
<p>Also, sometimes we assume that because it&#8217;s in the mandated text that it&#8217;s a standard.  Fossils and camouflage are in the second grade reader but the standards are broader and richer like animal adaptation and how life has changed from long ago to now, I believe.  </p>
<p>If you teach to the standards, then you relate the language arts text to those standards rather than the other way around.  The standards in this case give you license to include additional material and investigation in your units that isn&#8217;t there if you stop where the basal ends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
