Great news, the FSL, Classical and International Languages department action research proposal to explore Instructional Intelligences in the classroom was approved as one of 18 action research projects in York Region District School Board. Directly below is our accepted proposal, followed by the final report and then linited references in French followed by more in English . We have been exploring ways to make learning even more enjoyable and more permanent for our students. yvonne Dufault will work with French Immersion student volunteers, continuing this partnership in 2005-2006 with Angus Glen Public Library.
Instructional Intelligence Action Research Project
School : Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School
School Team: Principal Cheryl Dubeau, Vice-Principal Debra Conrad-Knight
Yvonne Dufault and two members of FSL, Classical and International Languages Department
Team Leader : Yvonne Dufault
Summer contact information for Team Leader :
Address : 16 Hedgewood Drive, Unionville, Ontario, L3R 6J1
Phone : Home : 905.479.0009 Work : 905 887 2356 extension 508
Email : Yvonne.Dufault@yrdsb.edu.on.ca and firstname.lastname@example.org
Instructional Intelligences Action Research Project Focus
Please check off which of the following focus areas your school team will explore :
1.Quality of Student Work :
What is the impact on the quality of my students’ work as a result of using instructional intelligence approaches?
2.What issues/ concerns are driving your inquiry into the focus area that you have chosen?
We believe that conscious, regular use of instructional intelligences approaches in the classroom will enhance accuracy of student language production and will support our department literacy and our school literacy plans as well as our department’s concern to improve student work in these areas.
3. What does your team hope to accomplish by investigating the focus area you have chosen for your II action research project?
Teachers in our department hope that initial insights will lead to decreased error in student written work as well as to enhanced thinking skills and communications skills. There are many interesting discoveries yet to be made in exploring the impact of using instructional intelligences along with multiple intelligences for preventing and correcting language errors. As by-products of an instructional intelligences focus in the second language classroom, student enjoyment and performance in written work should increase. We anticipate that there should be more frequent demonstration of the positive character traits, proactive race relations and positive leadership skills that we nurture in this board. Our goal would be to develop activities that can be replicated in other classroom settings.
4.Describe how your II action research team plans to meet regularly to work together on your II action research project.
An instructional intelligences focus would become part of our department meetings as well as related e-mail exchanges. At these meetings we would share approaches and insights (what worked, what didn’t) and next steps. Department members communicate regularly by email as well. We would work closely with the school librarian and administration as we discover suitable instructional intelligence resources, especially for French language.
Instructional Intelligences Project Report
L’EMPLOI DES INTELLIGENCES INSTRUCTIONNELLES :
UNE EXPÉRIENCE POUR OUVRIR LES COEURS DE NOS ÉLÈVES À L’APPRENTISSAGE ET POUR RÉDUIRE LA FOSSILISATION DES ERREURS
(THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL INTELLIGENCES :
AN EXPERIMENT FOR OPENING HEARTS OF L2 LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND REDUCING FOSSILIZATION OF ERRORS)
French Immersion instructional intelligences/ literacy action research team members were primarily Yvonne Dufault, Head of FSL, Classical and International languages and Jean-Francois Audet, teacher of French immersion language, literature, geography and history, who joined Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School in Markham, Ontario, in September, 2005. A third person who taught one French Immersion literature class in first term was involved for several months, starting in December, 2004, participating in two training sessions and contributing ideas to the development of a participation rubric.
Contact information: Voice-mail: Mme. Dufault at 905 887 2356 ext.508. or e-mail messages may be sent to Yvonne.Dufault@yrdsb.edu.on.ca or email@example.com
The I.I. proposal was put forth by Yvonne Dufault, Head of FSL, Classical and International Languages, overseeing the French Immersion program at Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School in June, 2004, several months prior to finalizing a French Immersion instructional intelligences research team. The present report focuses more on the process that on the product as, due to unforeseeable events, the research is inconclusive at the time of this report. Our instructional intelligence action research project is like humanity, a work in progress. In October, 2005, subsequent to analysis of the post-test, which has yet to be administered, conclusions will be posted for viewing at the following link within Mme Dufault’s class web at http://www.trudeau.hs.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/classweb/default.asp?t=00255&p=11 entitled “Action Research on Instructional Intelligences in Immersion”.
Our instructional intelligence research was directly linked to the French Immersion literacy plan established in December, 2004 and later refined. Our guiding department statement for the L2 focus for the French Immersion continuum at Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School was intimately linked to this project. French Immersion subjects go well beyond the study of French literature and grammar to include courses from other subject areas such as Business, History, Geography and Guidance. The main skill focus here from a French Immersion literacy perspective is “Writes with purpose and clarity.” We had decided as a group that it is important for teachers of French Immersion subjects in other departments to address the department skill focus for literacy that is specific to that department and subject further reinforcing the main skill focus just identified. The question put forth by our action research team was directly linked to our French immersion program literacy focus across the curriculum pertaining to the quality of student work, notably, “ What is the impact on the quality of my students’ work as a result of using instructional intelligence approaches?” Will the use of I.I. facilitate the use of appropriate language structures and conventions? Which ones should we target as part of our research?
The concerns driving our inquiry were the desire to improve purpose and clarity in student writing. Our belief, based on knowledge of instructional intelligences strategies and tactics used in English language classrooms, was that the conscious, regular use of instructional intelligences approaches in the classroom would enhance accuracy of student language production and would support our department literacy and our school literacy plans as well as our concern to improve student work in these areas across the curriculum where French Immersion courses are taught.
Description of the Data Gathering Process
Our F.I. target population: We identified the target population whom we would involve in the action research as grades nine and ten F.I. students in Dec., 2004. This was refined in 2005 to grade nine only.
Letters of Informed Consent: Using proper protocol for ethical review, these were prepared by the team, revised, re-revised, approved, then administered to grade nine and ten French Immersion classes in February, 2005. See: http://www.trudeau.hs.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/classweb/new.asp?t=00255 . We obtained permission for a number of students to use subsequent videotape footage for sampling and showing at a possible workshop, as well as for possible inclusion as data for academic study.
Materials: In 2004 we obtained the text L’apprentissage cooperative: Rencontre du coeur et de l’esprit. In 2005, we sought and acquired some materials that could be suitable I.I. activities to reinforce L2: songs, DVDs and Veux-tu jouer kits, considered suitable for Core French as well as F.I..
The Pretest was developed and refined in December. It was administered in February, 2005, at the beginning of semester two, to determine language production errors in L2. See http://www.trudeau.hs.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/classweb/update.asp?t=00255&p=48
Refining targeted language structures: Most grade nine students agreed to be part of our action research experiment. We inspected and manually highlighted common language errors which surfaced on completed student pretests. Discussion ensued as to which grammatical features posed the greatest problems to FIF1D students as a whole and were specifically targeted in the common curriculum for that grade level. After informally assessing student language production, we examined the most frequent grammatical errors whose lack of mastery detracted from “writing with purpose and clarity.” Out of twelve targeted language features stressed in grade nine FIF1D, we chose two verb features and five pronouns categories. We also reinforced distinctions between the verbs savoir and connaître that should have been mastered by the end of grade eight but were not
French Language Verb Feature
Descriptions of French Language Features Targeted
Verb selection : savoir (to deeply and intimately know) versus connaître (to be acquainted with)
Reference: CD Veux-tu jouer? by Sound Language Solutions produced by Dr. Chery Harvey & Jacquot, arranged & produced by Steve Revington (c) 2004. Song title 8 Connais-tu? This item is not on the FIF 1D syllabus, but remains unlearned from elementary school, a common problem.
Verb tense : L’imparfait (repeated action, prolonged action, state of being) et le passé composé (quickly completed in the past.)
(Item #9) (9) passé composé and imparfait in past narration and description (e.g., Quand je suis rentré, mes parents préparaient le souper.)
Verb agreement: with avoir and être in the past tense. (Items #6 and #7)
Reference: CD Veux-tu jouer? by Sound Language Solutions produced by Dr. Chery Harvey & Jacquot, arranged & produced by Steve Revington (c) 2004. Song titles 2,4,5 and 7 – J’ai fini Je suis allé. Je suis né. J’ai seize ans.
(6) passé composé of verbs conjugated with être, including agreement of the past participle (e.g., Elle est restée tard hier soir.)
(7) agreement with the preceding direct object of the past participle of verbs conjugated with avoir in affirmative and negative sentences (e.g., Je les ai mangés. Les livres que j’ai lus étaient intéressants. Nous ne l’avons pas vue.)
Les pronoms objets (Item #1)
(all five levels of object pronouns – reflexive, direct object pronoun, indirect object pronouns, y and en.)
(1) position of two object pronouns with simple and compound verbs in affirmative and negative sentences (e.g., Vous lui en avez parlé. Pierre ne les leur a pas expliqués.)
Selection of Research Subjects: We chose to focus anonymously on three individuals. After some adjusting, three grade nine students (two female and one male) whose spoken and written language production put them at risk in various ways were selected. All three demonstrated difficulty with the language features we chose to target as suitable for further reinforcement with the entire group, and for whom consent had been granted.
L2 Participation Rubric: We created a rubric to evaluate student French language oral production. The purpose of the rubric was to further motivate students to use French as the unique vehicle of communication in the classroom in all learning settings. This rubric was adapted for student self-evaluation as well as teacher evaluation.
Choice of Instructional Tactics: We contemplated general student learning styles and preferences, our limited but growing I.I. knowledge of instructional tactics and practical application in our classrooms, then chose three main tactics:
References from Apprentissage coopératif and websites
L’Examen des deux côtés de la médaille. (EBS – Examining Both Sides) Pages 248-249 & 254-256.. une excellente préparation pour un débat ou pour la controverse académique. Voir http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=III000112
Réfléchir/Partenaire en paires/ partager (TPS – Think/Pair/Share) Pages 200 – 205. Voir http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=III000109
Interview en trois étapes (3 step interview) Pages 205-206 & 250-253.
Three Step Interview – Cooperative learning tactic
In addition to tactics and strategies originally selected, grade nines also experimented, to varying degrees with three additional tactics which were very easy for teachers to incorporate into lessons:
Les échanges-éclairs (Le maïs soufflé) (Popcorn) (This is popular brainstorming technique where participants give ideas without having to raise their hands.)
Les coins (Four Corners) Voir pages 207 & 208 et http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=III000124
L’arête de poisson (Fish bone) Voir http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=III000113
Le diagramme Venn (Graphic Organizer) Voir http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/page.cfm?id=III000114
Le napperon - une habileté instructionnelle (Placemat). Voir www.ltag.education.tas.gov.au/proflearn/pedagogy/processes.doc
We also experimented with concept attainment in both physical geography using various types of rocks and shells as well at in grammar. Activities must be preplanned, interesting, practical and do-able.
General observations during the process : Using a variety of these strategies helped particularly in the area of novel study, helping students to better appreciate multiple perspectives, getting more affectively “in role” as characters. The depth and breadth of student writing also improved in both prose and poetry. Student speeches and interviews were videotaped. Student dramatic scenarios and debate which evolved out of use of these strategies and tactics were also videotaped as part of the data collection process. The Post-test, prepared in advance and targeted for June, 2005, was not administered, due to circumstances beyond our control, given prolonged illness within the research group and the prepared post-tests not being administered by the replacement teacher during the regular teachers’ absence in June.. We propose to administer the post-test in September, 2005, recognizing that the students will have had the summer to forget some of what they have learned.
The Glossary of Terms: Our team needed common instructional intelligence terms to avoid confusion. Common instructional intelligence terms and definitions in French, so that communication would be clear, taking into account structures and organizational systems and cooperative learning as well as identifying instructional tactics and instructional strategies. At the board level, of particular assistance for verifying categorization of definitions were Sandra Fraser, Consultant and Megan Borner, Project Manager, Research and Evaluation Services, YRDSB, both of whom are French-speaking. Our handout was reviewed and refined with invaluable assistance from Gail Philips, professor at Brock University who has worked in this field for over a decade, as well as by checking with professors Dr. Barrie Bennett and Dr. Carol Rolheiser of the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. On Saturday, April 2, 2005 at the Ontario Modern Languages Teachers’ Association Conference, two members of the team presented workshop Session H8 from 10h45 to 11h45 to about thirty secondary school teachers, sharing a twenty-three page handout to serve as an I.I. glossary highlighting: five basic elements of instructional intelligence; eight steps required for concept attainment; McCarthy’s 4MAT system; four learning styles, four types of learners, instructional tactics and instructional strategies. Permission has been granted to post this vocabulary list at the YRDSB I.I. site.
Analysis, Results and Findings
The I.I. project took an unfortunate, unexpected turn in May 27, 2005 coming to a standstill when the team leader took ill and went on sick leave. Later another member took ill for a prolonged period. Too many variables came into play for this to be a controlled experiment. Although data from speeches, multimedia presentations and debates had been videotaped, two key sources of information were not available to the teacher researchers at the end of June. The post-test submitted in May and resubmitted in June was not administered to student project participants in June, 2005 although the request had been made to do so. The exam results and final marks will be available to the teacher researchers in September. Also, although the final portfolios of student writing were collected, they were not made available for examination, leaving some key questions to which answers can only be obtained when school resumes in September, 2005, in order to fully complete the process, in a more detailed project summary in the fall of 2005. Without having the post-tests and portfolios to examine at the end of June, 2005, but having examined qualitative samples of student written work and language videotaped language production throughout the term from activities such as speeches, interviews, dramatized scenarios and debates, the following could still be deduced.
There appeared to be:
decreased error as well as language expansion in student written work.
an increase in display of critical and creative thinking skills.
an increase in cross dialogue in L2 possibly due to additional opportunities to practice communications skills in various groupings that lent themselves to an increase in student talk and reduction in teacher talk.
enhanced student enjoyment during the learning process
an increase in collaboration within groups as favoured over individual competitiveness
a positive correlation between language acquisition and musical-kinesthetic activity
improved confidence and competence speaking L2 in public
increased shared leadership
Discovery of a Positive By-Product: One out of three of the students targeted displayed significantly increased leadership and public-speaking skills. This student was one of a group of students in the grade nine French Immersion program, working with the I.I. project team leader to promote a love of reading in a local public library for community service hours. Students who experienced I.I. in the classroom, began to transfer their I.I. skills, weaving some instructional intelligence activities into their literacy sessions with French Immersion students from grades one to four who attended Saturday morning sessions. The student response was so positive that waiting lists grew for the program. Four series of four sessions have been pre-booked with Angus Glen Public Library in Markham, from September, 2005 to May, 2006 as the partnership continues. Other libraries are now inquiring about the possibility of our I.I. “ literacy trained” students offering similar programs for their French immersion population.
Implications for Our Practice:
The process has involved a significant learning curve requiring time for reflection, creation and implementation of instructional intelligence tactics. Building a comfort level with several specific tactics, increases confidence to expand to others and to venture into intelligence strategies which are seem more complicated at the beginning. Effective use of instructional intelligence in the classroom requires time to absorb the concepts as well as the sensitive and conscious blending of the five elements organizers, skills, concepts, tactics and strategies, to select appropriate tools at the right time for the right group of learns. Teachers also need opportunities to explore Brain Compatible learning.
Not everyone is buying into I.I. in the classroom, although it appears very beneficial. For the use of instructional intelligences to become school-wide within immersion programs, a focus on some aspect would be desirable as part of department meetings as well as related information exchanges between teacher researchers in order to gain interest of more stakeholders. Such meetings should involve sharing of approaches and insights (what worked, what didn’t) and next steps. Instructional intelligences was a topic on the agenda at last 2005 Regional Heads’ meeting for FSL, Classical and International Languages. Networking to share what works in I.I. is paramount to successfully promoting its use.
Communication en français – L’immersion
L’évaluation de la perspective de l’enseignant(e)
Nom de l’élève : _________________________ FIF ___
Date : ____________________________________
Niveau 4 80% à 100% Niveau 3 70 à 79%
Niveau 2 60% à 69% Niveau 1 50à 59%
___ Tu parles constamment en français avec l’enseignant et avec les autres étudiants.
___ Tu parles la plupart du temps en français
__ Tu parles souvent en français avec l’enseignant et avec les autres étudiants.
__ Tu parles peu en français avec l’enseignant et avec les autres étudiants.
___ Tu contribues régulièrement et de façon appropriée aux discussions de la classe.
___ Tu contribues souvent et de façon appropriée aux discussions de la classe.
___ Tu devrais contribuer d’avantage aux discussions de la classe, en grand groupe et en équipe
___ Tu génères des phrases inachevées.
___ Tu emploies le dictionnaire de façon autonome.
___ Trop souvent, tu demandes à l’enseignant et aux autres élèves un mot en français au lieu d’utiliser le dictionnaire.
___ Tu utilises rarement le dictionnaire en classe.
___ Tu n’utilises jamais de dictionnaire en classe.
___ Tu démontres une connaissance solide de la stylistique de la langue française.
___ Tu fais un effort de générer des phrases complètes.
___ Tu fais un effort pour parler français mais il y a encore quelques anglicismes et des phrases inachevées
___ Tu emploies trop souvent des anglicismes et des structures calquées sur celle de la langue anglaise.
___ Tu n’interromps pas les autres, mais tu encourages plutôt la participation des autres élèves en français.
___ Tu fais un effort de contribuer de façon positive à l’atmosphère de la classe.
___ Tu interromps parfois les autres qui ont la parole.
___ Tu interromps souvent les autres qui ont la parole, sans attendre ton tour.
Reflections on Our Action Research Experience:
As French Immersion teacher researchers, we recognize that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of discoveries to be made in exploring the impact of using a variety of instructional intelligences for preventing and correcting language errors. There is a great need and an increasing demand for development of practical, hands-on, age-appropriate French language materials linked directly to curriculum expectations to bridge gaps between instructional theory and implementation of instructional tactics and strategies in the secondary school French Immersion classroom. As emphasized by OMLTA participants at our April I.I. workshop, our own finding is that more L2 I.I. activities need to be developed, taught and replicated for teacher-friendly use in a variety of classroom settings.
Le cerveau comme le parachute, doit être ouvert pour fonctionner. » (Pierre Danino)
Error Analysis Game Resource:
A Systematic Approach. Sound Language Solutions. (2004). Veux-tu jouer? The Prevention and Correction of Errors in French.
Comments: There are eight songs which target common errors, a CD, posters and a game. It takes practice to master the game. Attending a related professional development workshop is highly recommended. See http://www.soundlanguagesolutions.com
Text resources currently available:
Stevan, L., Bennett, B., & Rolheiser, C. (1995). L’apprentissage cooperatif: Rencontre du cœur et de l esprit. Traduit par Monique MacKinnon. Educational Connections: Toronto. 344 pages. ISBN. 0-9695388-2-0.
Comments: This book was approved as YRDSB learning media in July, 2004. Focusing on cooperative learning, it is divided into three parts: (I) Cooperative learning in context (2) What works in cooperative learning and (3) Putting cooperative learning into practice in the classroom. There are many practical, hands-on ideas. Large scale reproduction of pages is not allowed, but teachers purchasing this resource may reproduce a very limited number of specific evaluation forms and activity sheets, planning sheets and forms from chapters 9, 11, 13 and 14. This text is basically a French language teacher resource that helps bring cooperative learning into the classroom. Many of the activities fit well with teaching leadership and promoting speaking in the target language. This resource is available from Educational Connections, Station “P”, 705 Spadina Avenue, C.P. 249, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S8.
Bennett, B. & Rolheiser, C. (2001). Beyond Monet : The Artful Science of Instructional Integration. Toronto: Bookation Inc. Voir aussi http://www.beyondmonet.ca (Sa traduction française est censée être disponible en septembre, 2005.)
At the time of this June, 2005 report, there are no other published French language Instructional Intelligence resources available in Canada or abroad.
Ministry of Education References:
Ontario Ministry of Education. (1999). French as a Second Language: Core, Extended and Immersion French. Retrieved on August 28, 2002 at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/fsl/fslful.html and http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/fsl/fslful.html#immersion1
Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.) French as a Second Language. Vive la publicité. French Immersion Academic. The Ontario Curriculum Exemplars. Samples of Student Work. A Resource for Teachers. http://mettowas21.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/exemplars/grade9/fsl/fsl.html
Armstrong, Thomas. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom.
Barkman, Robert. (1999). Science Through Multiple Intelligences: Patterns that Inspire Inquiry.
Bellanca, James A. (1994). Multiple Assessments for Multiple Intelligences.
Chapman, Carolyn. (1993). If the Shoe Fits…: How to Develop Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom.
Dennison, Paul E. (1989). Brain Gym: The Companion Guide to the Brain Gym Book, For Parents, Educators, and All Others Interested in the Relationship Between Movement and Whole-Brain Learning.
Dennison, Paul E. (1987). Edu-K for Kids!
English, Evelyn Williams. (1999). Gift of Literacy for the Multiple Intelligences Classroom.
Faculty of the New City School. (1994). Celebrating Multiple Intelligences: Teaching for Success: A Practical Guide.
Faculty of the New City School. (1996). Succeeding with Multiple Intelligences: Teaching Through the Personal Intelligences: Another Practical Guide.
Fogarty, Robin; Stoehr, Judy. (1995). Integrating Curricula with Multiple Intelligences: Teams, Themes, and Threads.
Gardner, Howard. (1999). The Disciplined Mind.
Gardner, Howard. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century.
Gardner, Howard. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice.
Gardner, Howard. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach.
Goleman, Daniel. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence.
Goodkin, Doug. (2002). Sound Ideas Activities for the Percussion Circle.
Hoerr, Thomas R. (2000). Becoming a Multiple Intelligences School.
Kagan, Spencer. (1998). Multiple Intelligences: The Complete MI Book.
Lazear, David G. (1998). Intelligence Buildings For Every Student: 44 Exercises to Expand MI in Your Classroom.
Lazear, David G. (1999). Multiple Intelligence Approaches to Assessment: Solving the Assessment Conundrum.
Layng, Diana. (1995). Improving Behavior Through Multiple Intelligences.
Lindvall, Rebekah. (1995). Addressing Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles: Creating Active Learners.
Martin, Hope. (1996). Multiple Intelligences in Mathematics Classroom.
O’Connor, Anna T.; Callahan-Young, Sheila. (1994). Seven Windows to a Child’s World: 100 Ideas for the Multiple Intelligences Classroom.
Schilling, Dianne. (1996). 50 Activities for Teaching Emotional Intelligence: The Best from Innerchoice Publishing, Level I: Elementary.
Schilling, Dianne. (1996). 50 Activities for Teaching Emotional Intelligence: The Best from Innerchoice Publishing, Level II: Middle School.
Silver, Harvey F.; Strong, Richard W.; Perini, Matthew J. (2000). So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences.
March Break 15,16,17 18
Sessions planned for July 5-8 and August 17-20
Action Research on Instructional Intelligence. To view and download reports see link
GLACIE (Great Lakes Association for Cooperation in Education)
Conference May 27 28
Please contact: Kyn Barker Curriculum Coordinator Ext 2430 or firstname.lastname@example.org for detailed information.
There are hundreds of instructional structures out there. This portion of the website is dedicated to offering a handful each month. Some of these have been simply mentioned by Barrie, but not in the text; some are / will be ones that teachers will send in to us; some from conferences, some from Curriculum and Instruction; others from books. If you wish to submit your favourite, you can do so by contacting: email@example.com
To round out your reading, here are some websites on Character Education:
Character Education Lesson Plans Website: http://www.character-education.info/resources/illustrations_stories_activities_ideas.htm#Samples
Character Education Articles
Instructional Intelligences References in English
FSL, Classical and International Languages has put in a proposal to do Instructional Intelligence Action Research in the language classroom, combining with multiple intelligences approaches and error analysis in the Modern Languages and immersion classes. . I will post the proposal once it has been approved. Most of the site provided here are available to teacher at the Board Website and have been reproduced for convenient access for parents and students. Most of the information below comes from the board's website shared with teachers:
Beyond MonetMind Map slide presentation of the text, Beyond Monet by Sandra Fraser, Consultant Mind Map in living colour doc pdf Mind Map presentation ppt pdf BEYOND MONET - The Artful Science of
Instructional Integration by Barrie Bennett / Carol Rolheiser http://www.beyondmonet.ca
Teacher Manual Companion to Beyond Monet By Jan Kielven Introduction to Manual / Companion The Manual / Companion (Complete) Manual (Word) Blackline Masters for Professional Development (Word) For Word Documents - Right click on this link and select "Save Target As" to save to your computer.
I put forth a French translation of Bennett's work on Cooperative Learning for the May textbook approval process. An update on this will be posted later as more information is available.
The following multiple intelligences bibliography list was shared by Dana Sullivan up at the YRDSB Professional Library in Newmarket. Teachers can easily borrow these items: