Conceptualization As AP Government does not follow a standards based curriculum, a slightly different approach can be taken to how content

and units are organized. Mr. Richards central goal, or standard, was to have students understand important Supreme Court Cases and the concept of their legacies. He was able to use a variety of methods, including the lesson below as part of a cohesive unit to achieve his goal. The primary course I taught however, US History, had an EOCT. This means that as opposed to AP Government's more open ended timeline, I had standards, a pacing calendar, and benchmark schedule to adhere to. However, when I make a lesson, I plan to go in depth into events that are in the Standards and expand upon what is already there; to find those moments where there is tension between perspectives or where an event will register and connect with my students in a meaningful or modern way. Although I did not make this specific lesson plan, it has many tenants I think about when I make my lessons. First, it starts with the end in mind. Mr. Richards wanted students to understand the concept of a judicial legacy and the different impacts of landmark US Supreme Court Cases (SCOTUS for short). Similarly, I try to create and structure my lessons based off what I want my students to know, understand, and be able to do at the end. Additionally, it works through guiding questions. Guiding questions provide a larger framework to activities and can also be used as a basis for inquiry lessons and work for students. As to the specific activities, Mr. Richards utilizes methods that align with how he conceptualizes teaching in an AP Government. These include lots of student guided work and direction. There is less structure in his class to encourage student autonomy. Similarly, the methods I use correspond to the philosophies that are important to me as a teacher. For example, I try to structure my activities to center on the students and their understanding of events. This takes numerous forms depending on the event, end goal, and guiding questions. However, I attempt to integrate primary documents, multiple perspectives, inquiry, student discussion, group work, and written and verbal responses into all of my units. For example, my students have made posters about various modern Civil Rights causes with differentiated group roles. They have analyzed the effects of Railroad on different groups, and studied how the composition of SNCC and the SCLC influenced their membership. Students wrote their opinions on in immigrant experience, atomic bomb, and what rights they should have as American citizens. These are a few examples of how my practice reflects the goals for my classroom. Overall, the forms and structures these strategies take vary based on the standard and my goals for my students, but all work towards creating a classroom environment based on critical thinking and analysis of historical events. These methods help facilitate the kind of classroom I want my students to experience; a space that challenges students to think about history in different and personal ways and share these thoughts with the class. Context

This lesson was part of the Judicial unit in AP government. AP Government is comprised of three class periods consisting of all freshman and one sophomore. It is year long course taught on a rotating schedule of A,B, and C days. Students attend AP Government 2 of the 3 days for an hour and ten minutes. Throughout this unit, students presented the basic facts of the major Supreme Court Cases as a project to their classmates. The project was jigsawed. Each group had cases dealing with a specific constitutional question. It mainly centered on students taking notes on their classmates presentations and represented the central way students received information about the cases. Throughout their presentations, Mr. Richards would question the group for more specifics and a deeper analysis of their cases and constitutional questions. Many times, Mr. Richards or I would oversee an extension activity about the constitutional questions covered by the cases. The second part of this Unit is what is detailed in my lesson below. For each class, we created a SCOTUS Bracket Which SCOTUS case is the greatest of all time? Students were given a specific case and argued for the importance of their case against the cases of their other classmates. The class as a whole would then decide the winner to advance, the winner being proclaimed the greatest case of all time. To ensure students had a proper knowledge of all the cases, they were given a test over these 16 cases and an additional four we studied the day before doing the bracket. My CT created the framework and introduced the project to our students and supervised the preparation of these cases by giving students time in class to prepare their arguments. Students were given one and a half days in class to work on the project in addition to the day spent playing out the bracket, which is the lesson that includes the assessment. The student work I analyzed was an extension of this bracket. After a winner was declared, students were asked to write a response to: Do you agree with the outcome, why or why not?

*all reflection/commentary are written in green

Unit Topic Judicial Branch, Civil Rights and Liberties Supreme Court Cases, judicial legacy, legal precedent, *by being asked to explain the reasons behind their case being the greatest of all time, students were being asked to examine the precedent and impact of their case compared to other cases. Which Supreme Court case was the greatest of all time? *This questions should have been changed to most significant- see reflection
SSCG16 The student will demonstrate knowledge of the operation of the federal

Big idea(s)

Essential Questions Standard(s)/

Benchmark(s)

judiciary. a. Explain the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, federal courts and the state courts. b. Examine how John Marshall established the Supreme Court as an independent, coequal branch of government through his opinions in Marbury v. Madison. c. Describe how the Supreme Court decides cases *Although AP Government does not technically have standards mandated by GPS, these are the government standards it most closely aligns with

Set-Up: On the board was the bracket for the class. On each desk, students had a red and green sheet of paper. On the board the following argument process was written and accordingly color coded(A was written in green and B was written in red) A- 2 Minutes B- 2 Minutes A- 1 Minute Green- A Red-B *This set up allowed students to constantly be aware of their instructions and the progression of the bracket. The use of time ensured that all students had a consistent method to present their cases, and knew what to expect on each round. Additionally, use of the construction paper allowed Mr. Richards and I to quickly and accurately count the winners while making sure that every student voted. Opener: (5 minutes) Students were given 5 minutes to look over their case and arguments *This preparation time allowed students to review what they were going to say and make any last minute changes. Additionally, it got them mentally prepared for the bracket and examining the legacies of different Supreme Court Cases. This way even if their case wasnt first, they associated themselves with the idea of a judicial legacy. Due to the rotating schedule, allowing students to review like this was particularly useful if they had not been in our class the day before. Mini Lesson (10 minutes)- Rules and Parameters of SCOUTS March Madness To start, I reminded students that we were going to a bracket to determine, Which Supreme Court Case was the greatest of all time? I then explained how the process would work. ~ I would call two cases up to the front (Ex: US v. Nixon and Citizens United v. FEC). Based of either gender or who was born first, that student would get to call the coin toss. If the student won, they could choose if they wanted to be A or B. If they lost, then the other student chose. Following this, Student A began their argument. ~ To keep time, the teacher has a stopwatch. ~ After Student A presented, Student B then had a chance to present. ~ Once Student B presents, Student A then has a chance to rebuttal what Student B presented.

~ The class would have a few seconds to think over what happened in the case, and then would vote using the colored construction paper. Green if they thought Student A had the greatest case, and red if they thought Student B had the greatest case. At this point. Mr. Richards and I told the class that if we thought they were voting off popularity, or not voting at all, we would stop the bracket. After this, Mr. Richards and I would count the votes and announce the winner of that round ~ The winner would be written on the board, and I would call up the next case. The process would continue until there was one winner. * taking extended time in the beginning to make sure students understood procedure helped increased the efficiency of the work session. Having the winner on the board also helped students who won their cases as they could look at who they would be facing next and start to make arguments against that specific case Work Session (35 minutes) After I explained the process, we began to play out the bracket. Students argued their cases and a winner was declared in each class. Students as a whole seemed engaged and interesting in the arguments. There were a few instances where we had to redirect students who were talking while their classmates were presenting, but they quickly refocused. * See reflection for more specific comments about the content of student arguments Closer (20 minutes): Students had twenty minutes to respond to the following prompt: Did you agree with the outcome, why or why not? ~ While explaining this topic, I made sure to note specifics that I was expecting - For example: I told students that I wanted specific reasons for why they disagreed and why the case they chose was the greatest or left the most important legacy. Specifically, what was the constitutional question of the case, what was the verdict, what precedent did this verdict set?

- Students spent the rest of the period writing their responses and turned them in at the end of the period to Mr. Richards and I. *The rationale for this writing assignment was to have student evaluate different outcomes and their own opinion of the cases. It allowed students to critically think about why certain cases have greater legacies than other. Additionally, it allowed the to argue this in their own way. Students took many different approaches to how they rationalized the question. As long as they used correct logic and legal terms, all strains and variations of argument were acceptable. The writing assignment asked students to engage on multiple levels of Blooms Taxonomy (see pyramid below) To make their argument, students needed a basic knowledge and comprehension of the details of the case they were choosing as the one with the greatest legacy, as well as the

individual winner in their class. They were asked to compare their chosen case to the winner, an exercise in synthesis. Finally, by ranking the cases and deciding what they thought of the outcome, they reached the highest level of thinking, evaluating. *For student work: http://csully224.weebly.com/student-work.html.
*For a more detailed analysis of individual student work, see http://csully224.weebly.com/student-work-analysis.html

Reflection The students were excited about this lesson and understood the sixteen cases better with this activity. But in the future if I decided to teach this lesson, I would make certain modifications to assist students understanding of how to present a legal argument. Although most students worked hard on their cases, some were not prepared. They had procrastinated and failed to research their case or the case they were arguing against. They understood the impact of the case on their lives, and many could name the specific amendment or constitutional issue being discussed. However, some of the cases missed their secondary and sometimes more profound impact. For example, no student who had Mapp v. Ohio realized that the case created the foundation for privacy rights. To proactively work against this problem, I would modify how my CT structured the work sessions. The work time in class was very open ended and student driven. They worked on their own terms and created products in their own format. This ideal stems from my teachers commitment to student autonomy and independence. However, I believe students could have benefited from a model of expectations and required pre-work. For example, to start the work time, I would have presented an example of an argument for a

case not in the bracket. I would have walked through the argument with my students, modeling what made the argument good or created an area for improvement. Additionally, I would have required students to turn in a rough draft of their argument. I would allow the format to vary, but all would need to include details of their case, the legacy of their case, and why they were arguing it was the greatest. Secondly, many students did not shift their argument based on the case they were facing. This led to some repetition throughout the class toward the later rounds. To rectify this, on what students turn in, I would have them write individual arguments against all the possible cases they could be facing. They would only have to be a few points, but I would want each student to have a basic argument prepared against all possible cases. This would helped them examine their case in new ways and against new ideas. Finally, my seminar teacher, Dr. Garrett, brought a different issue to my attention about the connotation of the word greatest. In the future, I will use the word significant so students do not view the assignment as ranking what Civil Liberties are more important. The emphasis is understanding judicial legacies, and evaluating their significance, but that should not be influenced by a positive or negative connotation of the word greatest.