E-Folio Evaluation and Reflection

Running head: E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION
E-Folio Evaluation and Reflection for Applying the Art & Science of Teaching Dianne J. E. Kraus Wilkes University
E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION
e-Folio Artifacts Evaluation The artifact that represents the best work in demonstrating competency in the Art & Science of Teaching is the paper entitled Applying the Art & Science of Teaching from the coursework for EDAM 5048. This work was important because it was the first attempt at
pulling the Ten Design Questions together into one unit and it demonstrates the overall understanding of the lesson segments. It was a challenge to address all of the lesson segments and the various elements into a well constructed cohesive unit of instruction. Although there were areas that need improvement the unit demonstrates all of the action steps of the Marzano framework and provides a demonstration of how prior learning in all of the courses can be pulled together with a focus on the lesson segments devoted to routine events, events enacted on the spot and segments devoted to content. This unit required purposeful planning based on the design questions which are research based techniques and strategies that teachers should utilize in order to provide effective instruction. It also required daily reflection and instructional feedback in order to adjust instruction and meet all of the students needs. Every moment of the classroom instruction and responses were carefully planned and orchestrated. The results of the planning were reviewed and revised in order to improve and to respond to instructional feedback based on formative assessments. I have never given so much thought and consideration to every moment of instruction to have high expectations for all students in the classroom. I tried to vary instruction over the unit to deepen student thinking so that students could make connections to apply concepts to real world issues and that address individual student interest and choice. This was a great challenge and although I felt that I was not innovating in the practice and design of the instruction in the study it was an opportunity to demonstrate my ability to decide on a focus of
the unit by establishing learning goals and then to plan lessons with a definable structure. I was able to address all of the design questions within the protocol and feel confident that going forward that I will be able to continue to use the framework to design effective instruction and to improve on my expertise in delivering the instruction with the design questions in mind. My initial purpose for learning the Art and Science of Teaching was my inability to give students meaningful feedback based on assessment and grading. I was also unable to design a comprehensive system for assessment and grading that made sense. I started to investigate the use of learning goals but was unsure how to differentiate the goals for students and I had little understanding for designing assessments based on learning goals. Within our schools professional learning community we were all struggling with the same issues and the experienced teachers had very little to offer with regards to improving the practice of new teachers entering our district. I wanted to be able to mentor new teachers but I did not feel that I was effective in my own instruction and teaching methods. When I designed the final unit for EDAM 5048, I was very proud of my ability to design a unit that was based on learning goals with a rubric for assessment and a test that was aligned to those goals. It is a challenge to balance the management of the classroom, student engagement, lesson pace, classroom relationships and high expectations for all. At the same time be constantly aware of withitness and think of questions that can be elaborating, clarifying and knowledge deepening while controlling student responses. Teaching is complex. When I compare my final unit to the first mini-study video on tracking students learning and celebrating success there is so much growth in my instructional design. At that time the students were tracking progress based on points. There were no learning goals other than learning random vocabulary words that were not learned in context. The students were celebrating success but
were not receiving feedback based on their learning. It was also clear from observations that went beyond the videotaping that the classroom was not organized for student learning, classroom management and relationships needed some improvement based on teacher-student interactions and the teacher was not extending student learning effectively. There was not a purposeful effective design for instruction which is currently present in planning and designing of instruction for the classes. As much as planning helps to develop the groundwork prior to each lesson the enacted on the spot strategies require constant monitoring and quick thinking and on the spot inventory taking in order to provide the most effective responses. I have a voice in my head now that gives me constant feedback on my ability to make effective choices for dealing with each situation and my thinking is based on the design segments/elements. My learning over the past three years has gone well beyond my initial goals and the paper from the final unit demonstrates the learning of the Marzano framework and protocol. The artifact that I am least satisfied with is the document from EDAM 5046 entitled Creating an Effective Classroom Environment. Although it is a good paper, I took the wrong perspective in the conclusion of the paper. In the questions and action steps section of the paper I was looking at the situation from the perspective of an administrator or a Biology PLC leader rather than a teacher. This is a much broader perspective than was required and the paper should have taken the focused perspective of a classroom teacher. As a classroom teacher I should have included my plans for this year to improve the classroom environment by organizing the supplies, decorating the classroom with content specific posters, hanging student work, using a word wall and posting behavior tenets/expectations in the room. I should have also discussed the need for a predetermined plan for adherence and non-adherence to classroom rules which has
greatly improved my classroom environment this year. The use of town hall meetings and the students involvement in designing the classroom rules has also been very beneficial. Although I made these changes as part of my instruction they were not discussed in the paper and as a reflection on action steps the paper would have been improved if these thoughts and plans had been included in the artifact. The e-folio artifacts have encouraged me to improve my instructional practices by allowing me to develop a growth mindset which was an idea that I embraced from EDAM 5045 and the paper on Self Efficacy. This is a concept that I have based the design of a unit for my AVID students so that they will change their approach to learning from a fixed to a growth mindset. The awareness of how to approach learning as what we have not accomplished yet has taken the focus away from grades and has moved minds towards teaching and learning. In my own career, I have become more reflective because it is important to develop a high level of skill that is not based on talent but has a foundation of hard work and insight from research based practices. I do not settle for what I know now and I am continuously seeking increased levels of performance through deliberate practice by taking myself out of my comfort zone. I also seek out collaborative opportunities to discuss instructional planning with peers and colleagues in my school and within on-line communities. Using these resources helps all teachers to grow and engage in professional development activities that are more relevant than restricting ones learning opportunities to attending workshops and webinars. I am deliberate in planning my courses as I use the design questions to guide my planning. I plan for every lesson segment and my classroom is a more student centered positive learning environment. As a result of becoming an effective teacher my students are also
improving and showing greater increases in academic and social emotional learning. Absolutely every action step that happens in the classroom has a purpose or has a purposeful reaction that will increase the opportunities for the students to learn and improve mastery of specific learning goals. I set personal goals that help focus my growth plans for learning and reflection in order to improve my practice based on the Marzano Protocol. The insight that I have gained from the e-Folio artifacts has also inspired me to complete an Educational Leadership program in order to be more involved with school supervision to mentor and coach teachers. I would like to implement a school wide action research project in the near future to inspire other teachers to use the Marzano framework when designing their instruction in their content areas. Action research provides a learning experience very relevant to each teacher and is an excellent opportunity for teachers to engage in collaborative professional development activities that will improve their willingness to change, to help them to learn new strategies and to try developing the behaviors of effective teachers. E-folio Probe Response I selected the Socratic seminar lesson from the content lesson for the EDAM 5048 as a lesson to redesign to be more effective. This lesson was an opportunity for students to engage in deeper thinking regarding their learning goals during our Ecology Unit. I was disappointed regarding the level of participation of the Socratic seminar and the misconceptions that were still evident within their answers on the post-test for the action research project. The students did not make the connections that I expected regarding plants, energy capture and the support of the food web. The few students that spoke focused on how plants release oxygen to the atmosphere to support life on the planet. Oxygen is a by-product of the process by which plants capture energy
and support life by turning radiant energy into chemical energy for the support of the trophic levels which was the goal of our unit. A few students mentioned human impacts but the questions were prepared by the teacher not the students and did not have clear focus to guide the seminar towards focused learning. The Socratic seminar was designed as a large group discussion. There were too many students to make this a quality discussion. I would redesign the grading rubric for the seminar. (Appendix 1) The students would benefit from watching a mock tutorial staged using the expertise of the AVID college tutors. Students would be provided detailed strict guidelines and rules for participation in the seminar. They would be asked to prepare questions based on the text as guided by the active learner language strategies. (Appendix 1) Although the class had experienced the Socratic Seminar in their English classes they seemed unprepared and lacked the confidence to participate. The target learning goal for the Socratic Seminar would be revised to read The students will be able to critically think, ask higher level questions, and logically use evidence to support their beliefs regarding the human impacts on ecological systems. The unclear goals from the prior seminar would be redefined and photosynthesis would be reintroduced using a lab inquiry activity. A text will be chosen for the new lesson based on student interests on human impacts which could be determined by a personal interest survey. The text would be chosen for its richness in ideas, issues and values. The text should raise important questions in the students minds and provide them the opportunity to ask higher level questions for which there are no right or wrong answers and provide critical input information. This could be on global warming, acidification of the ocean, biomagnification or the impact of invasive species. This would give the students more focus towards seeking deeper understanding of complex problems involving the ecology of the Earth.
For the seminar, I would then have the students who are more advanced facilitate and lead the seminars based on the text in small groups of no more than five students. The small group discussion activities were planned well for the mini-study in EDAM 5044 Problem Solving paper and the students brought their individual questions to class to collaborate on solutions. This was a lesson that I am very proud of for facilitating the extending of student learning and based upon the success of this lesson I would adjust the group size and format for the Socratic seminar during EDAM 5048. In the smaller groups the students would be able to explore their insights and interpretations and the small group size would allow the involvement of more reluctant participants. The students would be coached in advance to support their ideas with ideas from the text and life experience and to actively share their ideas. Only through participating and reflecting can the students learn responsible seminar behaviors that will help them to see the bigger picture through dialogue. I would encourage the students and student leaders to sit in group circles as far from each other as possible so that they would be able to maintain their own discussions with minimal teacher assistance. The teacher would roam the room, provide encouragement to all students, and listen to the discussions while monitoring the groups learning. If necessary the teacher would also be able to differentiate the level of the text or reading to meet the needs of various reading levels within the class. The students could share out to the larger group the main points of their discussion to debrief the discussions at the end of the lesson. This variation is helpful because it would give students who lack the confidence to speak during a large group discussion to practice in a smaller group. I would have a student in each group map the dialogue so that all of the students could be given a copy of the seminar for their notes.
These changes would make the lesson more effective by following the design of the lesson segments. The text would provide a previewing activity and attention would be given to grouping the students for active processing of information so that all students actively participate in the discussion and add their individual perspectives. It would enable all students to effectively interact with new knowledge. I would determine the success of this lesson by asking the students to write a learning log or a written reflection on the Socratic seminar based on three questions that I would prepare based on the learning goal for the lesson and the text provided. I would also have the students fill out a discussion evaluation so that they could reflect on the quality of their discussion and make recommendations for performance improvement/goals for future seminars. E-folio Reflection The biggest impact that the Art & Science of Teaching has had on my teaching philosophy is the importance of setting clear and specific learning goals that are divided into declarative, procedural and non-cognitive goals depending on the type of learning that is expected during a lesson. This is evidenced by EDAM 5041 in the artifact entitled Celebrating Clear Learning Goals, Rubrics and Assessments. It is important to use the three lesson segments to design instruction while reflecting on the ten design questions within each lesson segment to check for understanding based on formative assessments aligned to the learning goals, to re-teach in new ways based on instructional feedback and to give students multiple opportunities to demonstrate goal attainment. Within this lesson format an effective teacher needs to address routine events by setting learning goals, tracking progress and celebrating success. Teachers must address content to help
10
students generate and test hypothesis testing, help students effectively interact with new knowledge and help students to practice and deepen their knowledge. As part of the third lesson segment teachers must look at events that are enacted on the spot such as student engagement, affective tone of the classroom, establishing high expectations for all students, recognize adherence and lack of adherence to rules and procedures, and maintain positive relationships with students. All of the segments when used to orchestrate lesson plans and units help to facilitate student learning. An effective teacher is the most important factor for improving student performance in a classroom and within the lesson segments there are forty-one elements or strategies for teachers to implement, plan and use to create the effective stage for learning. It is also important for a teacher to become a reflective instructional professional to develop a personal profile, to set goals and to evaluate performance in a collaborative environment with colleagues. The Marzano Protocol provides a framework for teachers to gain feedback and this was used during the courses in the Art & Science of Teaching to help achieve specific results by observing the mini-study videos and examining student responses to target teacher behaviors. In my own school we have students who are very diverse with a large number of English language learners, special education students and students of poverty who all benefit from these strategies as we attempt to address their unique needs by equipping the teachers with tools to engage and motivate all learners. The key changes that I have made in my instructional practice involve designing instruction based on the Marzano framework. Prior to this experience my instruction was improving based on the college readiness strategies learned through the AVID program implementation and summer institute training, however, the Marzano framework has provided effective instructional strategies, effective classroom management strategies and effective
11
classroom curriculum design that are research based strategies for increasing the effectiveness of teachers. (Marzano, 2007) I have also learned how to critically assess my own performance and to adjust instruction based on the students needs. The biggest light bulb moment was the affective tone of the classroom and having high expectations for all students. Awareness to mindset and personal biases was very important to improving my instruction and I learned how to take personal surveys of my own behavior and I have become more aware of how teacher behaviors can have such a profound influence on a students ability to succeed. When I work
with students now I feel that I am manipulating their performance by adjusting my behavior in ways that will capture them on a more emotional level. The changes that I have made to my instruction have impacted student performance by improving student interest and engagement, by improving classroom management and increasing student ownership in their own learning. Evidence for this improvement was documented by the action research project from Edam 5048 Action Research Instructional Implications because the experimental group showed an 11.9 percentile gain over the control group. Data collected by our school has also demonstrated student achievement gains in my classrooms that exceeds previous years and leads the district Biology classrooms based on results of common assessments. As a result of the formal testing there has been increased interest in my instructional practices and the need to share the strategies other teachers in order to improve teacher effectiveness school wide. My career has been changed by the learning experiences provided by this sequence of courses and I will continue to use the portfolio as a reference to improve my instruction and to build on and practice the skills and strategies that have now become part of my instructional planning.
12
APPENDIX 1 Socratic Seminar Lesson Plan Re-design Documents
Biology: Matter, Energy and Organisms in the Living Systems Human Impacts on an Ecosystem Socratic Seminar Rubric 4.0 The student(s) will lead an investigation in a Socratic discussion to determine the consequences of human impact on an ecosystem.
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The students will be able to critically think, ask higher level questions, and logically use evidence to support their beliefs regarding the human impacts on ecological systems
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0 1.5 1.0
The student(s) will describe how or why humans impact an ecosystem. Partial Knowledge of the 2.0 content but major errors or omissions regarding 3.0 content With help a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes With help a partial understanding of the 2.0 content but not the 3.0 content Even with help no understanding or skill demonstrated
0.5 0.0
494861
research-article2013
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244013494861SAGE OpenPaull
TEXT for SOCRATIC SEMINAR

SAGE Open July-September 2013: 112 The Author(s) 2013 DOI: 10.1177/2158244013494861 sgo.sagepub.com
The Rachel Carson Letters and the Making of Silent Spring

John Paull1
Abstract Environment, conservation, green, and kindred movements look back to Rachel Carsons 1962 book Silent Spring as a milestone. The impact of the book, including on government, industry, and civil society, was immediate and substantial, and has been extensively described; however, the provenance of the book has been less thoroughly examined. Using Carsons personal correspondence, this paper reveals that the primary source for Carsons book was the extensive evidence and contacts compiled by two biodynamic farmers, Marjorie Spock and Mary T. Richards, of Long Island, New York. Their evidence was compiled for a suite of legal actions (1957-1960) against the U.S. Government and that contested the aerial spraying of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). During Rudolf Steiners lifetime, Spock and Richards both studied at Steiners Goetheanum, the headquarters of Anthroposophy, located in Dornach, Switzerland. Spock and Richards were prominent U.S. anthroposophists, and established a biodynamic farm under the tutelage of the leading biodynamics exponent of the time, Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer. When their property was under threat from a government program of DDT spraying, they brought their case, eventually lost it, in the process spent US$100,000, and compiled the evidence that they then shared with Carson, who used it, and their extensive contacts and the trial transcripts, as the primary input for Silent Spring. Carson attributed to Spock, Richards, and Pfeiffer, no credit whatsoever in her book. As a consequence, the organics movement has not received the recognition, that is its due, as the primary impulse for Silent Spring, and it is, itself, unaware of this provenance. Keywords Marjorie Spock, Mary Richards, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, Long Island, New York, DDT, gypsy moth, organic farming, biodynamic agriculture.
Introduction
Most books are first editions because most books never develop the traction to warrant a reprint (Gekoski, 2011). This was not, however, the fate of Rachel Carsons book, Silent Spring. Published in the United States in 1962, Carsons book ignited a national, and eventually, an international furore and debate. Silent Spring attracted fans and infuriated foes. It was a critique, especially of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and, more generally, of our relationship with the natural world. Writing in Science, one author lamented that the plague of Rachel Carsons Silent Spring continues to infest the minds of scientists (Marvin, 1967, p. 14). Now, half a century after it first appeared, Silent Spring is still in print and continues to engage and recruit fresh advocates and detractors. There are numerous biographies of Rachel Carson (19071964; for example, Brooks, 1972; Lear, 1997; Levine, 2008; Lytle, 2007), and the story of how Silent Spring has changed the world is well documented (e.g., Graham, 1970; MacGillivray, 2004). By the time she wrote Silent Spring, Carson was already the best-selling author of several feel
good nature books, including The Sea Around Us (1950) and The Edge of The Sea (1955). Publicly, Carson was a vibrant professional writer, while privately her health was deteriorating into a precarious state and she was terminally ill with cancer. Silent Spring was to be her testament and her legacy and she cared about it passionately. The book received immediate acclaim and approbation. U.S. Congressman and lawyer, Jamie Whitten, took a reactive stance. He was the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture, and for him Silent Spring was highlighting the dangers of a public backlash against pesticides. As an antidote to Carson, he pursued an increased advocacy for pesticides:
University of Oxford, UK
Corresponding Author: John Paull, Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Oxford, 51-53 Banbury Road, OX2 6PE Oxford, UK. Email: john.paull@mail.com
2
As a result of such involvement in pesticide questions I became aware that there was a sizeable movement at work aimed at severely curtailing or even eliminating the use of pesticides . . . This made me afraid that an aroused public opinion might stop the use of materials that I had become convinced are absolutely essential to our health and prosperity. And so I began to speak out in defense of the role of pesticides. (Whitten, 1966, p. vi)
SAGE Open collaborated as the leading U.S. authors and translators of anthroposophic and biodynamics literature. For Silent Spring, they were Carsons key informants as they shared the fruits of an antipesticide action against the U.S. government in which they had expended US$100,000 and assembled expert witnesses and thousands of pages of testimony and scientific research material, all of which was readily shared with Carson as the foundation of her book.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was founded in December 1970, largely in response to Silent Spring. On June 14, 1972, the EPA cancelled all Federal registrations of DDT products, and from December 31, 1972, the usage of DDT was banned in the United States (EPA, 1972). Other jurisdictions followed suit. After three decades of public endorsement of DDT, in August 1972, the Australian Agricultural Council recommended that all existing registrations for DDT should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, with the view to withdrawing all uses for which acceptable substitutes exist (Harrison, 1997). It had taken a decade, and Rachel Carson did not live to see it, but her message was bearing fruit on an international scale. Antagonists quickly linked Silent Spring with the organics cause, and organics advocates welcomed the book; however, Carson made no mention of the organics movement in her text, in its extensive reference list nor publicly elsewhere. The book was a milestone for the diffusion of the organics meme and the advancement of the organics movement. It was published at a time when the organics movement was at a low ebb, and Silent Spring gave the movement fresh momentum (Clunies-Ross, 1990; Gross, 2008; Peters, 1979; Reed, 2003). The injection of Silent Spring into the organics narrative has been treated as an external input, as though it was a kind of manna from heaven for the organics movement. Despite a mountain of subsequent scholarship, much of which has focused on the impact of the book rather than on its provenance, the organics movement has not received the recognition that is its due as the primary input to Silent Spring. Carsons biographer Linda Lear (1997, p. 332) acknowledged Marjorie Spock as Carsons chief clipping service, but as the present account will show, there is more to the story than Lears cryptic statement that Spock had studied organic agriculture in Switzerland and was committed to it (p. 319). The present account reveals, from an analysis of Carsons private correspondence, the untold story of the organics provenance of Silent Spring, and the role of two remarkable New York women, Marjorie (Hiddy) Spock (1904-2008) and Mary T. (Polly) Richards (1908-1990). As young women they had trained with Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), the founder of biodynamic agriculture, at the Goetheanum in Switzerland (Barnes, 2005). After their return to the United States, the pair were under the personal tutelage of Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer (1899-1961), the then chief advocate of biodynamics, in their biodynamic farming and gardening enterprises, and they
The Long Island Spray Trial, 1957-1960

Marjorie Spock and Mary T. Richards, two biodynamic farmers of Long Island, New York, sought an injunction to stop the U.S. Federal Government from aerial spraying their property with DDT, and, having failed to stop the spraying, sued for damages. For The New York Times, the story was front page news from the outset (Schmeck, 1957). The 1958 trial ran over 22 days, arrayed 50 expert witnesses, and generated more than 2,000 pages of testimony (Boston Herald, 1964). There were, in total, four legal actions initiated by Spock and Richards, running from 1957 to 1960, which I refer to collectively as the Long Island Spray Trial (Table 1). According to Bonine (2007), This may well be the first modern environmental case brought by citizens (p. 467). Reflecting on the impediments to mounting such a case, Spock (1960a) wrote, Unfortunately these suits are prohibitively expensive in both time and money (ours cost close to $100,000), and lawyers usually refuse them as prejudicial to their future and because you cant win against the government (p. 252). Three million hectares of northeast United States had been aerially sprayed with DDT in a campaign to eradicate an insect, the gypsy moth. Aircraft pilots were paid according to the number of gallons sprayed, so there was little or no incentive for restraint, and nor from spraying the same areas more than once (Spear, 2005, p. 257). Spock and Richards were about to be impacted by
one case that borders on the surreal, the New York state and federal departments, citing an implausible threat from the gypsy moth to New York City and environs, announced plans to spray densely populated Nassau County, Long Island, with DDT in fuel oil. (Spear, 2005, p. 257)
A group of Long Island residents, 6 initially, and swelling to 13, took action against the state (Murphy v. Benson, 1957, 1959a). The prime movers of the group were the biodynamic farmers and gardeners, Marjorie Spock and Mary T. Richards (Brooks, 1972, p. viii). The group included organic gardener and past president of the National Audubon Society, Richard Murphy, who is listed as the lead appellant, together with other organic gardeners and a chiropractor (Sellers, 1999, p. 43). From the United Kingdom, the Soil Association sent a US$100 check to Spock in support of the campaign (Spock, 1960b, p. 249).
Paull
Table 1. Timeline of the Long Island Spray Trial and Associated Events. Year May 24, 1957 Action Application by six plaintiffs for an injunction to stop the U.S. government from aerial spraying Long Island with DDT, aiming to eradicate the gypsy moth (District Court). Ehrenfried Pfeiffer: Entire edition of BioDynamics devoted to his account: Do we really know what we are doing? DDT spray programstheir value and dangers. Carson contacts Marjorie Spock. Outcome Injunction denied. Long Island sprayed with a mixture of DDT and kerosene oil. Supplied to Carson by Spock the following month. Spock and Richards supply Carson with Pfeiffers paper, share their contacts, and files of references, and this data flow continues for the next 4 years. Dismissed. No damages proven. Original decision upheld. Denied. Dissenting opinion by Justice William Douglas. Attacks in Chemical Week, Science, and Time Magazine. Acclaim and success.
January, 1958
February, 1958
June 23, 1958 April 21, 1959 March 28, 1960 November 30, 1961 June 16, 23, and 30, 1962 September 27, 1962
Trial lasting 22 days; 50 witnesses; additional plaintiffs (District Court). Appeal (Court of Appeals: argued: April 21; decided October 1). Appeal (Supreme Court). Petition for writ of certiorari, i.e., review. Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer died, New York state. Silent Spring serialized in the New Yorker. Silent Spring published by Houghton Mifflin.
Note. DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
The initial application for an injunction to halt the spray program failed. In retrospect we can see that what then happened to the land of Spock and Richards was a precursor of what happened soon after in Vietnam with a massive aerial chemical warfare operation authorized by President Kennedy starting in 1961 (Neilands, 1971). The U.S. governments chemical wars against the gypsy moth in the United States, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam, were contemporaneous wars. They ultimately both failed in their primary objectives, but at the time of the Long Island Spray Trial, both defeats were in the future, and neither was foreseen by the advocates of those wars. Marjorie Spock kept supporters informed of legal developments: From the summer of 1957 to 1960 when the case reached the Supreme Court, Marjorie wrote a report to interested and influential friends of each days progress in and out of court (Fay, 2008, p. 7). Carson was one recipient of these intelligence reports (Fay, 2008; Lear, 1997). A voluminous amount of material was generated for, and by, the court actions as the case was escalated from an application for an injunction in 1957 (injunction denied), a District Court trial in 1958 (complaint dismissed), an action brought to the Court of Appeals in 1959 (dismissal decision upheld; no success to the plaintiffs), and eventually an uplift to the Supreme Court in 1960 (appeal denied; no joy for the appellants; Murphy v. Benson, 1957, 1958, 1959b; Murphy v. Butler, 1960). In the process of these 4 years of legal challenge to the U.S. Federal Governments authority to spray private
property, Spock and Richards built up an arsenal of research material, as well as contacts and expert witnesses.
Two New York Biodynamic Farmers

The petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that
Misses Richards and Spock . . . moved to Long Island for the sole purpose of being able there to produce food free of chemicals . . . it is a legitimate use to make of ones own property and it is frustrated by the spraying of DDT . . . The Misses Spock and Richards went to very substantial expense solely for the purpose of their organic cultivation. (Murphy v. Benson, 1959a, p. 7)
Spock and Richards had both studied at the Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland, the headquarters of the Anthroposophic Movement. According to Henry Barnes (2005), the chronicler of Rudolf Steiners work in North America, Spocks life encompasses the history of Anthroposophy in America (p. 112). Spock had traveled to Dornach as an 18-year-old, in October 1922. She returned to the United States in December 1924 (Barnes, 2005). This adventure proved to be the beginning of a lifetime passion and dedication to anthroposophy, and particularly to eurythmy, Waldorf education, and biodynamics. Spocks first visit to Dornach was a time of momentous and far reaching events for anthroposophy. On New Years Eve 1922/1923, she witnessed the first Goetheanum burn to
4 the ground, with Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), Ehrenfried Pfeiffer (1899-1961), and George Adams (1894-1963; translator into English of Steiners Agriculture Course; Barnes, 2005; Steffen, 1923; Whicher, 1977). It was the destruction of 10 years of work. The following Christmas, Spock was at the founding of the Anthroposophical Society at Dornach Switzerland, at the Christmas Gathering 1923 (Barnes, 2005; Spock, 1978; Steiner, 1924a). Rudolf Steiner set an intensive work schedule of traveling and lecturing. Marjorie Spock often traveled from Dornach, with the Steiner entourage, on those lecture tours. She learnt German. She attended Steiners courses in speech, tone eurythmy, and dramatic art (Barnes, 2005). She attended the Torquay Summer School in August 1924. This event was to be Steiners 10th and final lecture tour to England (Barnes, 2005; Steiner, 1924b; Villeneuve, 2004). It appears that colleague Mary Richards presented a reading from Steiners Mystery Plays in London immediately after Steiners Oxford Conference of 1922 (Paull, 2011c; Villeneuve, 2004). During Spocks first visit to the Goetheanum, Steiner presented his Agriculture Course at Koberwitz in June 1924 (Steiner, 1924c). Steiner ran this program in parallel with a program on spiritual science at nearby Breslau (Steiner, 1924c). Steiner states that during these events there were performances by Eurythmy artists from the Goetheanum (Steiner, 1924c, p. 10). The Koberwitz Agriculture Course was the birthing event for (the yet to be named) biodynamic agriculture (Paull, 2011a). In December 1924, just 6 months after the Koberwitz course, Spock departed Dornach (Barnes, 2005). Rudolf Steiner had by this time fallen ill and was confined to his studio, and from September 28, 1924, Steiner gave no further lectures; he died on March 30, 1925 (Collison, 1925; Koepf, 1991). Spock subsequently returned to Europe and studied at the Eurythmy School in Stuttgart, Germany, from 1927 to 1930. On returning to the United States, she taught at the Rudolf Steiner School in New York. From June 1937 to the end of 1938, she again spent time at Dornach (Barnes, 2005). Spock had departed Europe before the outbreak of World War II (WWII), and on her return to the United States, she enrolled at Colombia University. She graduated with a BA, and proceeded to an MA, writing a thesis on Waldorf education. Spock taught at the Waldorf Demonstration School of Adelphi College and was a lecturer at the Teacher Training School of Adelphi College (now the Waldorf School of Garden City and Adelphi University, respectively; Sunday Herald, 1957; Waldorf School, 2007). Spock spent her summers at the biodynamic Threefold Farm, Spring Valley, New York, teaching eurythmy and learning biodynamic gardening (Barnes, 2005, p. 120). The Threefold Farm was the first biodynamic farm in the United States, and the venue for the early anthroposophy conferences (Gregg, 1976a). The Biodynamic Associations annual conferences were held there from 1948 to 1980, and
SAGE Open it is still home to a vibrant biodynamic community, to the Pfeiffer Centre, and to the Threefold Educational Centre (Day, 2008). Marjorie Spock and Mary Richards cultivated two acres of land on Long Island, New York, which they managed on biodynamic principles. Describing themselves as two eurythmists (Spock & Richards, 1956), and having spent time in Dornach, they were deeply committed to anthroposophy and its practical manifestations, including eurythmy (dancing), Waldorf education, and biodynamic farming. On their farm, they planted over thirty different vegetables and they had fourteen kinds of fruit and berries (Spock & Richards, 1956, p. 14). In this enterprise, these two biodynamic farmers and gardeners had been guided by the worlds leading exponent of biodynamic agriculture, Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, author of Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening (1938) that was simultaneously published in at least five languages (Paull, 2011b). Of Pfeiffer, they reported, He would insist at every visit on the minutest inspection of the various beds of vegetables, of the soil in depth, of the compost piles and of the fruit trees (Spock & Richards, 1962a, p. 23). As biodynamic farmers and as anthroposophists, they had sought out the worlds two greatest experts in these domains, Steiner and Pfeiffer. Spock and Richards had a deep philosophical grounding to oppose mass dousing of their own land, in particular, and Long Island in general, from aerial spraying with DDT. In addition to these embedded macro reasons, the pair also had a very specific micro reason for pursuing their own biodynamic farming and for producing chemical-free food, which included vegetables, fruit, eggs, and dairy (Spock & Richards, 1956), and for resisting the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prophylactic DDT spraying program. Mary Richards had a sensitivity to food impurities that was, on occasion, incapacitating (Barnes, 2005). It has been suggested that Richards was an early case of the debilitating condition, now described as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS; Sellers, 1999). As a consequence of this condition, from the mid-1950s, Spock and Richards had been sending samples of their foods for analysis to the New Yorkbased Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene for testing for DDT and other pesticide residues (Sellers, 1999). They now sought to avoid the repercussions of having their land, trees, and crops doused with DDT. When the DDT spraying over their property occurred in 1957, Spock and Richards regarded their food supply as ruined, their animals as contaminated, and their soil as totally compromised (Barnes, 2005, p. 123). They had covered some of their crop with plastic sheeting, but they found that the DDT and fuel oil mixture that was sprayed dissolved the plastic and thereby contaminated their crops, despite their precautions (Barnes, 2005). Spock authored or translated more than 20 books, some jointly with Mary Richards, all of them on anthroposophy
Paull
5 intermediaries: 1 letter from Maria Carson, Rachels mother (November 1958); 1 letter from Roger Christie, Rachels nephew (November 1958); and the final letter dated March 24, 1964 from JVD stating that Carson was ill (she died on April 14, 1964). Marjorie Spock sent the collection of letters to Marie Rodell (1912-1975), Carsons literary agent, and then literary executor, expressing the view that all pertinent material should be available, not kept in private hands (Spock, 1966, p. 1). The letters were subsequently deposited in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale Collection of American Literature, of Yale University. There is a continuity of narrative and events that suggests that the sequence of correspondence from February 1958 to October 1961 is complete, or nearly so. Spock and Richards were highly organized with their extensive documentation management and they were aware of the historical significance of the letters, commenting that interest in Rachel Carson seems certain to increase (Spock, 1966, p. 2), and this adds a further reason to accept that the sequence of correspondence is complete, or nearly so. An early letter, dated March 14, 1958, sees Carson expressing her thanks: I am most grateful for all the material you have sent me, and her delight at the quality and quantity: I am delighted there is so much sound material (Carson, 1958e). Later that month she writes, Many thanks for . . . the very excellent Pfeiffer paper . . . With its many references it is a gold mine of information (Carson, 1958f). In the same letter, Carson states that you have been so enormously helpful to me, and apparently are so familiar with a vast amount of material (Carson, 1958f). The author of the gold mine paper was Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, who was, at the time, the chief proponent and exponent of biodynamic agriculture. He subsequently appeared as an expert witness in the Long Island Spray Trial (Spock & Richards, 1962b). When he was challenged by a defense attorney as to what fee he was receiving, he responded that no fee was involved; and when further challenged as to why he was there, his response was because I am interested in the future of the human race (p. 25). An entire edition of the U.S. periodical Bio-Dynamics was devoted to Pfeiffers (1958) account, Do we really know what we are doing? DDT spray programsTheir value and dangers, which raised a multitude of health, food, and ecological issues concerning DDT aerial spraying. It is a 40-page account that cites 105 scientific references. It was a pioneering meta-analysis of the DDT issue and it is easy to see why this publication of the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association was described by Carson (1958f) as a gold mine. Many of the references and authors cited by Pfeiffer later reappeared in Carsons reference list. Of one of his references (viz., Rudd & Genelly, 1956), Pfeiffer (1958) commented, This is one of the most comprehensive reports, with almost 1000 references (p. 39). It reappeared in Carsons references. In her exchanges with Spock, Carson
Figure 1. Annual tallies of letters from Carson to Spock and Richards.
and/or biodynamics. Spock authored at least 7 books in her own right, including Eurythmy (1980), Teaching as a Lively Art (1985), and In Celebration of the Human Heart (1982). She translated at least 5 books of Rudolf Steiner, including Awakening to Community (Steiner, 1974); Chance, Providence and Necessity (Steiner, 1988); and A Psychology of Body, Soul & Spirit (Steiner, 1999). She translated at least a further 7 books by other biodynamic or anthroposophic authors, including Rudolf Steiner on his Book the Philosophy of Freedom (Palmer, 1975), What is Bio-Dynamic Agriculture (Koepf, 1976), and Water: The Element of Life (Schwenk & Schwenk, 1989). Together with Mary Richards, she jointly translated at least two books: The Nature of Substance (Hauschka, 1966) and Nutrition: A Holistic Approach (Hauschka, 1967). Spocks father, Benjamin Spock, was a lawyer, so perhaps seeing a legal remedy for a perceived government wrong was neither as foreign nor as daunting to Spock as it may have been to many, and Richards was in a position to personally put up the not inconsiderable funds.
Bearing Witness
Rachel Carson wrote to Spock and Richards early in February 1958 at the time when they were preparing evidence for the trial. This initial request resulted in the flow of a wealth of material and contacts to Carson for the next 4 years during which time Silent Spring was written. The salutation in the letters was initially Dear Mrs Spock; it quickly shifted to Dear Miss Spock, and then to the familiar Dear Marjorie, by October 1958, and occasionally to Dear Marjorie and Polly (e.g., December 1958, April 1960, and February 1961). At least 57 letters have survived from Carson to Spock and Richards (Figure 1). In this total I include 3 letters from
6 makes multiple references to Pfeiffer and to his correspondence (e.g., Carson, 1958f, 1959a, 1959b, 1960e, 1960f, 1960h, 1961f). With Spock and Richards as intermediaries, Pfeiffer was queried by Carson about sources, references, and his own tests and experiments, although he received no acknowledgment in Silent Spring. Carson wrote regularly plying Spock with a variety of queries, questions, requests for addresses of contacts and for copies of articles. Carson frequently expresses her thanks for new material, for example, in August writing: Your good letter and enclosures have just arrivedall excellent, helpful, and stimulating. I feel guilty about the mass of your material I have here (Carson, 1958c, p. 1). During that 1st year of collaboration, in a September letter to Spock, Carson declared, you are my chief clipping service, and I do appreciate all you do (Carson, 1958d). The letters to Spock and Richards also track Carsons deteriorating health during the researching and writing of Silent Spring. The descriptions of Carsons ill health are generally vague, especially at the beginning of the correspondence. Spock, her mother, and Richards met with Carson, her mother, and her nephew, in Maine early in September 1958. After that meeting Carson wrote, I left Maine with a sore throat and when we reached home at the end of the second day of driving I promptly collapsed into bed with flu or something and she described herself as still not very energetic (Carson, 1958b, p. 2). Rachels mother, Maria, wrote to Spock that Rachel has had several sick spells of different kinds (M. Carson, 1958, p. 1). Maria herself died 5 weeks after writing this letter. Carson informed Spock and Richards, in a four-page handwritten letter, of her mothers death. She described her mother and perhaps herself:
Her love of life and all living things was her outstanding quality, of which everyone speaks. More than anyone else I know, she embodied Albert Schweitzers reverence for life. And while gentle and compassionate, she could fight fiercely against anything she believed wrong, as in our present Crusade! Knowing how she felt about that will help me to return to it soon, and to carry it through to completion. (Carson, 1958a, pp. 3-4)
SAGE Open another set-back of some magnitude, wrecking my tight work schedule for the spring . . . Viruses . . . delayed my operation . . . There were two tumors in the left breast . . . suspicious enough to require a radical mastectomy (Carson, 1960a, pp. 2-3). Carson however remained upbeat, as well as private: I think there need be no apprehension for the future. I am giving details to special friends like younot to others (Carson, 1960a, p. 4). Carson and Spock corresponded on testing food for residues (Carson, 1960d). Carson wrote to Spock that all you tell me of the food situation is most interesting (Carson, 1961d, p. 1). Carson thanked Spock for sending her butter and meat, and related that her young nephew, Roger (who was in the care of Carson) had remarked that this hamburger is very good because it hasnt been sprayed (Carson, 1961e, pp. 2-3). Carson wrote to Spock and Richards of the advice to make an effort to eliminate chemical residues from my food intake insofar as possible. I know of no local suppliers of such food. Can you suggest how I can find out? (Carson, 1961b, pp. 2-3). Letters from Carson generally thanked Spock and Richards for their research materials and/or raised queries, but she continued to relate her personal circumstances. Early in February 1961 she wrote that
I seem always to write of illness and disaster but unfortunately my luck has not changed. Rather severe flu after Thanksgiving and then a persistent intestinal virus early in January apparently lowered my resistance and prepared for the real troublea staphylococcus infection that settled in my knees and ankles so that my legs are, and have been for 3 weeks, quite useless. (Carson, 1961b, p. 1)
She laments, if only I could walk! (Carson, 1961b, p. 2). Ten days later she reported that I can still manage only one or two steps (Carson, 1961d). A month later she could report, Improvement continues, so I can now get about part of the time without my walker (Carson, 1961c). By April 1961 she told of my still limited energy and reported that
I feel cheated out of full enjoyment of this slowly unfolding Spring, I am so much better that I have much to be thankful for. Wheel chair and walker are behind me and although at times I do walk stiffly, I do walk limited distances and can even manage short distances by car . . . Im still having cortisone injections . . . I cant adequately thank you for all your generosity. (Carson, 1961a, pp. 3-4)
Spock states, of Carson, that she found she was mortally ill a year or so after she began work on Silent Spring (Spock, 1966, p. 1). In January 1960, Carson thanked Spock for the wealth of material that had just arrived from her (Carson, 1960b, p. 1); however, she added that healthwise, our report is not too good. Ive had flu (or something) for 10 days, and yesterday had to return to my bed . . . Just before the virus attacked me, Id learned I have a duodenal ulcer! (Carson, 1960b, p. 1) Later she writes that Im still laid low with flu but recovering (Carson, 1960c). Three months later, in April 1960, she confided in a letter, Dear Marjorie and Polly . . . My hospital adventure turned into
By October 1961, Carson could finally report, of the upcoming book, that the end is somewhere in sight. She acknowledged the latest installment of material, the excellent clippings and the photocopy of the Lancet article . . . I had seen references to it but had not seen the complete article (Carson, 1961g). In the years 1958 to 1961, Carsons correspondence reveals that she was in continuing receipt of information
Paull from Spock and Richards, beginning from the initial request for information in February 1958, through the multiple volumes of trial transcripts that were loaned, and contacts and research articles and reports that included some translated from the German by Spock and Richards. The correspondence is a parallel record of Carsons precarious state of health during the research and writing of Silent Spring, and of her reliance on Spock and Richards as research collaborators throughout.
7 In the decade before Silent Spring, at least four professionally written poison books appeared, tackling the issue of pesticides and food. None of them had an impact approaching that of Carsons book, and all of them had an identifiable organics provenance. U.S. chemist, Leonard Wickenden (1955), published Our Daily Poison. He had previously published books on organic gardening (Wickenden, 1949, 1954) and was identified as an organic gardener on the dust jacket of Our Daily Poison. Award winning New York journalist, William Longgood (1960), published The Poisons in Your Food. He had previously written of the USDAs DDT spraying program in an organics journal (Longgood, 1957). Carson commented in a letter to Spock, It is too bad that Mr. Longgood is having such rough going with his book, although I suppose not surprising. His reporting of the trial would automatically make him a target of the New York State Department of Agriculture (Carson, 1960g, p. 1). London-based doctor, Franklin Bicknell (1960) published Chemicals in Food and in Farm Produce: Their Harmful Effects. The rear of the dust jacket carried an advertisement for other Faber organics titles. The U.S. anarchist, Murray Bookchin (1962), only months before Silent Spring appeared, published Our Synthetic Environment under the pseudonym Lewis Herber. He had previously declared that the difference between organic farming and chemical farming was a basic antagonism in outlooks toward natural phenomena (Herber, 1952, p. 215). The experiences of Wickenden, Longgood, Bicknell, and Bookchin/Heber were not definitive, but Carson was a savvy author, and writing was her sole source of income, so she was aware, perhaps more than most, that she did not want their experience to be her experience. She was also thoroughly aware of Pfeiffers (1958) well-argued and extensively referenced account of DDT and the environment, which occupied a complete issue of the journal Bio-Dynamics but which appears to have preached to the converted rather than igniting any controversy or generating any national debate. Having been provided with the trial transcripts by Spock, Carson would have been well aware that the presiding judge, in the Long Island Spray Trial, Judge Bruchhausen, was discounting evidence based on the leanings of the witnesses. In his opinion he argued,
the fact that some are so strongly in favor of organic farming, without the use of chemicals, or emphasize their preference for biological control that their judgements may be influenced by their leanings. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate that the experts testimony be scrutinized. (Murphy v. Benson, 1958, p. 3)
Silent Witness
Despite the regular correspondence between Carson and Spock and Richards, and queries and multiple clarifications sought from Pfeiffer, none of the three received any credit or acknowledgment in Silent Spring. If oversight, ignorance, and/or ungratefulness are dismissed as reasons for this absence, and it does seem reasonable to dismiss them, then how can the omission be accounted for? Carson was writing an evidence-based account of an issue that she was passionate about. Given the deteriorating state of her health, she could have foreseen that Silent Spring would have to stand on its own merits, without any further defense from her, that this was her single chance, and that time was not on her side for her personally responding to negative critiques or producing some future follow-up book. Silent Spring was to be her testament, her legacy, and her farewell statement. She was bedridden and wheel chair bound during some of the writing of Silent Spring. Her health continued to deteriorate after the launch of Silent Spring with its serialization in The New Yorker beginning in the June 16, 1962, issue, and then the book publication on September 27, 1962, until her death on April 14, 1964. From her correspondence with Spock and Richards, it is clear that Carson was concerned strategically with how to craft her message to achieve a breakthrough into public consciousness. She wrote,
It is a great problem to know how to penetrate the barrier of public indifference and unwillingness to look at unpleasant facts that might have to be dealt with if one recognized their existence. I have no idea whether I shall be able to do so or not, but knowing what I do, I have no choice but to set it down . . . I guess my own principal reliance is in marshalling all the facts and letting them largely speak for themselves. (Carson, 1960i, p. 1)
There were at least two strategic and evidence-based reasons for Carson to expunge her benefactors Spock, Richards, and Pfeiffer, together with their philosophies of biodynamic and organic agriculture, from her book. First, there was the experience of previous authors who had tackled the same or related issues and who had tried and failed to gain traction. Second, there was the trial transcripts that clearly revealed that an organics association could be used as a reason for discounting the witness.
A medical specialists testimony was disregarded by Judge Bruchhausen on the basis that Dr. Knight . . . his testimony consists largely of generalities and is not helpful. In
8 fact he states that the subject is rather new and that absolute proof is lacking. He conducts an organic farm (Murphy v. Benson, 1958, p. 3). However, the testimony of a pro-DDT witness was highly regarded by the Judge:
Doctor Hayes is Chief of Toxology [sic] of the United States Public Health Service . . . and is a member of the expert panel on Insecticides of the World Health Organization . . . He and his associates have experimented with DDT on human beings and animals, feeding them DDT with daily doses for periods of a year or more . . . I am strongly impressed with this witness. (Murphy v. Benson, 1958, p. 4)
SAGE Open Chemical & Engineering News published the view that it is certainly hoped that they [FDA and USDA] will not decide that they must defend their position (Gordon, 1962, p. 4). Carson had witnessed in the transcripts of the Long Island Spray Trial how the evidence of witnesses associated with organics was discounted or disregarded because of their association. She was familiar with Pfeiffers (1958) welldocumented paper in Bio-Dynamics, and other pre-Carson warnings and questionings about DDT in particular, and pesticides in general. She knew that they had largely failed to hit their mark, on either the public consciousness or public policy. The conclusion is that Carson silenced the witnesses to let the message be heard. As far as any evidence of association with the organics sector was concerned, Carson was a cleanskinThere was no such link in the public domain. The close friendship of Spock and Richards with Carson had been forged in private and in pursuit of what Carson (1958a) described as our present Crusade (p. 23). Silent Spring was a joint effort and their common cause, and Carson wrote their evidence into, but their names out of, the script entirely. Their common cause was the construction of Silent Spring and this was the consuming passion of Carson in the final years of her life. There is no evidence revealed in the correspondence to indicate that Carson shared or explored the interest of Spock and Richards in either anthroposophy or the writings of Rudolf Steiner.
Of two witnesses who had conducted research sponsored by chemical companies, the Judge declared, Both witnesses impressed the Court as credible witnesses (Murphy v. Benson, 1958, p. 4). The clear message from the trial was that being in the employ of a chemical company was not an impediment to credibility but that being associated with the organics cause was. The judge in arguing ad hominem rather that ad rem was inadvertently alerting Carson to be wary of admitted associations. In deciding against the appellants, Bruchhausen was implicitly making the case to Carson to suppress its biodynamic provenance. And suppress it she did. There was, nevertheless, a feeling that Carsons book carried a smuggled message. A chemical industry editorial identified an undercurrent of antipathy running throughout her work (Chemical Week, 1962, p. 5). One critic speculated that Carsons writing probably reflects her Communist sympathies and pointed out that we can live without birds and animals, but, as the current market slump shows, we cannot live without business (H. Davidson, 1962, quoted in Lear, 1997, p. 409). The first respondent in the Long Island spray case, Ezra Taft Benson, the then Secretary of Agriculture, is quoted as wondering Why a spinster with no children was so concerned about genetics? and affirming that she was probably a Communist (Lear, 1997, p. 429). While these critics were surely quite off the mark, they did intuit that Silent Spring, although couched in scientific terms, and laden with scientific references, was a vehicle for carrying something that Harrison and Benson, for example, were identifying as subversivethough without them quite fingering it. An editorial in Chemical Week sensed the legal provenance of Carsons book as they railed
Her technique in developing this theme is more reminiscent of a lawyer preparing a brief, however, than a scientist conducting an investigation . . . the industry is facing a hostile and to some extent uninformed prosecuting attorney. Her facts are correct, her conclusions less certain, and her innuendoes misleading. (Chemical Week, 1962, p. 5)
Discussion and Conclusion

Just why Carsons book gained so much traction is a matter of speculation. There is a constellation of potential reasons. Carson was already a best-selling author (e.g., The Sea Around Us, 1950) with a proven talent for writing. Her new book addressed (mostly) a single pesticide (DDT) and (mostly) a single biological class (birds); Silent Spring began with a simple, but powerful, parablea journalist in a hurry could read the parable and skip the rest; the book had a lyrical title, in contrast to, for example, Bicknells, Wickendens, Longgoods, and Pfeiffers declarative titles. Carsons book was serialized (and abridged) in The New Yorker before appearing as a book, giving it high visibility and taking it to a broad and influential audience. The selection by book clubs (e.g., Readers Union) guaranteed a broad and diverse distribution and readership. And the book piggybacked on a ground-breaking court case that had aroused and alerted powerful U.S. government agencies and chemical corporations who were primed to rebuff any assault on their domain. Carson had carefully crafted her message to exclude any reference or citation to organics or biodynamics, yet it had been fuelled, shaped, and informed by biodynamic and organic farmers and gardeners, and it carried their agenda just as had Pfeiffers (1958) account before it. While
Paull excluding any reference or acknowledgment to Spock, Richards, or Pfeiffer, commenting, of the Spray Trial, merely that it had been initiated by Long Island citizens (Carson, 1962, p. 159). For whatever reason or confluence of reasons, Carsons book succeeded, where others had failed, as a driver of major awareness and change. And, in succeeding, her book succeeded spectacularly, gaining the serious recognition that had eluded authors who had earlier ventured into the dark side of pesticides, food, and the environment. Writing in the periodical Organic Gardening and Farming, Robert Rodale (1962) described Silent Spring as a masterpiece (p. 17) while he reminded readers that much of the evidence presented . . . we have reported to readers of Organic Gardening and Farming in the past (p. 18). Carsons facts were not new; it was the traction of those facts that was new. The executive editor of Organic Gardening and Farming, Jerome Olds (1962), wrote of Silent Spring that its as if a lid that kept down criticism and resentment against poison sprays had been suddenly blown off (p. 14). Globally, the organics sector was given a timely and welcome boost by Silent Spring. In the decade following its publication, for example, the circulation of Jerome Rodales Organic Gardening and Farming rose from 300,000 subscribers in 1962 to 750,000 in 1972 (Gross, 2008; J. I. Rodale, 1962). Ehrenfried Pfeiffer did not live to see the Silent Spring phenomenon that sprang from his gold mine of references and the trial in which he had been an expert witness. He was treated for TB, and complications therefrom, and he died on November 30, 1961. Pfeiffer had worked with Rudolf Steiner at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland, from 1920 until Steiners death in 1925. From Steiners Agriculture Course of 1924, Pfeiffer (1938) had developed the theory and practice of biodynamic agriculture into a publishable form as Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening (Paull, 2011b), he had brought biodynamics to the United States, and he had witnessed biodynamics become a worldwide enterprise. Spock and Richards, after all legal recourses had been exhausted in 1960, purchased a 142-acre farm near Chester, New York, and made the move, 80 km from New York City and adjacent to Ehrenfried Pfeiffers own farm (Gregg, 1976b; Spock & Richards, 1962b). They subsequently purchased a farm at Maine (Spock, 1972). Biodynamic farming practices continued at the new farms (Spock, 1968, 1972). Mary Richards died in 1990; Marjorie Spock died in 2008 at the age of 104. Rachel Carson had a radical mastectomy on April 4, 1960, and opted to keep her precarious state of health secret from most (Carson, 1960a, p. 3). She had further surgery and radiation treatment in the few subsequent years remaining to her. During some of that period, she was bedridden and unable to walk. She entered the Cleveland Clinic on March 13, 1964, for an operation relating to her cancer. She died there on April 14, 1964. She was aged 56 years. Her book
9 was listed as one of the 25 greatest science books of all time (Discover, 2006) and for five decades, it has remained continuously in print. The success of Silent Spring is a testament to, firstly, the thoroughness of Spock and Richards in garnering the evidence and, secondly, to Carson crafting that evidence into a parable and a powerful text. While the thrust of the book was attacked, the facts were not disputed. Carson dissociated, from her public persona and the book itself, the close working and personal relationship that she had developed with the biodynamic farmers Spock and Richards, and the influence of Pfeiffer on them all, and she thereby successfully sidestepped a potential mode of attack from the powerful lobby groups that did indeed attack, albeit counterproductively. Acknowledgments
The author thanks the library and librarians of the Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, for access including Rachel Carsons letters to Marjorie Spock and Mary T. Richards.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Barnes, H. (2005). Into the hearts land: A century of Rudolf Steiners work in North America. Great Barrington, MA: Steiner Books. Bicknell, F. (1960). Chemicals in food and in farm produce: Their harmful effects. London, England: Faber and Faber. Bonine, J. E. (2007). William H. Rogers, Jr., and environmental law: Never give up, keep on going. Washington Law Review, 82, 459-492. Bookchin, M. (1962). Our synthetic environment (Pseudonym: Lewis Herber). New York, NY: Knopf. Boston Herald. (1964, April 15). Rachel Carson dead at 56: Author, biologist, victim of cancer. Boston Herald, 1, p. 26. Brooks, P. (1972). The house of life: Rachel Carson at work. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Carson, M. (1958). MS handwritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 22/10/1959 (2 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1950). The sea around us (1961 Revised ed.). New York, NY: New American Library. Carson, R. (1955). The edge of the sea. London, England: Staples Press. Carson, R. (1958a). MS handwritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 4/12/1958 (4 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1958b). MS handwritten letter: Dear Miss Spock; 15/9/1958 (4 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of
10
American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1958c). MS typewritten letter: Dear Miss Spock; 12/8/1958. New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1958d). MS typewritten letter: Dear Miss Spock; 26/9/1958. New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1958e). MS typewritten letter: Dear Mrs. Spock; 14/3/1958 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1958f). MS typewritten letter: Dear Mrs. Spock; 26/3/1958 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1959a). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 12/10/1959 (2 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1959b). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 22/10/1959 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960a). MS handwritten card: Dear Marjorie and Polly; 12/4/1960 (4 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960b). MS handwritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 18/1/1960 (2 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960c). MS handwritten postcard: Dear Marjorie; 22/1/1960. New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960d). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 1/7/1960 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960e). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 11/7/1960 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960f). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 12/8/1960 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960g). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 18/5/1960 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960h). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 27/9/1960 (2 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1960i). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjory [sic]; 14/3/1960 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961a). MS handwritten card: Dear Marjorie; 18/4/1961 (4 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961b). MS handwritten letter: Dear Marjorie and Polly; 6/2/1961 (3 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961c). MS handwritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 11/3/1961 (1 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of
SAGE Open
American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961d). MS handwritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 16/2/1961 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961e). MS typewritten card: Dear Marjorie; 18/4/1961 (4 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961f). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 4/1/1961 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1961g). MS typewritten letter: Dear Marjorie; 11/10/1961 (1 p.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring, fortieth anniversary edition (2002). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Clunies-Ross, T. (1990). Agricultural change and the politics of organic farming (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bath, Bath, UK. Collison, H. (1925). Rudolf Steiner. X a.m. 30th March, 1925, R.I.P. Anthroposophical Movement, 2(13), 101. Day, B. (2008). Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, the threefold community, and the birth of biodynamics in America. Biodynamics, (263, Fall), 41-43. Discover. (2006, December). 25 Greatest science books of all time. Discover Magazine, 27, p. 12. Environmental Protection Agency. (1972). DDT ban takes effect. EPA Press Release, 31 December: Author. Fay, S. (2008, January 30). Marjorie Spock. The Ellsworth American, p. 7. Gekoski, R. (2011, May 3). An insiders guide to book fairs. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/ booksblog/2011/may/03/insider-guide-book-fairs Gordon, C. F. (1962, November 5). More Comments on Silent Spring. Chemical & Engineering News, 40, 4. Graham, F. (1970). Since Silent Spring. London, England: Hamish Hamilton. Gregg, E. S. (1976a). The early days of bio-dynamics in America. Bio-Dynamics, 119, 25-39. Gregg, E. S. (1976b). The early days of bio-dynamics in America, Part II. Bio-Dynamics, 120, 7-22. Gross, D. (2008). Our roots grow deep: The story of Rodale. Emmaus, PA: Rodale. Harrison, S. (1997, November). Organochlorides in Australia. Proceedings, UNEP Workshop on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Bangkok. Hauschka, R. (1966). The nature of substance (M. T. Richards & M. Spock, Trans.). London, England: Vincent Stuart. Hauschka, R. (1967). Nutrition: A holistic approach (M. Spock & M. T. Richards, Trans.). London, England: Stuart & Watkins. Herber, L. (1952). The problem of chemicals in food. Contemporary Issues, 3, 206-241. Koepf, H. H. (1976). What is bio-dynamic agriculture (W. Brinton & M. Spock, Trans.). Springfield, IL: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association. Koepf, H. H. (1991). Ehrenfried Pfeiffer: Pioneer in agriculture and natural sciences. Kimberton, PA: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association.
Paull
Lear, L. (1997). Rachel Carson: Witness for nature (1998 first UK edition). London, England: Allen Lane. Levine, E. S. (2008). Up close: Rachel Carson (advance uncorrected proof). London, England: Penguin Group. Longgood, W. (1957). Poison strafes a farm: Planeload of spray ruins toil of 10 years. Natural Food and Farming Digest, 1, 95-96. Longgood, W. (1960). The poisons in your food. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Lytle, M. H. (2007). The gentle subversive: Rachel Carson, silent spring, and the rise of the environmental movement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. MacGillivray, A. (2004). Rachel Carsons Silent Spring. Lewes, UK: Ivy Press. Marvin, P. H. (1967). Pesticides: Overstated dangers. Science, 156(3771), 14. Murphy v. Benson. (1957). Robert Cushman MURPHY, Mary T. Richards, Marjorie Spock, John C. Homer, Gladys Weeks, and David Kennedy, Plaintiffs, v. Ezra Taft BENSON, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Lloyd Butler, Area Supervisor of Plant and Pest Control Division, Daniel Carey, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Defendants. US District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Murphy v. Benson, 151 F. Supp. 786 (D.N.Y. 1957). Murphy v. Benson. (1958). Robert Cushman MURPHY et al., and Archibald B. Roosevelt et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ezra Taft BENSON, etc., et al., Defendants. US District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Murphy v. Benson, 164 F. Supp. 120 (D.N.Y. 1958). Murphy v. Benson. (1959a). Petition for Rehearing: Robert Cushman Murphy et al., Plantiffs-Appellants v. Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agricultutre of the United States, Defendant, and Lloyd Butler, Area Supervisor, Plant and Pest Control Division of the United States Department of Agriculture et al., Defendants-Appellees. US Court of Appeals: Murphy v. Benson, 270, Docket No: 25448 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1959). Murphy v. Benson. (1959b). Robert Cushman Murphy et al., Plantiffs-Appellants v. Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agricultutre of the United States, Defendant, and Lloyd Butler, Area Supervisor, Plant and Pest Control Division of the United States Department of Agriculture et al., Defendants- Appellees. US Court of Appeals: 270 F.2d 419; Docket 25448. Murphy v. Butler. (1960). Murphy et al. v. Butler, Area Supervisor, Plant Pest Control Division of the Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, et al. Supreme Court of the United States: Murphy v. Butler, 362 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1960). Neilands, J. B. (1971). Harvest of death: Chemical warfare in Vietnam and Cambodia. New York, NY: Free Press. Olds, J. (1962). The new year and Silent Spring. Organic Gardening and Farming, 9(9), 14-15. Palmer, O. (Ed.). (1975). Rudolf Steiner on his book The Philosophy of Freedom. Herndon, VA: Steiner Books. Paull, J. (2011a). Attending the first organic agriculture course: Rudolf Steiners agriculture course at Koberwitz, 1924. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(1), 64-70. Paull, J. (2011b). Biodynamic agriculture: The journey from Koberwitz to the world, 1924-1938. Journal of Organic Systems, 6(1), 27-41.
11
Paull, J. (2011c). Rudolf Steiner and the Oxford Conference: The birth of Waldorf education in Britain. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 53-66. Peters, S. (1979). The land in trust: A social history of the organic farming movement (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Pfeiffer, E. (1938). Bio-dynamic farming and gardening: Soil fertility renewal and preservation (F. Heckel, Trans.). New York, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Pfeiffer, E. (1958). Do we really know what we are doing? DDT spray programsTheir value and dangers. Bio-Dynamics, 45, 2-40. Reed, M. J. (2003). Rebels for the soil: The lonely furrow of the soil association 1943-2000 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of West England, Bristol, England. Rodale, J. I. (1962). A new messiah, The Readers Digest or There is no evidence. Organic Gardening and Farming, 9(12), 2026. Rodale, R. (1962). Rachel Carsons masterpiece. Organic Gardening and Farming, 9(6), 17-19. Rudd, R. L., & Genelly, R. E. (1956). Pesticides: Their use and toxicity in relation to wildlife. Game Bulletin, State of California Department of Fish and Game, 7, 1-209. Schmeck, H. M. (1957, May 9). L.I. residents ask end to moth war. The New York Times, p. 1. Schwenk, T., & Schwenk, W. (1989). Water: The element of life (M. Spock, Trans.). Great Barrington, MA: Steiner Books. Sellers, C. (1999). Body, place and the state: The makings of an Environmentalist imaginary in the post-world war II U.S. Radical History Review, 74, 31-64. Spear, R. J. (2005). The Great Gypsy Moth War: The history of the first campaign in Massachusetts to eradicate the gypsy moth, 1890-1901. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Spock, M. (1960a). Annotation to: The Gypsy Moth case, dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mother Earth, 11(July), 249-252. Spock, M. (1960b). Correspondence: The Long Island Gypsy Moth case. Mother Earth, 11(January), 103. Spock, M. (1966). MS handwritten letter: Dear Mrs Rodell; 19/3/1966 (2 pp.). New Haven, CT: Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Spock, M. (1968). Paean to goats. Bio-Dynamics, 86, 15-17. Spock, M. (1972). A fruitful exchange. Bio-Dynamics, 104, 17-19. Spock, M. (1978). Personal reminisces: An account of the foundation stone laying, Christmas 1923. Newsletter: Anthroposophical Society in America, Spring, 22-24. Spock, M. (1980). Eurythmy. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Spock, M. (1982). In celebration of the human heart. London, England: Rudolf Steiner Press. Spock, M. (1985). Teaching as a lively art. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Spock, M., & Richards, M. T. (1956). A vegetable garden from a woodlot. Bio-Dynamics, 39, 11-14. Spock, M., & Richards, M. T. (1962a). A B-D homestead. BioDynamics, 62, 20-23. Spock, M., & Richards, M. T. (1962b). Memories of Dr. Pfeiffer as a consultant. Bio-Dynamics, 61, 23-25.
12
Steffen, A. (1923). The destruction of the Goetheanum by fire. Anthroposophy, 2(1-2), 10-13. Steiner, R. (1924a). Foundation of the anthroposophical society at the Christmas gathering, 1923. Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain: Monthly News-Sheet for Members, January, 1-2. Steiner, R. (1924b, August 24). To all members: Our summer courses in Torquay. Anthroposophical Movement, 1, 81-83. Steiner, R. (1924c). To all members: The meetings at Koberwitz and Breslau. Anthroposophical Movement, 1, 9-11. Steiner, R. (1974). Awakening to community (M. Spock, Trans.). New York, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Steiner, R. (1988). Chance, providence and necessity (M. Spock, Trans. English translation of 1915 lectures). London, England: Rudolf Steiner Press. Steiner, R. (1999). A psychology of body, soul & spirit (M. Spock, R. Lathe, N. Whittaker & M. Post, Trans. Berlin lectures: 1910, 1911, 1912). Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Sunday Herald. (1957, March 31). Workshop in Arts Scheduled Thursday. Sunday Herald, p. 20. Chemical Week. (1962, July 5). Viewpoint: The Chemicals Around Us. Chemical Week, 14, p. 5.
SAGE Open
Villeneuve, C. (2004). Rudolf Steiner in Britain: A documentation of his ten visits, volume 11, 1922-1925. Forest Row, UK: Temple Lodge. Waldorf School. (2007). School history. New York, NY: The Waldorf School of Garden City. Whicher, O. (1977). George Adams: Interpreter of Rudolf Steiner. East Grinstead, Sussex, UK: Henry Goulden. Whitten, J. L. (1966). That we may live. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand. Wickenden, L. (1949). Make friends with your land: A chemist looks at organiculture. New York, NY: Devin-Adair. Wickenden, L. (1954). Gardening with nature: How to grow your own vegetables, fruits and flowers by natural methods. New York, NY: Devin-Adair. Wickenden, L. (1955). Our daily poison: The effects of DDT, fluorides, hormones and other chemicals on modern man. New York, NY: Devin-Adair.
Author Biography
John Paull is a social scientist and a visiting academic at the University of Oxford. He has degrees in mathematics, psychology, and environmental management. He is the editor-in-chief of the open-access peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems.
p u o r G r na s i em line S ic ide t . a ing u r k a c G e s sp So i e ls
ne e o e som e l i h not w , y k s sa pea r s e n n h a te t ot Lis a ne c h o No nw o d l bui o t ry st t ext t u e m h ild of t geners iews. Bu k n a o Spe heir v ecti aking s t e th nm ate o a t b h e t y d ectl ather r t i x d r e e T t refer come h t s to us ns. a r o m e i e t d s Ref eaker their i serva Sp ich r ob o h s w ent from comm l era
Unit 12: Socratic Seminar
163
13
Pre-Seminar Question-Writing:
Before you come to a Socratic Seminar class, please read the assigned text and write at least ________ questions.
Categories for Potential Questions

Facts and Conditions (What happened to ____?) Clarification (What was meant when ____?) Cause and Effect (Why did ____ do ____?) Multiple Causes (What else might have caused ____?) Empathy and Transfer (What would you do in ____s place when ____?) Alternatives (What could have been done to change ____? or What else could ____ have done when ____?) Principles, Values, Attitudes, Transfer (How did you feel when ____? or What can be learned from ____?) World Connection Question: Write a question connecting the text to the real world. Close Ended Question: Write a question about the text that will help everyone in the class come to an agreement about events or characters in the text. This question usually has a "correct" answer. Open Ended Question: Write an insightful question about the text that will require proof and group discussion and "construction of logic" to discover or explore the answer to the question. Universal Theme/Core Question: Write a question dealing with a theme(s) of the text that will encourage group discussion about the universality of the text.
14
ACTIVE LEARNER LANGUAGE STRATEGIES

INTERRUPTING
Excuse me, but(e.g., I dont quite understand/I have a point to make). Sorry for interrupting, but(e.g., I dont understand/I missed that definition). May I interrupt for a moment?
ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION
I have a question about that. Could you repeat that? In other words, are you saying that? Could you please explain what ______ means? So, do you mean? Would you mind repeating that definition? Could you please say more about that? Could you give me an example of that? Im not sure I understood that word/term/concept. Could you please give us another example?
Would you mind going over the instructions for us again? What is the difference between ______ and ______?
15
De-Briefing
Share specific and non-judgmental observations from the seminar. Place todays dialogue in context of previous seminars. Discuss specific goals and strategies for future seminars. In the course of the seminar: What was the most interesting question? What was the most interesting idea to come from a participant? What was the best thing you observed? What was the most troubling thing you observed? What do you think should be done differently in the next seminar? How would you rate the seminar? (Check One)
___Excellent (Everyone participated, listened, had good ideas, did not interrupt.)
___Good (Generally, everyone participated but the seminar could have better ideas and behavior.)
___Fair (Side talk, interruptions, students distracted.)
___Poor (Lots of side talk, interruptions, and rude behavior.)
How many times did the facilitator have to stop the seminar? _____
16
References Daws, T. & Schiro, P. (2012) AVID tutorial guide. San Diego, CA: AVID Press Marzano, R.J. (2007) The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA:ASCD

E-Folio Evaluation and Reflection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-Folio Evaluation and Reflection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

APPENDIX 1 Socratic Seminar Lesson Plan Re-design Documents

2.0 1.5 1.0

TEXT for SOCRATIC SEMINAR

The Rachel Carson Letters and the Making of Silent Spring

The Long Island Spray Trial, 1957-1960

Note. DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.

Two New York Biodynamic Farmers

Figure 1. Annual tallies of letters from Carson to Spock and Richards.

Discussion and Conclusion

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

p u o r G r na s i em line S ic ide t . a ing u r k a c G e s sp So i e ls

Unit 12: Socratic Seminar

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

Categories for Potential Questions

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

ACTIVE LEARNER LANGUAGE STRATEGIES

ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

___Fair (Side talk, interruptions, students distracted.)

___Poor (Lots of side talk, interruptions, and rude behavior.)

E-FOLIO EVALUATION AND REFLECTION

You might also like