Northfield Township English/Language Arts Articulation Report

Susan Levine-Kelley

Edward Solis

Helene Spak

Cathy Terdich

February 2010

INTRODUCTION

The teaching of the humanities is vital in the twenty-first century. Today, students’ attentions are pulled in multiple directions; the language arts give us the opportunity to bring focus and passion to students’ lives. The language skills of reading fiction and non-fiction, writing, vocabulary, speaking and listening are at the very foundation of all education and at the center of language arts/English instruction. Literature gives each of us the opportunity to stand in the shoes of another person, to develop empathy and understand the world in a way that would not otherwise be possible. The ability to express ourselves in an articulate, thoughtful, logical way requires the critical thinking and analytical skills that are called upon every day in the classrooms of our Northfield Township middle schools and high schools.

The Northfield Township Language Arts/English Articulation process has given the teachers of our Township the chance to assess our curriculum and practice to ensure that high quality instruction continues and improves as the challenges of the twenty-first century continue to emerge. To accomplish this charge, the exploration focused on three questions:

What do students need to know and be able to do as a result of the study in English to be successful in the emerging and changing global society?

Where is current curriculum and instructional practice in English in the Township in terms of meeting those standards?

What recommendations can be made after analysis of research and current Township curriculum and instructional practices?

To begin answering these questions the committee used four documents as our foundation: Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century by the Alliance for Excellent Education, To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence by the National Endowment of the Arts and Learning for the 21st Century by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. The committee also looked for guidance in National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association Standards for the Language Arts, the College Board College Readiness Standards and the Illinois Assessment Framework.

The foundation of these documents led the committee to further best practice research in (1) reading and literature and (2) communication including writing, listening, speaking, and vocabulary. The committee made the decision to divide the research in each area into three sections: content, instruction and assessment. Technology with attention to twenty-first century skills was a segment for all areas in the study. The research is summarized below.

Literature arts educators must help students approach the job of constructing meaning while reading. Teachers must explicitly point out that people read for different purposes. Helping students to acknowledge that reading for pleasure can be different than reading for academic purposes might assist in managing their expectations. This distinction assists students in realizing that every reading task involves a different level of critical engagement.

Teachers must explicitly teach students the unique nature of the varied types of texts they will encounter, and must therefore present various genres to students. Teachers are thus able to inform students’ pre-reading expectations and their choices of strategic approaches during the

reading process. It is also important to note that student access to a variety and volume of texts is ever-expanding in the 21st century.

Educators must also acknowledge the implications of what they choose to ask students to read. Teachers must ask, when evaluating the scope of chosen texts, who is doing the writing? Who is left out? Who is included and who is not? As anti-racist educators Emily Style and Enid Lee point out, teachers have an obligation to present a multicultural versus mono-cultural selection of texts, to widen student perspectives with “windows” into less familiar territory, and at the same time, to “mirror” familiar aspects of their own experiences.

Because reading is a process of constructing meaning through interactions between readers and writers, strategies that promote this interaction enhance reading comprehension. Reading and writing, furthermore, are reciprocal processes and should not be separated (Rief 2007). During instruction, students both read and produce texts (Smagorinsky 2008). People who read get better at writing; people who write get better at reading (NCTE 2004). Reading allows one to synthesize prior knowledge with new knowledge; writing allows one to create texts that reflect that knowledge (Smagorinsky 2008). The use of patterns in both reading and writing helps students to comprehend and produce ideas more efficiently (Weinstein 2001).

Similarly, vocabulary plays an important part in reading comprehension. As early as 1924, researchers noted that growth in reading meant continuous growth in word knowledge (Whipple, 1925). Direct vocabulary instruction improves comprehension, but prior knowledge and experience support increased vocabulary knowledge (Adolescent Literacy, Janet Allen).

Assessments in reading need to have a purpose and must be construed in a way that makes it so that a student has a way out and doesn’t feel trapped. Throughout the school year, students’ reading processes should be assessed in an ongoing manner through meaningful formative and summative assessments. All assessments should have a purpose.

“Teachers who know their students and the curriculum well and use this knowledge to diversify instruction to meet students’ needs enhance the process of learning to read” (Dennis 580). In order to get a true assessment of where a student starts and ends throughout the year, teachers need to ask: How do we know a student individually in terms of his/her reading skills? What can we do to get to know our students’ reading abilities, especially when we have many kids? How do we assess them so that the valuable information that we have gained can be passed from one teacher to another?

Ultimately, as teachers instruct students in reading and literature, they need to make assessments meaningful to the teacher and the student. There is a fluid relationship between curriculum, instruction and assessment. In the best classrooms, it can be difficult to distinguish between instruction and assessment (Cobb 21).

In order to modify curricula in a meaningful way, teachers need to understand the reason for and behind formal assessments. Knowing how to apply the results will improve instruction in reading across the board. “Assessments should not mark the end of learning but rather a checking point for the level of learning, as well as a reflection of what needs to happen next”(Cobb 21). The most effective way to guide instruction, curriculum and assessment is for both administrators and teachers to sit down and talk about the student work. The students should have multiple ways and times to show their various amounts of knowledge. Then the follow up with the students can be effective, meaningful, and have a lasting impact.

According to Buly and Valencia in “Are Assessment Data Really Driving Middle School Reading Instruction?”, “teachers often assume students not performing at grade level on standardized tests of reading are demonstrating a lack of ability in relation to early literacy skills- regardless of the skills being assessed…” Struggling readers are not being provided with books to read”(Dennis 580).

Assessment is two-fold in reading and literature. While teachers are assessing the students, the students should also be assessing the material. Through the active reading strategies, small group and online discussion, the students can flush out a new meaning of the material.

As noted above, reading and writing inextricably related. Writing is a fundamental human tool that connects human beings to their past and to each other. Schools must provide students with this tool so they will learn to successfully formulate thoughts and articulate ideas. Current research about writing has identified a number of best practices for writing instruction.

The National Council of Teachers of English, (NCTE) believes that everyone can write, that teachers can provide direction for the teaching of writing, and that writing needs to be grounded in real-life experiences and is used for a variety of purposes (NCTE 2004, 2008). Teachers must tailor lessons according to students’ “strengths, interests, and needs” (Rief 2007), provide meaningful writing experiences and instruction, practice the craft of writing themselves (Murray 2007), and sometimes even do the assignment themselves (Smagorinsky 2008). Students need mentor texts to provide models for good writing, feedback about their writing, and time for reflection about writing (Atwell 1987 and Fletcher 2007). They also need exposure to and comfort with a variety of writing genres: journal entries, responses to literature or curricular concepts, poetry, editorials, fiction, etc. (Romano 2007).

Teachers must also consider various factors about students when they teach writing. For example, Fletcher (2007) found that boys tend to avoid writing, but that when they do write, they tend to write more for each other as an audience. Writing by boys also reflects action, violence (intended as humor), satire and parody. Girls, on the other hand, avoid writing less than boys do, perceive writing differently, and focus more on nouns in their writing (Fletcher 2007). Smagorinsky (2008) finds that boys tend to relate to a more authoritative style of knowledge that is competitive, aggressive, and autonomous, while girls are more “connected” in their learning,

thus being more tentative, nurturing, cohesive, collaborative, and situational (Smagorinsky 2008). In creating writing curricula, Smagorinsky advises teachers to consider the influences of culture, tradition, race, community values, demographics, personal interests, and the psychological, developmental, and circumstantial needs of students. As teachers select content for instruction and develop English curricula, teachers must weigh the merits of a traditional versus liberal canon of literature, the literary value of their selections, a variety of textual forms (short story, novel, play, film, drama, dance, art, etc.), the homogeneous versus heterogeneous composition of classes, and the propriety of skills and content for the age, school, and community. Literature should reflect authorship that balances men, women, various races, traditions, and cultures and include canon as well as non-canon works. Curricular design should reflect the psychology of human development, cultural significance, literary significance, civic awareness, current social problems, the preparation for future needs, and finally, the alignment with professional teaching standards in its content (Smagorinsky 2008).

Writing is not a “formulaic set of steps” but rather a recursive process that evolves and continues as a lifelong process of “refining” skills (NCTE 2004, 2008). Writers must collect, focus, order, develop, and clarify ideas as well as interact with each other during writing (Murray 1987). Revision, discussion, and feedback from peers are productive means by which students may sort and clarify their thoughts (Weinstein 2001). Weinstein cautions against outlines that lead to flat writing if students merely fill in blanks; good writing depends on the flow of ideas, so first drafts do not need perfect organization or structure. Free writing, in which students write continuously without breaks for ten minutes, promotes writing fluency and thought (Weinstein 2001). Smagorinsky (2008) finds that students benefit from alternatives and options, from both conventional and unconventional writing assignments. During the process of writing, students may engage in brainstorming, outlining, drafting, taking notes, and getting both feedback and recommendations from peers (Smagorinsky 2008). Students also benefit from structured mini-lessons, small group instruction, and individual teaching with conferences (Ray 2001); Atwell maintains writers need individual topics and consistent writing time. Once drafting is complete, writers should reread their work again three different times: for meaning, order, and voice.

Voice in writing must be developed by each writer, and because writing is closely related to talking, discussion enhances development of voice (NCTE 2004, 2008). Students rehearse this relationship through telling stories, explaining, giving oral directions, having writing conferences, and speculating about people and things. This rehearsal process continues as students talk about their writing to themselves and others, thus helping writers to develop voice as an integral part of their writing (NCTE 2004, 2008).

Writing is similarly a thinking tool that helps students to generate ideas, solve problems, identify issues, construct questions, try new ideas, and reconsider previous ideas (NCTE 2004). Writers must decide whether or not they want to be honest as they share their thoughts through writing.

Weinstein (2001) maintains that it is more important for students to value writing as a thinking tool rather than a product with absolute answers.

Writing, furthermore, has a multitude of purposes and audiences and is used for civic, social, personal, spiritual, professional, academic, relational, and aesthetic communications (NCTE 2004). Teachers must encourage students to remember their audience as they write for personal growth, expression and reflection, participate in democratic processes, create aesthetic and artistic forms of writing, and produce academic texts suited to various disciplines. Such writing may range from casual draft e-mails to carefully crafted legal documents or research papers (NCTE 2004). Smagorisnky observes that writing may also be exploratory, affective, collaborative, or creative (2008). Exploratory writing allows for alternatives and options that demonstrate new products and new learning without the pressure of a final draft; affective and collaborative writing may include affective response journals, student-generated discussions, narratives, multi-genre products, or interpretive texts for students. Creative writing may include poetry, fiction, or drama.

Research concurs with the NCTE position that conventions must be followed within writing (NCTE 2004). Atwell (1987) maintains that writers learn mechanics and writing strategies through the context of their own writing. Weinstein (2001) believes that grammar errors pose problems when they create confusion about meaning, affect the writer’s credibility about the topic, or distract the reader from the meaning of content. Smagorinsky (2008) argues that “rambling syntax” and deviations from standard English both limit students’ future success and handicap them on standardized tests. Moreover, one hundred years of grammar research supports the position that grammar must not be taught in isolation but rather within the context of writing (Hillocks 1986; Weaver 1996; Smagorinsky 2008). Grammar concepts should be taught slowly and thoroughly according to what is correct in specific situations and what will result in better sentence structure (Pool, 1954 as cited by Smagorinsky 2008 p 165). Teachers should also target language issues that affect status, use corrective terminology for text purposes, and focus instruction on recurring errors (Smagorinsky 2008). Finally, teachers should be aware that some errors may be developmental (Shaughnessey, 1977 as cited by Smagorinsky 2008), and may be signs of growth (Rose 1990 p 188-189 as cited by Weinstein 2001 p 75).

Research further supports that writing is a social activity in which writers talk individually about their writing and with others in class (NCTE 2004). Smagorinsky’s (2008) approach to scaffolding requires social interaction between the teacher who introduces a concept through accessible material and students who learn the concept in small groups. Eventually, students move toward independence. Weinstein concurs that students benefit from small group work and scaffolding of concepts (2001). Social interaction may occur at any time during the writing process and it may be corrective, constructive, or supportive. Small groups create valuable feedback that a student may apply to both critical reading of his or others’ papers (Smagorinsky 2008). Because writing is social, NCTE also maintains that writers must know their audience and that this knowledge must direct the writer’s content, tone, and voice.

The assessment of writing can take many forms, from conventional to alternative (Smagorinsky 2008), or formal to informal. Casey (2008) laments the practice in some schools that lessons to raise test scores take priority over the use of computers for writing instruction. Effective evaluation should “highlight the strengths of process, content, and conventions, and provide techniques to strengthen the weaknesses.”(Rief 2007 p 189-208). Smagorinsky believes that the challenge is to create assessments for students with different needs, backgrounds, and skills (2008). Ray (2001) suggests evaluation take place at the beginning, middle, and end of instruction and may include items such as portfolios, reflections, extended definitions, analytical essays, multi-media projects, literary analyses, argumentation, and research. Smagorinsky (2008) recommends that writing assessment include the following: description of general task; set of parameters for producing text; how it will be evaluated; teacher goals; what the teacher needs to teach students how to do; and criteria to guide assessment. One such guide is the rubric, which should be based on the following questions:

“What might students learn and how do I know? What conventions are necessary for this assignment? What level of detail is necessary? What degree of cohesion should the student achieve? To what degree has the student met each point in the assignment?” (Smagorinsky

2008, 102).

Although Alfie Kohn (2006) cautions that rubrics can turn teachers into “grading machines” that promote standardization, Smagorinsky (2008) believes that good rubrics can lead to richer and more sympathetic readings of text, using the analogy of a builder who follows the code but deviates as needed.

Ray (2001) recommends that teachers use a variety of assessment tools for students. Assessment should focus on both the learning process and products created by the student. These student artifacts should be accompanied by questions that ask about the student’s history with writing experiences, actions taken as a writer, decisions made during the writing process, and self-evaluation about growth and process. Students might self-assess their use of independent writing time, strategies to support independent writing, productive peer interactions, and engagement with all steps of the writing process. Artifacts thus support student assessment.

Technology plays an essential role in reading and writing and is a vital part of students’ daily lives (Casey 2008). English teachers are therefore obligated to merge their knowledge of reading and writing with what students know about technology (Kajder 2007). Technology, however, must be used in the pursuit of learning (Casey 2008). Smagorinsky (2008) says that everything students read or produce is a tool for learning and that instruments for learning may be language-based, non-verbal, or artistic devices that allow for the integration of all forms of visual, artistic, or performance-based media and technology in the English classroom.

Advances in technology and the creation of new electronic media will pose new advantages and challenges for literacy, reading, and writing. These developments will create new areas of research with future implications for teaching.

The integration of speaking and listening instruction is seminal to the development a highly-skilled, contributing citizen. As early as 1973, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) demonstrated support for explicit instruction and assessment on a national level. Research in the twenty-first century literacies supports the need to teach varied speaking and listening skills including traditional public speaking skills, collaborative group skills, and the proficient use of technology tools. This developmental instruction needs to focus on process and preparation as much on the product. As in writing, assessments should take many forms: formative and summative; formal and informal; teacher, peer, and self. Rubrics aid in skill focus, ensuring that the assessment reflects instruction.

Vocabulary instruction strengthens learning in all areas. Vocabulary refers to words that are used in speech and print to communicate. Vocabulary can be divided into two types: oral vocabulary, the words used in speaking or recognized in listening, and reading vocabulary, the words used in print (National Institute for Literacy, 2007). Good readers have a wide range of oral and print vocabulary; often, word schema results from extensive and repeated exposure to words through speaking and reading. Without knowing what words mean, readers cannot understand what they read (NIL 2006). One of the most important findings in the research on vocabulary indicates the strong connection between vocabulary knowledge of readers and their ability to understand what they read (Blachowicz, C. and Peter Fisher). According to research by the National Reading Panel, (NRP) vocabulary knowledge is the single most important factor contributing to reading comprehension.

Pre-teaching the meaning of vocabulary words before students encounter them in text facilitates reading and understanding. Without knowing what words mean, readers cannot understand what they are reading (National Institute for Literacy). Once vocabulary words have been introduced, teachers need to continue to expose students to these same words so that they become part of the students’ oral and written vocabulary (National Institute for Literacy). In classrooms where vocabulary growth, awareness of new words, and a curiosity of word learning are promoted, vocabulary extends beyond the lesson or the classroom. Students increase their interest in word histories, play with words, and use new words in speech and writing.

Research suggests that there is no single best way to teach vocabulary. Yet, the National Reading Panel (2000) found that vocabulary is learned both indirectly and directly, and that “dependence on only one instructional method does not result in optimal growth” (Rasinski, et al. 12). Vocabulary learning can occur in a variety of ways, not always as teacher directed learning (Blachowicz, C and Peter Fisher). Although many vocabulary strategies have been effective in improving adolescent literacy, using a variety of techniques is most effective. 

Vocabulary instruction leads to gains in comprehension, but the methods must be appropriate to the age and ability of the reader.

For teaching new vocabulary words, independent word learning strategies, such as dictionary use and context clues, are useful. Research also suggests three key methods for vocabulary growth: wide reading; direct, explicit instruction of words and word strategies; and a learning environment that fosters word knowledge (Yopp and Yopp).

Research supports the use of direct, explicit, systematic instruction for teaching vocabulary. Lessons should be fast-paced, brief, multi-sensory, and interactive so that students can see, write, and hear new words. Explicit vocabulary instruction can occur through specific word instruction and word learning strategies that require active engagement with words and should focus on important words, key words, useful words, and difficult words. Explicit instruction also involves explaining word meanings and modeling the use of difficult content-area vocabulary in sentences relevant to the subject area; guiding students to practice using vocabulary in different sentences and contexts and giving feedback; providing time for practice using the new vocabulary; and repeating the instructional steps until students are able to use the vocabulary independently in their reading, writing, and speaking.

To learn and retain new words and concepts, students need to connect these words and concepts to what they already know. They also need repeated exposure to words and concepts and opportunities to practice them in different contexts. Twelve word repetitions, for example, are often needed for retention. Students learn the meanings of words indirectly through everyday experiences with oral and written language. Students do so by engaging in oral language, by listening to adults read, and by reading extensively themselves.

Because students also learn most new words incidentally through wide reading, teachers must help students learn strategies for vocabulary development. Research suggests that key strategies include the efficient use of the dictionary, the use of context clues, and the knowledge of word parts such as prefixes, roots, suffixes, and compounds to unlock meaning. Students need explicit instruction and modeling to learn how to look up the meanings of unfamiliar words and how to decide which is the most appropriate definition within context. Teaching students strategies for using context clues to determine meaning is a significant strategy. Context clues include definitions, examples, and restatement. Modeling and teaching students how to use information about word parts can be extremely valuable in vocabulary development. Because much of the English language comes from Greek and Latin prefixes, roots, and suffixes, it has been proven that knowledge of these roots often gives clues to word meanings. This is especially true in science because the terms are multi-syllabic. Thus, it would be good to teach derivatives.

Discussion is an important teaching strategy to improve vocabulary. From discussion, students can understand a word’s meaning from pieces of knowledge in a class discussion; good discussions can clarify meaning. Not all words, however, need discussion; teachers should review and focus on the terms that are needed to understand a story.

All content areas have specific vocabularies; teachers, however, cannot teach all the words in a text which students need to know. Teachers should teach several words well per week so that the words and their meanings are retained; such time should be spent on direct vocabulary instruction. Students may also understand much of the text without knowing the meaning of every text word. Focus should be on important words, useful words, and difficult words. Words with multiple meaning should be directly and explicitly taught because they are particularly challenging for students. Similarly, idiomatic expressions can be difficult for students, especially ELL students, and often need to be explained in order to be understood (Partnership for Reading 2001). Students remember more when they relate new information to known information.

Indirect vocabulary learning occurs in many ways. Regardless of grade, students learn vocabulary from hearing text read aloud; students learn words from hearing a variety of texts read to them. Reading aloud works best when teachers discuss the selection before, during, and after reading. Teachers need to discuss the new vocabulary and concepts and relate new words to prior experiences and concepts. Students should also be encouraged to read independently and extensively in order to learn vocabulary indirectly. In addition, teachers need to share their love of words with their students. In all vocabulary learning strategies, modeling, guided practice, and both using and applying the strategy independently are essential for increasing vocabulary.

Vocabulary knowledge can be assessed in many ways. Vocabulary tests can be formal or standardized, or less formal teacher-made tests designed specifically for individual classes and content areas (Researched-Based Principles for Adult Basic Education).

In an effort to successfully assess vocabulary knowledge, a distinction needs to be made between receptive and expressive vocabularies. A student’s receptive vocabulary includes words he/she can recognize; whereas a student’s expressive vocabulary includes words he/she can use correctly and with confidence (Kinsella 1).

Many formats for assessment like simple matching, writing a definition or using the word in an original sentence reveal little about a student’s actual word mastery; teachers should refrain from designing such assessments. Because assessing a student’s vocabulary is quite difficult and no single measure or strategy is enough, both standardized and informal inventories can prove useful (Joshi 212).

Research shows that vocabulary instruction using computer technology can be useful for struggling readers who need additional vocabulary practice. Activities such as engaging in computer games, using hyperlinks where students click on words and icons to add depth to vocabulary, utilizing online dictionaries rather than print dictionaries, finding content websites where students can access information, and using other high interest computer programs are extremely effective in vocabulary instruction. In recent research studies, the use of computers in instruction was found to be more effective than traditional methods; computer technology is clearly seen as an aid in instruction.

REPORT OVERVIEW

This report examines the Language Arts/English curricula in grades 6-10 throughout the Northfield Township and seeks to identify a core set of skills and content knowledge (aligned with Illinois State Standards) that students should attain in the core areas of literature/reading, writing, speaking and listening, and vocabulary with an attention to a successful, smooth move from 8th to 9th grade. This report is also interactive with the Township Wiki, http://northfieldtownshipschools.pbworks.com/ and should be referenced when sections of the report call for its use.

REPORT STRUCTURE

This report is organized into several numbered sections Section 1: Methodology; Section 2: Teaching Survey; Section 3: Skills Continuum; Section 4: Content & State Standards; Section 5: Recommendations and Section 6: Conclusions. The Methodology section describes the committee formation, lists the essential questions guiding the report, and briefly describes the meeting agendas and actions of the Northfield Township Language Arts/English Articulation Committee used to generate this report. The Teaching Survey section details the methods by which data was collected from all Township Language Arts/English teachers via an online survey and lists the results of the survey as findings. The complete survey and survey results are provided in Appendices II and III. The Skills Continuums are the products of articulation meetings with middle school and high school teachers.

SECTION ONE: METHODOLOGY

COMMITTEE FORMATION

On December 14, 2007, Ed Solis and Susan Levine-Kelley and the English Department Instructional Supervisors at Glenbrook North High School and Glenbrook South High School respectively, Cathy Terdich, English teacher at Field Middle School, Northbrook School District 31, and Helene Spak, Middle School Reading/Language Arts Coordinator for Northbrook School District 27, met to discuss the proposed Township Curriculum Study for English. At this meeting, the members reviewed the purpose of the study and discussed the essential questions developed by the Township Curriculum Directors. The purpose of the study was to provide a venue for the Township Districts to collaboratively explore current research in the context of current curricular practice. In addition, the committee was asked to answer essential questions prepared by the Township Curriculum Directors. A timeline was developed to guide the process of the study with an initial planning phase, a research phase, a data collection phase, a data analysis phase, and a time to disseminate the information to the Township Curriculum Directors.The Township Curriculum Directors recommended English teachers from each district to participate on the committee. Initially, the committee consisted of twelve teachers with at least one representative from each public high school, the sender schools, and North Shore Academy. No representatives from the Township parochial schools participated on the committee. Please see Appendix 1 for a list of committee members.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

Several essential questions were developed to guide the process and to analyze and collect data. These questions were formulated based on the input from the Township Curriculum Directors and Susan-Levine Kelly, Ed Solis, Cathy Terdich, and Helene Spak. The guiding questions used in this report are:

What do students need to know and be able to do as a result of the study in English to be successful in the emerging and changing global society?

Where is current curriculum and instructional practice in English in the Township in terms of meeting those standards?

What recommendations can be made after analysis of research and current Township curriculum and instructional practices?

MEETINGS

Members of the English Articulation committee met on February 5, 2008, on June 24,2008, June 26, 2008, and October 6, 2008. At the first committee meeting on February 5, 2008, the goals and objectives of the study were shared, the essential questions were reviewed, and the proposed parameters of the study were presented. The committee also determined the need for a method for data analysis and the need for the determination of the standards to be used. Three articles were disseminated for discussion at the June 24 meeting. These articles included To Read or Not to Read, November, 2007 from the National Endowment for the Arts; Adolescents and Literacy, Reading for the 21st Century, November, 2003, by Alliance for Excellent Education; and Learning for the 21st Century from The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

At the June 24, 2008 meeting, the goals, framework, and timeline for the articulation study were reviewed. The three assigned articles were discussed to develop baseline knowledge, to relate to the township districts’ philosophies, to share common language, and to forecast implications for the study. Also, the committee members agreed on the following parameters for the study: reading/literature, writing, vocabulary, 21st century skills, visual literacy, critical thinking, and communication, which include speaking and listening. Each teacher selected one of the parameters of the study for individual or group research which would reflect current research and best practice on the topic. Focus for each topic would include content, instruction/process, assessment, and technology. At that meeting, it also was decided that the Illinois State Standards and the IRA/NCTE Standards for English Language Arts would be used for research purposes, data collection, and data analysis.

At the June 26, meeting the teachers gathered and synthesized the research on their specific topic. The research would be used in developing questions for a Township survey. Because we would not meet again until the fall, the teachers were responsible for continuing their research over the summer and through the first month of school.

At the October 6, meeting the committee members reported their progress and findings on the research topics, and a wiki was created for the group to share their research. In addition, the members were asked to finalize their questions based on the research to be used in a Township survey for all English teachers grades six through twelve.

Between October and April, the committee members completed their research and developed the survey questions. In April, the four committee chairs collated and reviewed the survey questions. Then, Susan Levine Kelley finalized all the questions to be used from each of the research topics. The survey was disseminated to the Township 6th through 12th grade English teachers. Next, the committee chairs reviewed the survey data in light of Illinois State Standards and the NCTE/IRA Standards to determine findings and trends.

During that time, Ed Solis contacted Carol Jago, incoming president of National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), who was moving from California to Chicago. She was available to speak to the Township English teachers on October 9, 2009. The four committee chairs met several times to plan for a professional learning experience that would be meaningful to 6th through 12th grade Township English teachers.

More than one-hundred Township English teachers attended the first Professional Learning day. Based on the survey findings, Carol discussed Reading in the 21st Century. At this time, the teachers were informed of the work of the Township Curriculum Study for English and the survey results were shared. In addition, at the morning session, teachers from all of the feeder schools and the high schools met in small groups to discuss a variety of topics gleaned from the survey findings. The topics included: Supporting Reading Instruction in the 21st Century; Active Reading; Differentiated Reading Instruction; Formative Reading Assessments in Reading and Literature Study; What Books Should We Teach; Instructional Reading Strategies for Fiction and Non-Fiction; and Teaching Issues of Race, Class, and Gender in the 21st Century. Lunch was provided for the teachers. The eighth and ninth grade teachers only met in the afternoon to discuss focus on Bridging the Gaps and Future Collaboration. Groups met to review and update the 6-12 research continuum; to share the various writing programs and writing strategies used in

the Township; to review and update the 6-12 novel, short stories, and films used; to discuss the writing products, including genres taught, for what purpose and audience; to share the support systems for struggling learners; and to examine the use of technology across the Township. Based on the evaluations and feedback, the Township teachers valued the day and were looking forward to future Township professional learning opportunities.

SECTION TWO: TEACHING METHODOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION AND METHODS

The Northfield Township Schools have worked over the past two years to research best practices in four areas of our language arts/English programs: literature/reading, writing, vocabulary, and speaking/listening. These four areas of the discipline are all measured on a variety of standardized tests and appear on the Illinois state standards. The survey questions that teachers were asked were based on Best Practice research and will help to guide our Township articulation and professional development over the next few years. The survey took approximately 30 minutes and a total of 96 teachers took the survey. The graphic below represents the Township schools participation:

Northfield Township Language Arts Professional Development Survey

Please identify the school where you teach:

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Attea 6.3% 6

Field 3.2% 3

Maple 4.2% 4

Northbrook Jr. High 5.3% 5North Shore Academy 0.0% 0

Springman Jr. High 6.3% 6

Wood Oaks 13.7% 13

Glenbrook North 29.5% 28

Glenbrook South 31.6% 30

Other (please specify) 3

During the course of the study, each school recorded their current state of the content and skills in each of the following sub groups: Research, Readings (Novels, Short Stories, Poems), Teaching Writing, Writing Products, Support Systems, and Technology. Each school’s representative recorded, to the best of his or her ability, the practices and materials used in the language arts/English program.

FINDINGS

The following data reports on some of the highlights from the survey taken by the Township teachers. 77% of teachers use the Illinois State Standards to influence their assessments, and 43% used the College Readiness Standards to influence their assessments.

In the category of Writing, the survey results showed that 100% of the teachers use rubrics for evaluating student work. 90% of teachers reported they work in teams to share assessment data/information, and 90% also said they adapt instruction based on assessment information.

In the area of Literature, the survey showed that 95% of the teachers required students to annotate fictional texts, and 86% required students to annotate non-fictional texts. In the area of technology and reading, 31% assigned electronic texts as part of their course readings. 89% of teachers said that they adapt instruction on the basis of assessment.

In the area of Vocabulary, the survey results showed that 75% of teachers pre-teach vocabulary before a reading selection, while 94% teach vocabulary in context. 74% of teachers design instruction that gives students opportunities to use newly learned vocabulary, and 80% of teachers adapt instruction on the basis of student assessment.

In the area of Speaking and Listening, 90% of teachers cited they have students deliver formal individual presentations, and 94% make informal individual presentations a part of their instruction. 92% of teachers make time for formal and informal group presentations, while 87% have students debate issues in their classroom. Also noteworthy was that 70% of teachers use technology to support presentations, and 67% have students evaluate other speakers. 87% employ active listening skills in practice settings.

SECTION THREE: SKILLS CONTINUA

Skills continua and content maps are recorded and posted on the Township Wiki as they have been developed at articulation meetings and at home schools. This represents the most up-to-date information from each of the Township schools. http://northfieldtownshipschools.pbworks.com/

SECTION FOUR: ALIGNMENT TO STATE STANDARDS

During the entire process of the English/Language Township work, the Illinois state standards were used to align objectives, create categories, guide research, and create survey questions. The updated Illinois state standards are linked to the Township Wiki. http://northfieldtownshipschools.pbworks.com/

SECTION FIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The research and survey results indicate that practice in the Township is strong and professional development needs to focus on continued revision and refinement of design and practice. In 2007 and 2009, the Fall Township Articulation Meetings focused on establishing what the present practices in curriculum and instruction are in the instruction of literature/reading, writing/research, and speaking and listening. Based on the findings, the Northfield Township Language Arts/English Articulation Committee makes the following recommendations:

Northfield Township middle and high school teachers should improve and continue to:

o view reading, writing, speaking and listening as reciprocal processes and provide practice in all domains

o help students develop voice through oral conversation of various formso view writing as a thinking tool rather than a product with absolute answers

teach writing as a recursive process include free-writing opportunities to promote student thinking allow for brainstorming, outlining, drafting, note-taking, and getting

feedback during writing build in time for students to write, interact with others about their writing,

and reread and revise their work help students develop a sense of voice in their writing through

social interaction and rehearsal of the writing process use mini-lessons, small groups, and individual conferences to promote

writing teach the conventions and grammar of standard English and may

strengthen these conventions by using the context of student writingo create opportunities for students to write for various purposes

provide opportunities for students to write about real-life experiences

provide models of good writing across a variety of genreso create opportunities for students to explore, collaborate, and create new productso be aware of factors that impact student learning such as gender, culture,

community, individual interests, as well as psychological, developmental and circumstantial needs of students

o recognize that technology is a commonplace tool used by students in their daily lives. Therefore, in instruction teachers should:

use technology to support the teaching of both reading and writing regard all forms of technology as instruments for learning

use language-based, non-verbal, or artistic devices in the writing classroom

allow for the use of all forms of visual, artistic, or performance-based media and technology in the English classroom.

o view the teaching of literature through the lens of the reading instruction process using the stages of reading - pre, during, and post – as a guide for instruction

o use the explicit instruction of reading strategies to develop students’ metacognitive skills

predicting / inferring questioning connecting determining importance synthesizing visualizing/sensory imagery

o use a variety of genre and subject matter that reflect the “mirrors and windows” perspective of choosing literature

ensure that there is a balance of independent and whole-class reading ensure that there is a balance of pleasure vs. assigned reading

o model reading strategies including developing one’s own reading process marking up/annotating text for multiple purposes including noticing text

structureo incorporate speaking and listening activities throughout the curriculumo incorporate vocabulary instruction throughout the curriculumo make use of assessment in multiple ways including

using both formal and informal assessments

using both conventional and unconventional methods of assessment using a wide variety of assessment tools across a variety of products considering portfolios as a means to monitor student growth giving careful thought to the construction of rubrics for the assessment of

writing

The list above reflects the multiple demands of the language arts/English curriculum and instruction. Through the committee research and Township survey, the decision was made to focus the morning of this past fall’s articulation on reading and the afternoon on continued middle school-high school teacher articulation. Carol Jago, president of the National Council of Teachers of English, presented the argument that we need to carefully evaluate the amount and difficulty of the reading we have students do. She advocated for teachers to ensure that students read often fiction and non-fiction literature that appropriately challenges them in many ways. Teachers left the morning session with a renewed energy to evaluate the literature they teach based on Dr. Jago’s perspective.

SECTION SIX: LIMITATIONS OF STUDY AND REPORT

Although we feel that the Township Curriculum Study for English has been extremely successful, we recognize that the research has some limitations. The committee members were diligent in their work. However, the communication group’s research was incomplete, and due to limited time, two of the committee chairs had to take over the research topic on short notice. Another limitation was the timing of sending the survey to the Township districts. The survey was sent to the 6th through 12th grade Township teachers towards the end of the school year. Although some Township districts had 100% participation in the survey, others had less than 50% participation. An additional limitation involving the survey is that different people may have interpreted the same question quite differently. This became evident when analyzing some of the respondents’ comments. On the day of articulation, it was the committee’s hope that we would have full and equal representation as we began to map skills and content across grade levels. This was not the case. For example, we sometimes had an eighth grade reading teacher attempting to represent writing practices for his or her entire school or district. In addition, several of the Township Curriculum directors changed during the time of the study due to retirement and administrative moves. With these changes, adjustments and modifications to the study were necessary.

We have valued the process involved in answering the essential questions, the opportunity to collaborate with the Township English teachers, and the learning that has occurred. We look forward to future discussions, additional Township wide professional learning opportunities, and continued articulations between the sender schools and the high schools.

SECTION SEVEN: CONCLUSION

PROGRESS AND FUTURE INITIATIVES

Over the past three years, the middle school and high school teachers have begun to identify the content and skills that are taught at the different levels. This is the first step in establishing standards and goals for grade levels that will more readily ensure a smooth transition from middle school to high school. The recursive and divergent nature of our discipline continues to challenge some of this work, but the research done by committee provides guideposts for our areas of professional development.

Two additional elements now add to the complexity of our continued work and articulation. The Response to Intervention (RtI) law now touches the high school and will certainly influence the nature and perimeter of our discussions. Also, our committee used 21st Century Learning Skills in many of our discussions, but struggled to always find a way to authentically integrate into our work. On-going study by the Township English teachers in this realm should continue. We have the expertise and resources in all of the districts to make that happen.

The need for annual articulation meetings is clear. The predominant request from middle school and high school teachers alike on the October articulation meeting’s evaluations was for the middle school and high school teachers to keep meeting and talking to each other. This should be the aim of any curriculum work since curriculum is always in flux, evolving to meet the needs of all students in a district. This bodes well for future professional development and for improved transition from middle school to high school.

The four facilitators of the Township report will continue to meet to plan the annual articulations and keep the Township focused and moving forward. This past fall, the articulation meeting focused on reading instruction and the reporting of curriculum and instruction in key areas of writing, literature and support services. The structure of having a morning keynote for grades 6 – 12 teachers followed by work in small groups in the morning and then grades 8 and 9 teachers working together in the afternoon kept everyone energized and engaged. That structure should continue.

XI. WORKS CITED

Works Cited

Adler, Mortimer. “How to Be a Demanding Reader.” How To Read a Book.

Adler, Mortimer, and Charles Van Doren. New York: MJF Books, 1940.

45-56.

Atwell, Nancie. In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with

Adolescents. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1987.

Banks, James A. "Teaching Literacy for Social Justice and Global

Leadership." Language Arts 81.1 (2003): 18-19.

Blachowicz, Camille L., and Peter Fisher. Teaching Vocbulary in All

Classrooms. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.

Bloom. Benjamin. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Bloom, et al. 1974.  

Bomer, Randy. "Writing to Think Critically: The Seeds of Social Action."

Voices from the Middle 6.4 (1999): 2-8.

Bromley, Karen. "Nine Things every teacher should know about words and

vocabulary instruction." Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 50

(2007).

Chapman, Anne. Making Sense: Teaching Critical Reading Across the

Curriculum. College Entrance Examination Board, 1993. 50.

Collier, Lorna. “The Shift to 21st-Century Literacies.” The Council Chronicles.

November 2007.

Davis, Chris & Jennifer Davis. “Using Technology to Create a Sense of

Community.” English Journal. Vol. 94, No. 6. July 2005.

Fletcher, Ralph. Boy Writers: Reclaiming Their Voices. Portland: Stenhouse

Publishers, 2006. Notes from Ralph Fletcher presentation, November

2007.

Fletcher, Ralph. Live Writing: Breathing Life into Your Words. New York:

Avon Books, Inc., 1999.

Joshi, R. M. "Vocabulary: A Critical Component of Comprehension." Reading

& Writing Quarterly 21 (2005): 209.

Kamil, Michael L. "Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century."

Alliance for Excellent Education. November 2003.

Kinsella, Kate, Colleen Stump, and Kevin Feldman. "Strategies for

Vocabulary Development." Pearson eTeach. 2002. Pearson Prentice

Hall. 1 Oct. 2008 phschool.com.

Learning for the 21st Century: "A Report and Mile Guide for 21st

Century Skills." Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2002.

Luke, Allan. "Literacy Education for a New Ethics of Global Community."

Language Arts 81.1 (2003): 20- 22.

Mancina, Hannah. "Empowering Students Through a Social Action Writing

Project" English Journal 94.6 (2005): 31-35.

Maynard, John. “Model Questions and Key Words to Use in Developing

Questions.” Unpublished handout. Pomona, CA.

Murray, Donald. "Teaching Writing Your Way". Adolescent Literacy: Turning

Promise into Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2007. 179-187.

Murray, Donald. Write to Learn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,

1987.

Ray, Katie Wood. The Writing Workshop: Working Through the Hard Parts.

Urbana: NCTE, 2001.

National Council of Teachers of English. Resolution on Including Speaking and

Listening in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Assessments. Urbana, IL. 2008.

National Council of Teachers of English. 21st-Century Literacies. A Policy

Research Brief. Urbana, IL. 2007.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "What Works In

Comprehension Instruction." AdLit.org. 25 June 2008

www.adlit.org/article/105>.

National Institute for Literacy. "What Content-Area Teachers Should Know

About Adolescent Literacy." (2007).

Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind. New York: Penguin, 2005.

"Questions About Vocabulary Instruction." AdLit.org. 25 June 2008

<http://www.adlit.org/article/3471>.

Rasinski, Timothy, Padak Nancy, Newton Rick, and Newton Evangeline.

Building Vocabulary from Word Roots. Huntington Beach, CA: Beach

City P, 2007. 12-12.

Rief, Linda. "Writing: Commonsense Matters." Adolescent Literacy: Turning

Promise into Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2007. 189-208.

Romano, Tom. "Teaching Writing from the Inside". Adolescent Literacy:

Turning Promise Into Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2007. 167-

178.

Smagorinsky, Peter. Teaching English by Design: How to Create and Carry

Out Instructional Units. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2008.

Texas Education Agency. "The Components of Effective Vocabulary

Instruction." AdLit.org. 25 June 2008

http://www.adlit.org/article/1969.

"Vocabulary." Research-Based Principles for Adult Basic Education Reading.

1 Oct. 2008. www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html>.

Tompkins, Gail E., Cathy L. Blanchfield, and Patricia A. Tabloski. Teaching

Vocabulary : 50 Creative Strategies, Grades K-12. Upper Saddle River:

Prentice Hall, 2003.

Weinstein, Larry. Writing at the Threshold. Urbana: National Council of

Teachers of English, 2001.

Writing Study Group of the NCTE Executive Committee. “Beliefs About the

Teaching of Writing.” National Council of Teachers of English. 2008.

<http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/write.

Wolf, Dennie Palmer. Reading Reconsidered: Literature and Literacy in High

School. The College Board, 1988.

Yopp, Ruth Helen, and Hallie Kay Yopp. "Ten Important Words Plus: A

Strategy for Building Word Knowledge." The Reading Teacher 61: 157-60.