Kravetz, Ari S.

ENGL 481 Action Research Paper Spring 2012

In order for a curriculum to be designed correctly and in a way that will benefit students, the teacher needs to take into consideration the students funds of prior knowledge, classroom size, student interests, and the academic ability of students. Behind all of these requirements, however, there also lies a core requirement necessary for a successful execution of lessons and that requirement is time. Students need time to develop their ideas, and to actively engage in the conversations presented in the classroom. A conversation occurs when students use previous ideas to think about new ones, and think about the new ideas in the contexts of their lives. This allows students to reaffirm their ideas, build upon them, or even change the ideas that they previously had. Without regard to the amount of time that it would take to effectively engage in this process, learning in the classroom cannot take place. Within the classroom, these conversations are not limited to the individual either. An effective curriculum should also engage students through social terms and students should receive adequate opportunities to engage with others about the topics being discussed in the curriculum. This would be in accordance with the Illinois state Social and Emotional Standards developed by the Illinois State Board of Education, especially with standard 2C.3b which states that in middle and junior high school students should Demonstrate cooperation and teamwork to promote group effectiveness (www.isbe.net). The effectiveness of a curriculum should be determined by student uptake of ideas, assignments, and projects that occur both in class and out of class, as well as the quality of work that is produced as a result. The goal of creating a unit for the sixth grade classroom at Thompson Middle School seems to be for students to gain independence in producing assignments that demonstrate a grasp of the English language and concepts that are presented through literature. The lessons

planned by the teacher focus on grammar and spelling rules taught from a textbook, and understanding main plot points of novels. However, there seems to be no integration between the two and student work seems to be very rote and meaningless.
For the remainder of the lesson students reviewed grammar homework. All the students, except one, had completed the assignment. He didnt seem to care that much and his attitude seemed to suggest that this is something that is not surprising for the student. She dismissed it telling him, Thats not where it [the homework] belongs, and moved on with the class. Students followed along correcting their homework and the teacher called on students to share their answers. (Kravetz, Compass, Journal of Literary Experience, Feb. 16, 2012)

This type of learning that is described through the journal is evidence that work that is not engaging or relevant to students does not set students up for success. Even more, not doing homework has no tangible repercussions for the student. The grade itself is not something tangible or affecting the student in the moment and so he does not feel that there is a significant loss to not turning his work in. A significant amount of this class period was spent on grammar and it is all an example of Ken Macrories concept of Engfish. Most English teachers have been trained to correct students writing, not to read it; so they put down those bloody correction marks in the margins (Macrorie 1). The grammar activities that take place during this class perpetuate the concept that the work students produce is meaningless except for the sake of the teacher and the grade. Students are not doing the work to better themselves, but instead are solely doing what the teacher asks of them. This lack of relevance not only produces student work that they do not connect with, but also, as evidenced by the Thompson classroom, produces a lack of work where students have no motivation or desire to even complete it in the first place. A solution to this approach could be as simple as creating extension activities that force students to employ the concepts they learn in a fun way. For instance, students can be told to create a restaurant menu and then have to identify

each word in the menu using the grammar they learned. While this may take some extra time, it would be an activity that could be fun and creates learning through meaningful repetition. Looking at appropriate songs that the students bring in and participating in an activity where students are to identify the grammar used and then edit it, would also be a fun way for students to engage with the lesson. Apportioning time to grammar activities taken from textbooks is also important to supporting student uptake of such an activity. According to the teachers planner grammar activities that lasted at least 45 minutes would occur each day for a week at a time. It is understandable that students need time to grasp the rules of grammar, but doing the same thing without variation can break student morale and reduce students willingness to engage in the lesson. Students become overwhelmed by information and only seek to memorize it in order to pass a test. However, this too was not something that was achieved. After helping the teacher grade grammar tests, the grades given had a disappointingly low average in the low C range with quite a few students falling in the D range. Regardless of the test scores, this portion of the unit was over and it was time to move on to the novel reading unit. Devoting the same amount of time, but doing it as an enhancement of other activities rather than the sole activity can allow students to have more meaningful opportunities for learning. After a certain point students may become bored and unmotivated and lose focus on the lesson at hand. This type of scaffolding could greatly help students grasp concepts over a more spread out time span rather than cramming all at once. Additionally, this would also be beneficial for progression on the zone of proximal development and as students develop confidence is their skills they will be able to work more independently.

For the novel reading unit, the teacher chose a novel that focuses on bullying and name-calling entitled, The Misfits. For this unit, the teacher focused on student comprehension of basic plot points and character understanding. Still, based on student responses it appeared that the students were still providing Engfish responses, responses that the teacher wanted to hear and not necessarily responses that resonated with the students themselves. Just like the grammar unit, each day of class the students broke up into two groups. Half the students remained with the classroom teacher and the other half went with the reading specialist. While this did make the classroom more manageable, at the same time this created a clear distinction between students who were not good readers and students who were. In this way the cycle of tracking is perpetuated. Students do not learn from each other and they do not receive an opportThompson to hold each other accountable for their actions and success within the classroom. Even more, the students who are deemed not proficient readers, receive a completely different reading of the novel and participate in different discussions than the students who are labeled proficient readers. The discussions that centered around this book did not necessarily extend to any relevance with the students, their lives, or their interests. It is because of this that the students did not progress towards independence on the zone of proximal development. For students to become more independent in their work they have to be given trust by the teacher to work independently and apply school work to their personal lives. Since the teacher asked all the questions during class discussions and they focused only on plot points, the students never engaged with the text on a personal level. When the class finally finished reading the novel, they were given a creative extension project

where they got to make their own newspaper on poster-board and include various elements from the text. While this activity seemed to be fun for the kids, the reason for this seems to be because they finally got to socialize and do something other than rote reading every day.
Many of the students are bored with irrelevant work that they do not connect/find relevance with. After talking to some students about what would make English class more fun, they began to list off hobbies or interests that they had The teachers do not empower them a lot and while the teacher may be engaging them, this only happens through cold calling or asking students to volunteer their answers for worksheets. (Ibid, Mar. 1, 2012)

The zone of proximal development asserts that the teacher progressively scaffolds student independence so that they are ultimately the ones in control of their learning. While the students were completely in control of the final extension project after their reading of The Misfits, many of them did not enjoy this activity. Even more, this being a partner activity, students began to take advantage of one another and allow one person to do most of the work. When I was walking around the class as students worked on their newspapers, I approached a group where one student seemed to not be doing any work. When I asked him why he was not doing any work,
[H]e responded to me that he has done his part and now his partner is doing the other part. So, I asked what these parts are. The response was that student A comes up with the ideas and student B does the rest of the work (writing, making complete sentences, processing, and coming up with the finished product). (Ibid)

Here, the zone of proximal development failed and both students were on opposite ends of the engagement and effort spectrum. The project allowed some students to do minimal work and, even more, students did not care about the activity at hand. While the newspaper activity did allow students to choose the elements that would be included in the newspaper, perhaps what would have made the activity better is to allow students to choose the project medium instead.

In the time spent at Thompson, I also witnessed the worst research activity possible. This activity began with a great introduction to reliable sources and a great discussion about what combinations of characteristics make a website reliable. From here, however, it was all downhill. After this discussion students went into the computer lab and were given a worksheet which featured many of the characteristics described previously along with others such as Does the website contain advertisements? Students were now told to go through this worksheet and depending on whether or not a website had one of the characteristics it would gain a point, or not. This website was called, Help Save the Endangered Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus from Extinction. As students went through the website and worksheet, they began to believe that this octopus really existed. In this sense, the teacher did not consider the funds of knowledge that the students had. Their willingness to participate in the activity was a direct result of learning about a cool animal that seemed to defy the definition of an octopus, and yet here was a website and a worksheet that confirmed it was real. However, at the end of the activity, after the majority of the class was convinced this octopus was real and after the students had thought they had a good understanding of what makes a website legitimate and reliable, the teachers told them that this website was in fact fake! All their hard work was completely for naught and how were the students to now understand what makes a website reliable if everything they were told was just proven to be meaningless? The teacher lowered the selfconcept of the students and their affective filter to begin work on the research project became heightened.

The project that was given to students that build off of this activity was to do research on a disease they were assigned. This project completely disregarded student independence, time necessary to produce meaningful work, and as a whole, the zone of proximal development. Students were given no choice in the disease that they would be researching, the library books that they were to use for research were picked out for them, and they were allowed to plagiarize. These tenants go completely against the zone of proximal development and encourage Engfish. Students are told exactly what information to acquire and the sources they are to use to find this information. Due to this, students do not develop any independence in finding information themselves or looking for books and information that is interesting to them. Even more, the project was structured in such a way that allowed students to copy information down exactly from the source. When students found information that pertained to cause, symptoms, treatment, and cure they were allowed to write down the information without any context. The project was then extended to publishing this information on a class website so that it could be presented the following week. Students had fun animating their website and giving it an individualized feel through the use of graphics and other elements and design, however, this was due to the fact that this was finally the only aspect which they had full control over. When it came time to present, the presentations were absolutely awful. Students had no idea what they were talking about and simply read off the information on their website. They had no understanding of the disease they were supposed to learn about and this is because they simply copied and pasted the information they found without any regard for what the information said. In fact, one student quoted, MS [Multiple Sclerosis] is

contagious to which the teacher later told the class that it was not. These presentations dragged, the student presenting didnt care, and the rest of the class suffered in extreme boredom when it was not their turn. One of the main reasons these student projects were structured the way they were, was because of the lack of time that the teacher was willing to devote to each one in necessity to move on to the next lesson or unit. Such little time was dedicated to each of these major projects that they were designed for fail. The teacher was too ambitious and in doing so ended up harming student learning and independence. If timing was not something she could control, then the projects themselves should have been changed. Here, the tension between structure and process becomes evident. While the structure may have been well thought out, the process with which the lessons was executed were lacking. In the case of reading the novel, not a single discussion took place about the themes of the book or connecting the book to other ideas students were familiar with. Students come into the classroom with funds of knowledge and experiences that influence the way they learn and think. These funds of knowledge contribute to the conversations students have in the classroom about the ideas being discussed. Even more, the concept of the conversation is also at a loss when the teacher does not allow ample time for students to develop their ideas and be a part of the larger conversation. The issue dealing with time extends further into the writing process as a whole. By moving from one activity to another with no connection or extension between them, the writing process is portrayed as stagnant and conclusive. Students never fully engage with the material they produce as they do not understand what it is

they are producing. In this way writing becomes pointless and students never receive the chance to express themselves.

**Note: The name of the school has been changed during the writing of this paper.

Works Cited

Kravetz, Ari. Journal of Literary Experience. Web log comment. Blackboard Learning System. Illinois Compass. Web. 1 May. 2012. <compass.illinois.edu>.

Macrorie, Ken. The Poison Fish. Telling Writing. New Jersey: Hayden Book, 1977. Print.

Appendix