Relevance and Application: Developing a Curriculum for a World Literature Course A Thesis by Nicholas Paul Calvin

Chapman University Orange, California College of Educational Studies Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Teaching April 2015

Committee in charge: Dr. John Gunderson (chair) Dr. Jim Brown Dr. Gerri McNenny

 

The thesis of Nicholas Paul Calvin is approved.

John Gunderson, Ph.D. (chair)

Jim Brown, Ph.D.

Gerri McNenny, Ph.D. April 2015

 

Relevance and Application: Developing a Curriculum for a World Literature Course Copyright © 2015 by Nicholas Paul Calvin

iii

ABSTRACT Relevance and Application: Developing a Curriculum for a World Literature Course by Nicholas Paul Calvin This study examines the nature of the relationship between curricular content and an affective connection to that content. It attempts to provide an example as to how educators can better structure their curricular frameworks so that they take into account the interests and lives of their students. This study is placed within the context of the increasing debate on the nature and purpose of English Language Arts curricula. The cognitive and affective domains from Benjamin Bloom’s educational objectives are crucial aspects to the curricular development discussed in this study. According to Bloom, there are great benefits to finding ways of connecting students with curricular content based on interest and application. Particularly, in light of the Common Core State Standards and other curricular reform initiatives, this study hopes to provide a foundation to educators seeking out a more relevant and applicable curriculum. This study was conducted by a 12th-grade World Literature teacher recently who took on the leadership role for the curriculum overhaul at his school site. The author uses current research and anecdotal data from his own observations to inform the curricular frameworks explained herein. In the analysis of the current, antiquated framework, this study also suggests a shift in curricular focus, moving from text-centered to theme- or idea-centered units. One major finding of this study is the idea that a relevant and interest-based curricular framework can make a difference in the affective connection students have with their curricular content and overall educational experiences. The framework proposed for this study is designed specifically for the author’s school site, taking into account the

iv

challenges and limitations experienced throughout his own curriculum development process; the author explains, however, that the framework itself can be used as a foundation for any shift toward a relevant curricular focus. This study concludes that the benefits of a curricular framework made up of fewer, more relevant units, with differentiated means of assessment, outweigh the curricular challenges and sacrifices that result in this type of curricular shift of focus. Key words: Curriculum development, World Literature, Affective Objectives, Cognitive Objectives, Relevance, Application, Benjamin Bloom

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………...1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….1 Curriculum Development from the Beginning of the 20th Century.............1 Purpose of the Research…………………………………...………………3 Developing a World Literature-specific Curriculum……………………...4 Curricular structure………………………………….…………….5

Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………….………8 The Purposes of Applicable and Relevant Education………….…….……8 Understanding Curricular Expectations and Frameworks……………….14 From ANAR to CCSS…………………………………………....14 Curricular improvements within the CCSS……………………...17 Bloom’s Taxonomy……………………………………………………...19 Cognitive domain…………………………………………..........20 Affective domain…………………………………………...........25 Summary of Major Themes………………………………………….......31

Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………….32 Background for the Study…………………………………………..........32 Critical Lens à la Bloom…………………………………………………34 Cognitive domain………………………………………………...34 Affective domain.……………………………………...................35

vi

Lexile Rankings and Difficulty……………………………………..........35 Organization and Analysis of Data……………………………………....36 Curriculum mapping……………………………………..............37 Considering the Curricular Aspects……………………………………...38 Unit structure and text selection………………………………....38 Summative assessments…………………………………….........39 Personal Biases and Research Background……………………………...40 Methods of Providing Analysis…………………………………….........42

Chapter Four: Analysis………………………………………………………......43 Breakdown of Curriculum……………………………………………….43 Original Unit 1…………………………………………………...43 Proposed Unit 1…………………………………………………..44 Original Unit 2……………………………………………….......47 Proposed Unit 2…………………………………………………..48 Original Unit 3…………………………………………………...50 Proposed Unit 3…………………………………………………..51 Original Unit 4…………………………………………………...54 Proposed Unit 4…………………………………………………..55 Original Unit 5…………………………………………………...56 Proposed Unit 5…………………………………………………..57 Original Unit 6…………………………………………………...59 Proposed Unit 6…………………………………………………..60

vii

Original Unit 7…………………………………………………...61 Proposed Unit 7…………………………………………………..62 Original Unit 8…………………………………………………...63 Proposed Unit 8…………………………………………………..64 Original Unit 9…………………………………………………...65 Connection to Bloom…………………………………………………….66 Cognitive domain………………………………………………...66 Affective domain….……………………………………………...68 Other Aspects of Curricular Change……………………………………..71 Structural changes………………………………………………..71 Focus on purpose.………………………………………………...71 Non-European focus.……………………………………………..72 Depth over breadth….……………………………………………72 Writing assessments…..…………………………………………..73 Summary of Analysis……………………………………………………74 Curriculum Map Comparison……………………………………………75

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion……………………………………….79 Importance of the Study………………………………………………….80 Implications of the Study………………………………………………...81 Personal Limitations……………………………………………………..84 Collaboration…………………………………………………….84 Resistance to change……………………………………………..85

viii

Collaboration breakdown………………………………………...86 Assessing assessments…………………………………………...89 Future Direction of Study Per Study Limitations………………………..90 Trends in Progressivism………………………………………………….91 Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………..92 Post Script: Responses to Initial Rollout of the Proposed Framework......93

References………………………………………………………………………..95

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.

Bloom’s Cognitive Domain and Student Skills and Expectations……….21

Table 2.

Comparison of the Original and New Bloom’s Taxonomy.......................24

Table 3.

The Affective Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)…………………..26

Table 4.

Curriculum Framework Side-by-Side Comparison……………………...75

x

Chapter One: Introduction "Give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results." – John Dewey Statement of the Problem Interest drives motivation and engagement: if we like something, we are more likely to stick with it, despite any increased rigor or difficulty. Unfortunately, this sentiment, idiomatic and simple though it may seem, has failed to permeate one of the most impactful yet ubiquitously dreaded aspects of the American life: the public education system. Student interest has been historically unpopular in mainstream conversations regarding curricular focus (Goodlad 1984; Ravitch 2010). This study will provide an exploration of the hypothesis that student interest and relevance can positively impact curricular development, and that even for a 12th-grade World Literature course, it is plausible to step away from the long-lived traditions of the English curricular framework, rote memorization and multiple-choice assessments, and develop something that is rigorous and applicable to the lives and the interests of the students. Curriculum Development from the Beginning of the 20th Century In the early 20th century, American public education system functioned much like a business. Coming out of the industrial revolution, many people quickly adopted the idea that school’s role was to produce students who possessed intelligence, much like a factory produced a product (Goldstein, 2014). Author and researcher Dana Goldstein (2014) suggested that as students went through the assembly line of the curricular framework, gaining exposure to math, history, language, and so on, it became apparent to some educators that the system was not working toward the benefit of all children.

1

Namely, educators such as John Dewey (1938) became fed up with the limited scope and lack of purpose in the current educational framework. In his writing, he argued that a truly beneficial education was one that appealed to the interests of students and helped them better function in the world outside of the classroom (Dewey, 1915: 2001). Dewey promoted progressive education as a response to this notion. Progressive education was meant to allow students opportunities to access educational experiences that were connected to their experiences in the real world (Goldstein, 2014). Knowing how to build a car and understanding multiplication tables were equally important in Dewey’s eyes (Dewey, 1938; Goldstein, 2014). However, Dewey’s progressivism was seen as kind of distraction in the increasingly businesslike, results-focused system of education that was developing across the country (Labree, 2005). One major curricular response to Dewey’s progressivism came in the 1930s when educational researcher William Bagley conducted research that found American schools “academically inferior” to their European counterparts (Gutek, 1981, p. 15). Bagley championed the “essentialist” movement, whose goal was to move the focus of American education away from progressive life skills and back toward a focus on the “basic elements of human culture” such as history, arithmetic, and reading comprehension (p. 14). Slowly, the essentialist platform began to overshadow that of the progressives, and the country went through numerous policy adjustments such as the 1983 report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, “A Nation at Risk,” and the “No Child Left Behind” act (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 2001), with the hope of developing a curricular structure that was effective and competitive with the rest of the world. It was not until recently, though, with the help of educators such as Alfie Kohn (2011), with his

2

prolific commentaries on the “obvious truths” (p. 11) that need to be realized in the American education system, that progressivism began making its way back into the larger realm of public debate. Much of this was also helped with the introduction of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a newly developed set of national standards whose focus on and increase of informational and nonfiction texts in the curriculum is, if not anything else, a slight homage to Dewey’s progressive ideologies (Shanahan, 2013b). Purpose of the Research At present, there is a shift in education regarding curricular structure and purpose (Grossman et al., 2011). With the introduction of the skills-based educational objectives and the college, career, and life readiness focus of the CCSS (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014) educators are being regularly encouraged to spend time critically thinking about how they can improve the information that they teach and the way in which they teach it (Grossman et al., 2011). While this is something that most effective teachers likely do on a regular basis, this type of reminder is just what is needed to get these ideas back into classrooms. Given the national impact of the CCSS, educators are now being asked to ensure that their classes help students develop the myriad skills laid out in the standards, such as an in-depth analysis of complex texts and literary nonfiction, rhetorical flexibility, and reading, writing, and speaking using evidence to support claims (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). Therefore, it is imperative that a new curriculum consists of instructional activities and assessments that meet those requirements. Educators are often asked by school site and district administrators to provide evidence that show each course is meeting the expected requirements.

3

The moment I began teaching 12th-grade World Literature at my school site I became aware of a pervasive curricular ineffectiveness with the expected structure of the course. The curriculum for that course had not been updated in nearly a decade and there was a dearth of student engagement and excitement regarding the curriculum. With that said, it was in much need of an overhaul and shift in focus. As I began to think about developing a new World Literature curriculum, I wanted to examine the explicit connections to the expectations expressed in the frameworks like the CCSS. I wondered if developing a new curriculum that was accessible, effective, and also inspired by the CCSS expectations was going to evoke more support from colleagues and administrators and, ipso facto, ensure that the process of regularly making curricular changes in unit structure, text selection, and assessment would become a permanent part of instructional and curricular policy at my school site. Additionally, there is currently a great deal of momentum in education, due largely to the rising influence of practices and expectations driven by the CCSS, that supports the concept that relevance and affective connection, as seen in the CCSS emphasis on college, career, and life readiness and application (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014) should be part of the curricular development process. Theorists such as Benjamin Bloom (1956; 1977) have argued this for years, and it has recently seen a surge in support from other people as well (Kohn, 2005; Cook-Sather, 2006). Developing a World Literature-specific Curriculum For the purposes of this study, the evaluated curricula were developed for a 12thgrade World Literature course. Therefore, an understanding of the specific characteristics

4

and content expectations of that type of course will be helpful when attempting to evaluate the course’s effectiveness, relevance, and application. The concept of a World Literature curriculum was first introduced to the American public education system in the early decades of the 20th century. As Choo (2014) has claimed, its origins lie in the realization that, particularly during the 1920s, there was a need for “broader [literary] representation” (p. 69) given the pervasive and overwhelming presence of American, British, French, Greek, and Latin canonical literature in American schools. The sentiment was that, in an increasingly globalized world, with growing international economic influence and cross-cultural communication, a greater emphasis on literary forms and works from non-Anglo cultures and civilizations, regardless of their respective literary longevity (Choo, 2011; 2014), was needed. Choo (2011) has argued that educational stakeholders knew that the 20th century would bring about a great emphasis on worldviews; thus, students in the United States needed exposure to the linguistic styling, language structures, cultural codes, and moral values of cultures with which they were not familiar. While this was not the first time the idea of World Literature had been suggested in the realm of education – German philosopher, Goethe, called for an increase in the presence of world cultures within German literature programs as far back as the early 19th century – the increase of literature courses that included perspectives from minority cultural groups in the 1960s, helped solidify the permanence and prevalence of the World Literature model (Choo, 2011). Curricular structure. Despite the inclusion of World Literature texts within the English Language Arts curriculum, many pedagogues argued that more had to be done to

5

ensure that World Literature courses were truly effective. In addition to simply an increased exposure to texts and traditions from a variety of world cultures, Newell & Sweet (1999) have suggested that an effective world literature curriculum should focus on ideas and experiences that are common to the general human experience. A curriculum, they argued, should provide students opportunities to wrestle with “universal conflicts [and] universal choices” (p. 38). With this understanding, the focus of curriculum should not be on the worldly texts, but rather on the universal experiences and ideas experienced across all global cultures. In this type of curricular framework, the cultural texts would then be used as supplements to the larger themes and questions defined by those experiences and ideas. Emphasizing theme over text provides students with opportunities, from the outset, to think critically about the content to which they are exposed. As Costa suggested in his 2008 article, The Thought-Filled Curriculum, “[c]urriculums must become more thought-filled in the sense of enlarging students' capacities to think deeply and creatively” (p. 20). Newell & Sweet (1999) have argued that curricula must demonstrate “knowledge-in-action” (p. 39), underscoring the importance of relevance, application, and purpose. Moreover, a focus on central themes and essential questions allowed students to participate in an ongoing conversation, grappling with the concept that the many problems and issues they experience are, in fact, universally-known, differing only with regard to the way in which a given culture reacts to them (Choo, 2014; Newell & Sweet, 1999). It encourages “[students] to continue the conversation and to appreciate the contributions of new books, new ideas, and new voices” (Newell & Sweet, 1999, p. 39) as they go through life both inside and outside the classroom.

6

Considering the current debate regarding the structure of education, the role of the teacher, and the influence of standards and standardized testing, I will provide a foundation as to how this type of curriculum might begin to form. All of this led me to wonder whether or not I could improve student engagement in my World Literature courses through the development of a curricular framework that focused on relevance and life application through an emphasis on student interest and skill building. Therefore, through the use of qualitative evidence, observations, and research, this project will aim to better understand the efforts and academic considerations required of educators to create a curricular framework with relevance- and application-based focuses.

7

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature The review of the literature herein will help clarify the specific scope of this study and help connect its content to the other ongoing conversations about curricular development, content relevance, and application heard throughout the realm of education. The Purposes of Applicable and Relevant Education While the criticisms of the purposes and expectations of formal education are innumerable, very few can compare to the Progressivist movement fathered by education pedagogue John Dewey. This is particularly the case when it comes to pedagogical studies focused on connecting relevance and application to the education students receive in the classroom. To start, one must understand the definition of progressivism and how it compares to other forms of education. Per Goldstein (2014), Dewey’s progressivism was student-centered, teacher-directed and “based on ‘scientific’ observations of how children actually learned—through playful experimentation in which they sought to understand the workings of the grown-up world” (p. 82). In his work, Education and Experience (1938), Dewey compared the purposes of progressivism with the more traditional educational purposes as seen in the American classrooms during the 1920s and 1930s: To imposition from above is imposed expression and cultivation of individuality; to external discipline is opposed free activity; to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill is opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is opposed making the most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is opposed acquaintance with a changing world. (1938, pp. 19-20 ).

8

Educational purpose and emphasis on skill development were greatly emphasized focal points seen in the more progressive schools of Dewey’s time. In his writings, Dewey (1938) strongly opined that in order for an education to be truly effective, it must be clear to students why they are required to access the information conveyed to them in their classrooms and how that information is applicable and relevant to their larger experiences a human beings. In other words, purpose should be the primary focus of a given curriculum. Dewey’s development of progressivism was, in part, a product of the historical events going on in his time. According to Goldstein (2014),Dewey’s era, from late 19th to mid-20th centuries, bore witness to a rise in industrialism. She has argued that industrial improvements across the country provided many families with new opportunities to involve their children in formal education, as they, the children, were no longer a necessary aspect of the working force. Dewey’s hope was that this shift would spark a reformation of the traditional methods of schooling, which placed great emphasis on passive listening and memorization, to one that focused on individualism and the development of skills necessary and applicable to the lives of students (Goldstein, 2014). However, in his observations (1915: 2001), Dewey astutely revealed that these changes, particularly the emphasis on industrialism, were negatively impacting the classrooms. Specifically, large urban schools, he claimed, still consisted of classrooms in which students were left disengaged, “relegated […] to docility” (p. 108), and largely disconnected from the educational experience. As a result, he posited that the educational outcomes in these schools would be sub-par and insufficient.

9

In the book, The Teacher Wars (2014), educational researcher and historian Dana Goldstein observed that Dewey “expressed horror at what he called the ‘medieval’ techniques of traditional public schools, in which children read textbooks, memorized their contents, and studied each subject, such as history or biology in isolation from the others, hunched over a desk” (p. 81). Goldstein noted that at this time, public education had become mired in the constant political struggles influence of the labor and teachers’ unions; thus, education was becoming more of a political endeavor than an educational one. In her writing, she has stated that Dewey’s response to this was to develop an education system that, given the increasingly culturally diverse classrooms of American public schools and the growing influence of unions, granted students exposure to a curriculum that was interconnected and relevant to their lives both inside and outside of the classroom. Students no longer needed to study subjects in isolation; rather, those subjects should be woven together, as they often are in the real world, and made both accessible and applicable to students from all walks of life. Goldstein claimed that Dewey wanted students to “actually [learn]—through playful experimentation in which they sought to understand the workings of the grown-up world” (p. 82). It was in light of these circumstances that Dewey set out to develop a progressive form of education that would allow students to engage with their education through life application and relevance. This change in educational purpose, as paraphrased from his influential work Experience & Education (1938), would place the student as the central focus of the curriculum, and not vice versa. Moreover, in Democracy in Education (1944), Dewey connected educational reforms to those seen in the political and social realms. It was his opinion that one realm could not change without the other, that

10

education, society, and politics were intertwined. Additionally, Dewey believed that these realms were in a constant state of flux; they were always changing. He felt it was the responsibility of older generations to provide subsequent generations with an education that taught them how to develop societal, political, and educational constructs that met their own needs, not ones rigidly connected to the needs of past generations. While these changes would be slow and gradual, Dewey insisted that the result would always be an improvement upon whatever came before (1944). Despite his efforts, though, Dewey’s progressive pedagogy was never fully embraced on a national scale. While certain aspects, such as outdoor education and other experiential education programs, persist to this day (Knapp, 1994), they are but small remnants of Dewey’s larger pedagogical structure. David Labree (2005) argued that this is largely because Dewey’s pedagogy lost out to another branch of progressivism which Labree referred to as “administrative progressivism” (p. 286). This branch, Labree claimed, focused on overall academic governance and structure, and was developed out of a “strictly utilitarian” (2005, p. 281) need for educational organization and efficiency. This, of course, greatly opposed Dewey and other “pedagogical progressivists” and their focuses on the individual student and the specifics of teaching and learning in the classroom. Given the industrialist shifts in society, Labree explained that the methods of education suggested by the administrative branch appealed to American decision makers. He posited that “[b]usiness and political leaders were attracted to a model of educational reform that promised to eliminate waste, to organize and manage schools more efficiently, to tailor instruction to the needs of employers, to Americanize the

11

children of immigrants, and to provide students with the skills and attitudes they would need to perform and to accept their future roles in society” (pp. 284-285). Americans seemed to be looking for a standardized, industrial product, and Dewey’s model was too individualized to suit their needs. Therefore, the instructional and pedagogical shifts Dewey set out to create were largely ineffective. As time went on, Dewey’s Progressivism saw further criticism in the rise of educational Essentialism. According to Gerald Gutek (1981), Essentialism was developed in the 1930s as a response to the “declining scholastic standards” (p. 14) seen in progressive educational platforms. Essentialists such as William Bagley argued that the non-scholastic focus of Progressivism had greatly impacted the quality and rigor of the American educational experience. Bagley observed that graduates of American progressive schools were “essentially illiterate” (Gutek, 1981, p. 15). With this in mind, Essentialism proclaimed the need for a shift in educational focus, leaving behind the lifeskill emphasis of Progressivism for a more traditional focus on the most essential aspects of the human experience: core academic subjects such as rhetoric, history, and arithmetic. Per Gutek (1981), the Essentialists felt this was the only way for the American education system to effectively compete with their international counterparts. As time went on and the mid-20th century saw a rise in the emphasis on international competition and American exceptionalism, Progressivism started to lose control of the national debate and Essentialism became a major focus. Still, there are major proponents of progressivism, such as contemporary educator and pedagogy theorist Alfie Kohn (2011), who have worked to keep the ideas of pedagogical progressivism afloat in the sea of educational conversation.

12

Alfie Kohn (2011) has worked to great lengths to ensure that Dewey’s progressivism remains a part of the ongoing debate surrounding the role and purpose of education and the persistence of traditional forms of education in American public schools. In his writings, Kohn (2011) has closely explored various “truths” about education that he feels have, for the most part, gone unnoticed in educational debates. Echoing Dewey’s writings, Kohn has suggested that an effective education is one that empowers students, gives them autonomy over certain aspects of their educational journeys, but also allows and encourages students to “develop in many ways, not just academically” (p. 14). It other words, Kohn has posited that is not just about content memorization and reading comprehension, but rather, developing skills that are relevant and applicable to the lives of students, such as writing a cover letter, collaborating with others, and public speaking. Moreover, he has claimed that in education, “substance matters more than labels” (p. 16), that curricular purpose should drive education, not text lists and standards. Essentially, he argued that the main focus of education should be on making students better people, not better test takers (Kohn, 2011). While “pedagogical progressivism” according to Dewey, Kohn and others has been greatly overshadowed by the aforementioned “administrative progressivism” across the realm of education in the United States, various efforts, particularly in recent years, have steered education toward a more pedagogically focused framework., The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), have encouraged educators to shift their focus away from the rote memorization and industrially efficient structures seen in traditional education programs, and to begin looking for ways to provide opportunities in their classrooms for student development and application of skills that will help the students outside of their

13

formal educational experiences (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). Clearly understanding the expectations for curriculum development and instruction set forth by the CCSS, such as creating exposure to literary nonfiction and complex texts, teaching rhetorical flexibility, and emphasizing the use of evidence in support of one’s reading, writing, and speaking, though, requires some brief knowledge of the historical and educational context and reasoning out of which the CCSS were developed. Such analysis will help clarify both the positive and negative effects that can come from such reform movements. Understanding Curricular Expectations and Frameworks To begin, I have provided a brief examination of the major, standards-based educational reform movements seen in the Unites States over the last three decades. The purpose of this section is to explore the differences between the curricular expectations for English Language Arts courses laid out in the US Department of Education’s 1983 report, A Nation At Risk (ANAR), the federal “No Child Left Behind” act (NCLB), and those expressed in the CCSS. ANAR and NCLB are the two most recent national education reform movements prior to the development of the CCSS. The curricular structures and goals of these two movements have provided the foundation and reasoning from which the CCSS was developed. Second in this chapter is a summary of the literature surrounding various aspects of curriculum development. The CCSS varies greatly from its predecessors; thus, there is a need for a deeper understanding and thorough explanation of the ideas or purposes expressed in this new set of standards. From ANAR to CCSS. The CCSS were developed to “ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college,

14

career, and life, regardless of where they live” (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). This new standards initiative is the most recent in a series of educational reforms that began in 1983 when the U. S. Department of Education released the ANAR report, which accused the people of the United States of committing “unilateral educational disarmament”, claiming that the country’s education system had lost sight of the “high expectations and disciplined effort” necessary to provide students with a “high-quality” educational experience (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The report came out during the waning years of the Cold War, after a long period of international struggle and competition with the Soviets. In this context, the news that, without true educational success, high school graduates in the United States would not be able to compete with their international counterparts was incredibly daunting (Zhao, 2006). Thus, ANAR shot education to the forefront of the national agenda; the issue became popular and largely political (Hunt, 2008). The releasing of ANAR ushered into existence a new era of educational reform in which both state and federal governments began making efforts to improve the state of the education system as a whole. These efforts included the addition of high-stakes standardized testing, increased academic expectations, as well as an increase in curricular rigor and difficulty. Specifically, ANAR encouraged educational institutions to develop sets of academic content standards to help ensure an increase in academic rigor. While the content standards initially developed by a number of states were “not very clear or specific, or academically rigorous”, over time, states improved and solidified the standards, and they became “clearer, grade-level specific, and more academically challenging (United States Department of Education, 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, ANAR

15

argued that many teachers would benefit from more strengthened teacher preparation programs and professional development. Despite intentions to bring about a radical shift in educational outcomes, after more than a decade of restructuring and implementation, the results of the ANAR reforms efforts were mixed. The new shift in educational ideas brought about a national conversation about the quality of education the nation’s students were receiving. Blame was thrown around and education reforms were made at nearly every level. New types of schools, charter schools, were developed to provide educational opportunities geared toward the individual needs and interests of students. National tests were developed and administered around the country. However, many researchers and historians will say that there was a general consensus that the people of the United States could do better, that these new educational norms and opportunities developed in the wake of ANAR only benefitted a small portion of the national student body. This new shift in education allowed certain improvements to be made at the national level, but things were left, for the most part, unchanged at the local, particularly urban, school level population (Burdick, 2012; Hunt, 2008; Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998). This sentiment eventually led to the creation of the NCLB act of 2001, which required that states develop state standards and administer standardized tests, with the purpose of: “ensur[ing] that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 2001)

16

NCLB emphasized subject matter proficiency as a means of evaluating student educational success, using benchmark assessments and state-developed standardized tests as means of measurement. The act incentivized educational success by linking federal funding for schools with the results of these standardized tests. While it was initially meant to provide financial support to underprivileged schools and increase the rigor and academic success of schools across the country as a whole, NCLB ended up burdening schools, particularly ones in impoverished areas, with the unnecessary pressures of standardized testing (Guisbond, 2012; United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education., 1983). Schools were held accountable for their own success; thus, it became more important to make sure students passed their tests than it was to actually ensure they were receiving the “high-quality education” for which the act originally called. A consensus is growing among researchers and scholars that ANAR and NCLB ended up doing more harm than good with regard to the overall quality of education in the United States (Ladd, 2012; Sunderman & Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2006; Ravitch, 2009). Furthermore, Sunderman and the Harvard Civil Rights Project (2006) argue that another negative trait of NCLB was the lack of academic and financial equality from state-to-state. In 2009 the National Governors Association (NGA), an privately-funded political advocacy group that works as a conduit for communications between state and federal governments, collaborated with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of leaders from across the realm of education, to find an answer to the problems put forth by NCLB. This group of leaders acknowledge the “value and need for consistent learning goals across states” (National Governors

17

Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). The group conducted research and worked alongside teachers and administrators, to develop a national set of academic standards, which eventually became the CCSS. Curricular improvements within the CCSS. In response to NCLB’s attempts at improving education, many educators, theorists, and writers such as Diane Ravitch (2009) suggested that the new set of educational standards, whatever its form, should place greater emphasis on the development of relevant and applicable skills that would help students effectively function in the “complex society” (p. 6) of their time. When the CCSS were finally introduced, this was exactly their focus. Despite en masse criticism against the release of another set of assessment-based standards (Toscano, 2014; Gangi & Reilly, 2013), the highly rigorous, unfair expectations set for students from all levels of the educational spectrum, and the overtly nationalist, Stalinization of the curriculum (Baines, 2011), the greatest redeeming factor as seen in these new standards is the strong emphasis on the development of skills in addition to developing content knowledge. The standards call for educators to help students develop reading and writing skills that will allow them to access more difficult texts, with a particular emphasis on works of nonfiction similar to those students might encounter after their formal education has concluded. Further, the standards call for students to synthesize information and skills covered in class with difficult issues and topics from the everyday world (Tagliaferro, 2012); in other words, the skills and content covered must be applicable to the student’s lives, thus emphasizing “college and career readiness” (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014, “Myths vs. Facts”).

18

Shanahan (2013a) argued that such a shift in educational purpose and focus is crucial to ensuring successful student learning; he also argues, though, that in order to achieve such success, teachers will need to change both the way they teach and what they are teaching. He suggested that the only way this shift will be met effectively is if educators construct curricular frameworks that provide students with the proper scaffolding and support necessary to allow all students opportunities to use and develop these reading and writing skills. In other words, in light of the CCSS, he has recommended that educators cannot teach content the same way they taught it while under the expectations of the state content-area standards. New standards with a new focus on the development of skills, as opposed to the memorization of content, will require new approaches to the curriculum and new curricular frameworks with particular emphasis on application and relevance, as well as increased rigor. With that in mind, when developing a curriculum, one must first consider how curricular foci and instructional practices can change to meet needs and expectations such as increased rigor, life application, and relevance. If a curriculum is going to be effective, one needs to find a way of measure the applicable nature, relevance, and rigor therein. After much research, it seemed evident that Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy for Educational Objectives (1956) provided an excellent starting point for conducting such measurements and curricular analysis. Bloom’s Taxonomy For over 50 years, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been one of the most popular tools to use when setting and evaluating educational objectives (Shanahan, 2013a). The taxonomy, developed by Bloom and his colleagues following a series of conferences

19

dealing with relations and communication between educators and curriculum developers, focuses on learning within three different “domains” (Anderson, 2001): cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. As Bloom and his colleagues were developing the taxonomy, they broke down the learning process for each domain into a series of linear, sequential steps. As Anderson (2001) has suggested, the idea was that one could not fully access one step of learning until they mastered the skills and concepts embodied in the previous step. The purpose of these objectives was to provide educators with a means of interpreting the standards and academic expectations they were expected to teach in their classes (Näsström, 2009). The type of scaffolding seen in this taxonomy would require educators to formatively assess their students’ mastery of a given standard in order to justify any increase in rigor or difficulty with regard to student learning, comprehension, and skill development (Bloom et al., 1971). Thus, when evaluating curricular application, relevance, and rigor, Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as an invaluable metric. Specifically, an understanding of the cognitive and affective impact of a curriculum is immensely helpful. Bloom (1971) and Anderson (2001) posited that if the students are not able to access the highest levels of Bloom’s domains within a given curricular framework, improvements in the curriculum must be made. Cognitive domain. According to Hess et al. (2009), the most popular domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy is the domain which deals with cognition (2000). This domain is popular amongst educators because it provides a foundation for classroom educators and educational theorists to emphasize the concept of “mastery learning” (Guskey, 2001), a style of teaching that provides each student with an opportunity to “learn quite well and truly ‘master’ and subject” (p. 5). This concept, Guskey argued, was different from its

20

predecessors in that it suggested students utilize the results found in formative assessments to develop an understanding of their mastery of the skills being assessed. Through the information gleaned from formative assessments, as well as through the suggestions and teacher- or evaluator-developed correctives provided therein, students and teachers would have a better cognitive understanding of student progress and a “detailed prescription of what more needs to be done [in order for students] to master the concepts or desired learning outcomes from the units” (p. 12). In doing so, Guskey implied that education becomes more individual and student-centered, as teachers are able to tailor their academic support and guidance based on the individual needs of the each student. Bloom (1956) has proposed that this cognitive process, the students’ ability to fully master a skill or meet expected learning outcomes should be broken down in to six sequential levels of expectations and required skills:

Table 1.

Bloom’s Cognitive Domain and Student Skills and Expectations

Domain Level Student Skills and Expectations Knowledge (low) Define, identify, state, list, differentiate, discriminate, recognized Comprehension Explain, translate, interpret, match, extrapolate Application Construct, choose, predict, demonstrate Analysis Distinguish, separate, organize, infer, classify Synthesis Compose, formulate, create, produce Evaluation (high) Debate, judge critique, assess, compare Note: Adapted from: Aviles, 2000; Bloom, 1971. As student mastery is formatively assessed and effectively demonstrated, Bloom (1971) suggested that students progress upwards through the preceding levels of cognition, and thus approach their education through increasingly complex channels of thinking; thus, ensuring that as students are exposed to more rigorous and complex material, they will be

21

able to use the concepts, terms, and ideas experienced and mastered in the previous domain levels. Bloom (1971) made clear that this type of education, one that allows students to build off of their prior knowledge and experiences, is the only way to effectively demonstrate true mastery of skills mentioned in Table 1. Clark (1968) has explained that, within this domain, students should begin with a basic understanding of definitions and terms relevant to a specific skill or focus. This beginning process ensures educators that all students will be exposed to the basic ideas required to function within the higher-functioning cognitive levels. Once students show an understanding of those basic topics – as evidenced in formative assessments – they would then be exposed to activities in which they work to develop a thorough comprehension of a more complex or abstract idea, using their understanding of the skills assessed in the previous domain level as a foundation to their learning. The process, Clark suggested, continues in such a way that, in order to apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the increased complexity and abstract ideas to which they are exposed, students are constantly reliant on information on which they have previously been assessed and of which they have already demonstrated mastery. As Clark has stated in her analysis of the cognitive sequence, “the more abstract and complex sequence must follow the other, either in the same course or in a subsequent one, depending upon the nature of the curriculum” (p. 36). While Clark (1968) and others (Guskey, 2001; Aviles, 2000) argued that Bloom’s cognitive domain is synonymous with common sense and its application in the classroom is largely time-efficient, some notable modifications have been made to the domain in the years since its creation. Anderson (1999; 2001) are responsible for the most significant

22

of these modifications. These educators, in their analysis of the original Bloom’s taxonomy, noticed that, given the multiple definitions of the terms representing the sequential levels listed in the cognitive domain, it could be possible to misinterpret the desired abilities and skills needed to demonstrate mastery of a given level. Particularly when considering Bloom et al. (1956) and the level of knowledge suggested therein, Anderson came to the realization that knowledge could be understood two different ways: First, knowledge could involve the ability to recall specifics and universals, methods and procedures, or patterns and structures (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 201). Using this definition, knowledge is the ability to recall. A second definition of knowledge appears in an analogy made by the authors of the original Handbook. "If one thinks of the mind as a file, the problem in a knowledge test situation is that of finding in the problem or task the appropriate signals, cues, and clues which will most effectively bring out whatever knowledge is filed or stored” (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 201) (emphasis [by Anderson, 1999]). Using this definition, knowledge is what is recalled; the terminology, facts, conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology, principles and generalizations, and theories and structures that define an academic discipline, subject matter, or course of study (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 201-204; Anderson, 1999, p. 4-5). Given that the goal of Bloom’s Taxonomy was to identify the varying types of behaviors students needed to demonstrate in order to fully master a skill (Bloom et al., 1956), Anderson and her colleagues opted to change the way in which the domain levels were expressed (Figure 2). In the “New Bloom’s Taxonomy”, the sequential levels of the

23

cognitive domain were expressed as behaviors, or actions, as opposed to content. This shift allows educators to maintain focus on the demonstration and mastery of skills throughout the educational process, as opposed to simply the retention of content (Cochran et al., 2007). Additionally, in the New Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001), as seen in Table 2, Anderson felt it necessary to switch the last two sequential levels of Bloom’s original cognitive domain. In their 2007 article, “A New Bloom: Transforming Learning,” Cochran et al. maintained that this switch was necessary, given the respective inductive and deductive properties of the evaluation and synthesis (creation) processes, with inductive processes being easier to access than deductive. Table 2.

Comparison of the Original and New Bloom’s Taxonomy

Original Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) Knowledge (low) Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation (high) Note: Adapted from: Cochran et al., 2007

The New Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson, 2001) Remember (low) Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create (high)

Placing an emphasis on the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy, new or old, allows educators to develop a curriculum that is accessible and relevant to the needs of their students (Bloom, 1956; Anderson, 1999). As Guskey (2001) suggested, students will be much more successful – true learning will be more prevalent – when a curriculum is structured in a way that allows students to develop skills sequentially and when they are given sufficient academic support. With that said, a comparison of the appeals to the cognitive domain within a curriculum is an invaluable tool in the evaluation of that

24

curriculum’s effectiveness. It is not, however, the only aspect of Bloom’s taxonomy that should be emphasized. Affective domain. In addition to content knowledge and mastery of skills, Bloom also felt that a truly effective educational experience also took into account the affective connection between student and content. In his 1977 article, “Affective Outcomes of School Learning”, Bloom stated, “A good self-concept is the foundation of a happy and successful life,” (p. 193) and so, argued that the same should be true for a happy and successful education. In his observations and research explained in this article, Bloom noted that it was during the years of one’s formal education in which one experienced the most exposure to both the judgments of others as well as the judgment of one’s self. He argued that while students are exposed formally to a “manifest” curriculum consisting of content and content knowledge, they were also exposed to what he termed a “latent curriculum” in which students gained educational experience through interactions with others and through their own affective judgment of their relationship with any given “manifest curriculum” as well as with their peers and educators (p. 193). Bloom argued that his is different from any other time in one’s life; thus, affective response is an immeasurably important metric during this period of time. As students work through the educational processes and are given opportunities to find success, their affective relationship with the content and their attitude toward their own abilities begins to stabilize. If a student does superbly well on an assignment, they are more likely, Bloom (1977) posited, to feel good about their performance and carry that energy and vigor into their approach to the next level in the educational sequence. In other words, if the student

25

succeeds in a given subject, they are most likely to enjoy working within that subject, even as complexity increases. This is what Bloom called “subject-related affect” (p. 194). Bloom further postulates that with an increase in affective experiences across subject areas, students will be more likely to “develop a generally positive view about school and school learning” (1977, p. 195). As students succeed in their classes, their relationship with and opinion of their educational experiences will improve. Bloom also theorized that for both of these affective measurements, the opposite is true as well: increased failures or negative judgments will result (to some extent) in the development of a negative affective relationship between both subject and school (1977). As students develop these affective relationships with school and subject, they begin to develop what Bloom (1977) called an “academic self concept” (p. 196). This is a student’s own understanding of their academic abilities. Bloom argued that, while some failures and successes can have reverse, subjective effects on affective relationships, for the most part, a student’s “academic self concept” is the result of their collective negative and positive experiences and judgments – external and self-judgments. The more failures (or successes) a student experiences, the more negative (or positive) their self-concept will be. Therefore, if it is the purpose of education to develop an appreciation and passion for knowledge and learning, as Bloom has stated, then educators should work hard to increase these positive affective experiences for students. Table 3.

The Affective Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)

Domain Level Receiving

Student behaviors and expectations Awareness, willingness to hear, selected attention.

Responding

Active participation on the part of the learners. Attends and reacts to a particular phenomenon. Learning outcomes may emphasize compliance in responding, willingness to respond,

26

or satisfaction in responding (motivation). Valuing

The worth or value a person attaches to a particular behavior. This ranges from simple acceptance to the more complex state of commitment. Valuing is based on the internalization of a set of specified values, while clues to these values are expressed in the learner’s overt behavior and are often identifiable

Organization

Organizes values into priorities by contrasting different values, resolving conflicts between them, and creating [a] unique value system. The emphasis is on comparing, relating, and synthesizing.

Internalizing [Characterizing]

Has a value system that controls their behavior. The behavior is pervasive, consistent, predictable, and most importantly, characteristic of the learner. Instructional objectives are concerned with the student’s general patterns of adjustment (personal, social, emotional). Note: Adapted from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html (2014) The levels of Bloom’s Affective domain (Table 3) function similarly to those

seen in his cognitive domain: they build off of each other sequentially; learners will not find success in the higher levels until they have fully experienced (mastered) the behaviors demonstrated in the lower levels. When students first access a new content area or other educational field in which they will experience judgment, they first must work through the affective process of receiving the initial information. As Table 3 demonstrates, learners in this first stage of forming an affective connection to a work express a general willingness and awareness of the content, materials, or relationships being presented to them; this is the stage at which students simply begin acknowledging the information or “stimuli” being presented (Garnett, 1998). Once students achieve this awareness, they progress to the next level in the affective sequence in which they respond positively to the stimuli; they mentally react to what they have just received. Garnett

27

(1998) argued that this process, when effective, is similar to as “having a positive attitude” (p. 375) regarding the stimuli. Following the learner’s response is the level at which learners begin to place a value on the stimuli or information with which they are interacting. Following Garnett’s (1998) analysis further, one will encounter the human behavior of valuing stimuli. This is a level of “deep internalization” (p. 376) in which the learner decides the credibility of the stimuli; this is where they either choose to believe or disbelieve what they are being presented, using a personal belief, value, or rule. It is often here, Garnett argued, where educators can lose their students if there is no understanding of the student’s subjective views and opinions. If a student does not believe in the in the quality of the stimuli, or it has no credibility in the context of the student’s subjective understanding and conceptions of the world, the affective connection will likely break down. If there is a connection, however, then, Garnett (1998) and Bloom (1956) suggested that students will progress to the two final and most complex stages of affective connections and behaviors. Per their respective research, Garnet and Bloom stated that within the levels of organizing and internalizing, students are granted access to stimuli that are truly connected to their personal beliefs and morals. In these levels, students arrange and characterize (interpret) stimuli based on their own understandings of subjective, personally developed hierarchies and spectrums of human behavior and understanding. In the final level, students should experience some type of behavioral change in light of the received stimuli (Krathwohl, Bloom & Maisa, 1973). Garnett (1998) claimed that these final levels are the most difficult for educators to access and influence given that the affective beliefs held here are more permanent in nature, as less

28

permeable to outside forces: “Educational researchers have admitted that schools are unable to change the child; they can only modify human behavior” (p. 377). If educators are able to provide learners with opportunities to access these levels of affective behavior in their classes, though, it is very likely that those opportunities will be incredibly effective. According to Pierre & Oughton (2007), though, despite the emphasis Bloom assigned to the affective domain, and despite the vast impact it could have on an individual’s educational experience, appealing to affective learning outcomes and behaviors has been largely neglected within the realm of education. Per Pierre & Oughton, this is largely due to the fact that affective connection is rather difficult to quantify and assess and that education is growing more and more reliant upon numbers and quantifiable data to support theories and policy. Moreover, when compared to cognitive behaviors, affective behaviors focused on emotional connection and subjective beliefs, are more difficult to predict and control (Pierre & Oughton, 2007). As Bloom (1977) suggested, however, the appeal to affective learning would, in turn, improve the cognitive learning process, as student interest would drive academic success. So, with such great emphasis on affective learning, researchers such as Glass (1970) suggested that educators need to understand how to evaluate this aspect in their classrooms. Content-specific assessments have been developed to measure affective interaction with academic stimuli; they are, however, few and far between. In Glass’ writings, the author explained that in her research, despite having great difficulty finding formal affective assessments, she discovered and was able to modify an attitude assessment scale for biology classes. Per Glass’ study, a five-point Likert scale was

29

developed to measure the ideal affective connection between student and content at various stages throughout the curriculum. As a part of that scale, each sequential level of Bloom’s affective domain was assigned three “The biology student should […]” (p. 3-4) statements that explained the connection between biology and the respective levels of affective behaviors laid out by Bloom (1956). The assessment was then administered to local biology students and the results were analyzed for statistical relationships and correlations. While Glass’ (1970) research showed that formal assessments of affective behaviors are possible, there are other less intensive options that educators may wish to utilize in their classrooms. Bloom (1971) suggested that instructional leaders can better understand the affective behaviors of their charges through one-on-one coaching or smaller conversations in which they can use anecdotal data to assess the affective behaviors and outcomes of their learners. However one chooses to assess this information, the important part is that, as explained in Pierre’s (2007) analysis of Griffith and Nguyen (2006), it plays some factor in the curricular process: How many course outlines and lesson plans specifically address how the students feel about the material, or how they are to achieve or modify attitudes and values? Silence pervades these areas except in courses that explicitly address issues like motivation, persuasion, teamwork, leadership, or empathy with clients/patients. Some professors are more skilled in getting their students excited and involved, but we rarely explore how they do this, although researchers in educational psychology have done some good work on motivation and interest. When it comes to mastery of skills, we see that “Learning is essential for students

30

to master skills but if the affective domain is ignored, the cognitive areas are greatly affected. If one feels threatened, sad, stressed, etc. the learning process can break down.” (Pierre, 2007, p. 4) Not only will this have a positive influence on the learning process, but, even more so, there lies within a “thorough” education, a moral responsibility to “influence the development of attitudes and values” of the learning community as a whole (Savickiene, 2010, p. 40); educators are not just facilitators of information, but shapers of character as well. The research suggested that the extent to which a learner can affectively connect with a concept must be a major consideration in the development of an effective curriculum. Summary of Major Themes As explained, the research of Dewey (1938), Kohn (2011), and Bloom (1956) suggested that, in order for an educational framework to be truly effective, it must take into consideration the interests and abilities of the students. Furthermore, these researchers and educators emphasized the idea that skill building should be at the foundation of an effective curricular framework. As this research demonstrated, recent national curricular changes, as seen in the CCSS, allow educators an opportunity to develop curricula that meet these newly reformed, but decades-old educational emphases. Additionally, with regard to the World Literature-specific curricular framework developed for this study, the exhaustive research explored herein demonstrates the importance of curricular focuses on universal concepts and struggles that are affectively relevant and applicable to the lives of students who are taking the class and, further, offers educators with methods for assessing those connections in their current classes.

31

Chapter Three: Methodology This chapter explains the methods that guided this study, including background and reasoning for the research, description of the curricular frameworks, the curriculum development procedures used, and the author’s personal biases and experiences formed during the curriculum development process. From my own experiences with effective classroom instruction, collaboration with colleagues, and previous curriculum development efforts, it became clear that in order to develop a curriculum that was truly effective, certain aspects (content accessibility, lexile difficulty, and the longitudinal organization of content) must be taken into consideration. Therefore, herein, I expound upon the means through which those curricular aspects were evaluated. Additionally, I explore the effects my personal biases formed prior to and during the development process and the effects such biases had on the development of this specific curriculum evaluation and development process. Background for the Study For this project, I chose to analyze the California state content standards-based World Literature curricular framework currently in use at my school site and compare it with a newly proposed curricular framework developed in light of the expectations expressed in the CCSS. In order to accomplish this analysis and comparison, I elected to consider the two curricular frameworks through the critical lens of the revised version of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives created by Anderson (2001). From that perspective, I observed and analyzed the major aspects (text selection, assessment, instructional flexibility, accessibility) of the previously mentioned frameworks to determine the most effective curricular framework.

32

Critical Lens à la Bloom When developing a curriculum, it is imperative to take into consideration not just the structure of the curriculum (units, assessments, texts, etc.), but also the reasoning, purpose, and accessibility behind each individual facet of the curricular framework. A curriculum will not reach maximum effectiveness if any of those concepts are left unconsidered. For this reason, I opted to use the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson, 2001) as my critical lens for measuring the effectiveness of my two curricular frameworks. It provided a well-known and relatively standardized means of measurement. For the purposes of this study, I chose to focus mainly on the cognitive and affective domains as a means of measuring the effectiveness and accessibility of these curricular frameworks. Cognitive domain. The first and most commonly referenced domain of Bloom’s taxonomy focuses on the cognitive or thought-based aspects of the learning processes. This domain breaks down the cognitive learning process into six sequential: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. According to Anderson (2001), Bloom claimed that a learner must first remember and understand the general terms and concepts from a given topic before he can successfully apply those ideas and concepts to other problems. Then, only once he has mastered the application process, can he begin to analyze, evaluate, or create his own unique product using the ideas and concepts originally in focus. Within the realm of education, this domain has become very popular, particularly when it comes to the first three “lower order” processes. With the knowledge that an effective curriculum is one that allows students opportunities to develop a cognitive mastery of a concept or idea, I broke down the curricular frameworks

33

and evaluated the type and quality of each aspect of the curriculum. This would show to what extent students were able to access the content and demonstrate a mastery of skills. Affective domain. The second domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1977) referred to the affective or emotional individual learning process. An individual’s ability to interact emotionally with a topic or concept can have an enormous effect on their learning. The learner is the filter through which the curriculum will be processed; thus, it is imperative that curricular accessibility to learners is a top consideration for the development of a curriculum. For this study, looking at the affective connection between learner and curriculum served as an excellent means of measuring curricular effectiveness. As I looked at the individual texts and high- and low-stakes assessments within each of the curricular frameworks featured in this study, I qualitatively evaluated the extent to which the average high school senior at my school site was able to affectively connect with each aspect. For this analysis, I gleaned insights gathered from my own experiences in the classroom as well as my general knowledge of the interests and abilities of the students at my school site. Through this qualitative analysis, I hoped to find justification for my expressed need to reform and restructure the current curriculum with one that was more accessible and applicable to the lives of my students. Lexile Rankings and Difficulty While Bloom’s cognitive and affective domains (Anderson, 2001; Bloom, 1977) are crucial to the success of any given curriculum, the lexile measure, or “readability” of a text, plays a major role in whether or not students are able to actually access said domains. Therefore, I found it necessary to research the lexile measurement for each of the texts in the two curricular frameworks featured in this study, to provide yet another

34

means of comparison. If one text was rated above or below the average reading levels of my students, then I needed to look into the justification for the continued use of that text. Lexile measures are not wholly justifiable reasons to remove a text; certain texts, whether below or above average lexile levels, can still contain topics pertinent to a curricular focus or essential question, thus affecting or supplementing academic rigor in some way. They do, however, serve as a good foundation off of which to conduct critical analysis of a text. There are a number of ways in which one can find lexile measures. For this study, I accessed the database created by The Lexile Framework for Reading (Metametrics, 2014). Per this organization, the lexile measures for “typical” students in 12th grade range from 940L-1210L. Further, the “typical” lexile measure for texts in 12th grade should range from 1185L-1385L (Metametrics, 2014). In the development of this new curriculum, if a text from either curricular framework featured in this study did not fall into either of these ranges, I had to search for other means of justifying its place in the curriculum. If there was not enough outside evidence to support its use in the classroom, the text would be removed. Additionally, it should be noted that not all texts have lexile measurements available. This is particularly the case with regards to works of drama. In those cases, an anecdotal analysis of the language is still provided, but the justification for these texts lies largely in the thematic relevance, rather than the difficulty of the language. Organization and Analysis of Data As I worked to develop this new curriculum with my cohort, I quickly realized that we were going to need some means of organizing data that allowed for a chance to

35

evaluate the various elements of the two curricular frameworks side-by-side. Having participated in other curricular development efforts, I understood the benefits of having a structured and visual component to supplement and help organize the data. It was very clear that this was the best way to ensure an effective analysis and visualization of our curriculum. Curriculum mapping. In addition to conducting an analysis of the accessibility and readability of the content within a given curriculum, it was also necessary to consider the longitudinal organization of the content therein. In other words, I wanted to consider how much time was allotted for student access to the various parts of the curriculum. The development of curriculum maps allowed for an opportunity to not only measure this aspect, but also seemed like the most logical means of clearly organizing the previously mentioned curricular aspects in a way that allowed for proper analysis. Using two separate curriculum maps, I followed each curricular framework as they progressed through the school year. To ensure a thorough analysis of each framework, in addition to making connections to Bloom’s domains, I provided qualitative evidence on the following curricular aspects: unit structure and text selection, group- and project-based formative assessments, and summative assessments. Understanding that the time needed to master a topic or concept can vary greatly from student to student, I evaluated the amount of time allotted to certain novels and/or units. Furthermore, given that this new curricular framework was developed in light of the new CCSS, I included evidence as to the various standards met within the different aspects of both frameworks. This, I hoped, would serve as a strong justification to make permanent the changes we were developing.

36

Considering the Curricular Aspects An in-depth analysis of curricular structure, assessments, and other activities is required when using this domain as a means of evaluating curricular effectiveness. In my evaluation of the two curricular frameworks discussed herein, I used the curriculum maps to evaluate the length and organization of the various educational units, texts, and assessments found in each framework. This greatly helped to evaluate the extent to which the curriculum could be delivered to students effectively. Unit structure and text selection. Conducting an analysis of text selection is crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of the frameworks involved in this study. My aim was to show that the new proposed curriculum framework needed to consist of texts that were supplemental to the essential questions and thematic ideas expressed in each unit, as opposed to ones that served as the main focus of a given unit. As I conducted my research, I paid close attention to the following text characteristics: accessibility, purpose, and placement. For accessibility, I considered whether or not the texts allowed for easy student engagement. Were the students able to connect with all aspects of the novel, such as language, plot, theme, and so on, or was there something hindering those connections? I also took into consideration the relevance of the topics covered in those texts to the average high school student. This is where the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001) would prove helpful. By evaluating the purpose and placement of the text, I looked at how each text was featured in their respective units. Whether or not a given text was the central focus of the unit or if it was more of a supplement to a central theme or essential question became an invaluable means of evaluating unit structure and points of

37

focus. With the CCSS calling for more of an emphasis on skills and less on content, it seemed clear to me that while texts should remain important and central to the unit, the most efficient way to provide students with opportunities for skill building was to consider those texts in light of a lager skill or topic serving as the unit’s main focus. Finally, and more generally, I wanted to look at what major texts were being taught in the current curricula and propose some possible changes. Evaluating qualities such as plot complexity, language, and topics covered for the works of literature in the current curriculum as well as those of the text in the new proposed curriculum was an incredibly helpful way of justifying a given text. To conduct these evaluations, I would examine the aforementioned qualities of the works as well as any standards from the CCSS that might be connected to the text and it’s respective activities. Then, using both the cognitive and affective learning objectives outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy, I evaluated the effectiveness of each work; in doing so, I was able to determine the extent to which each work met the expectations of the CCSS. These evaluations greatly helped influence the structure and content of the new curriculum. Summative assessments. Another major aspect of this curriculum overhaul was making changes to the way student knowledge and mastery of skill was assessed on both the formative and summative level. I looked critically at each of the assessments and developed an understanding of ways to allow for more skill-building (formative assessments) and demonstration of skill mastery (summative assessments), as called for by the CCSS. I evaluated how each assessment, regardless of type or structure, encouraged students to continually consider and synthesize with the overarching, thematic ideas and essential questions or central topics found in the curricular framework.

38

Whether or not these assessments challenged students to access the higher levels of Bloom’s cognitive and affective domains would be crucial to an effective curriculum; rote memorization would not be enough for students to “succeed”. In order to ensure student success and mastery of skill, assessments needed to require a deep understanding of concepts and skills covered throughout the course; therefore, this was a major focus of my evaluation. Personal Biases and Researcher Background Moving around the country during the earlier years of my formal education allowed me an opportunity to begin developing an opinion of what an effective education looked like from a very young age. While in the Midwest and the suburbs of Washington D.C., I witnessed the benefits of smaller class sizes, one-on-one teaching, and specialized instruction based on my own individual needs as a student. When I moved to California in the 5th grade, I found myself thrust into crowded classrooms, amidst the rising influence of the state content standards and standardized assessment movements. I was force-fed a seemingly purposeless curriculum, learning how to memorize answers and concepts in order to successfully take a standardized assessment. In college, as a student at Westmont College, a small liberal arts school, I found myself back in smaller classes, able to take courses that appealed to my interests, regardless of their respective fields of study. It was in this type of environment that I began to truly thrive as a student. My professors developed classes specifically tailored to my interests and needs, placing an emphasis on collaboration and self-expression, thus, allowing me to develop a strong passion for education. In the years following college, as a graduate student and novice teacher, I began to think critically about the state of education, the expectations

39

prescribed for students, and the means through which information was conveyed to them. Ergo, when, in my first years of teaching, I found myself teaching the same outdated, test-centered curriculum that impacted me so negatively nearly a decade prior, I thought it vastly hypocritical to hold my students to those same expectations and standards. If I wanted my students to succeed and truly value the education they received, important curricular changes had to be made. Immediately, I turned to the educational philosophies of Alfie Kohn (2011), John Goodlad (1984), Theodore Sizer (1992), and John Dewey (1915:2001; 1938; 1944). These educators and others spent their careers advocating for the increased presence of educational practices and curricula that appealed to the needs and interests of individual students. In their writings and teachings, these progressive educators posited that successful learning could not be measured simply by scores on standardized assessments, but rather in the development and mastery of skills that students could apply to their lives in the classroom as well as outside of school. If students were going to learn, the content learned must be relevant and applicable to the lives of the students. With over two decades of diverse formal education experiences and the theories propositioned by those progressive educators and theorists, I found justification to the curricular changes for which I was calling. The problem, however, was that the shift I wanted to see required in-depth, holistic, structural changes, for which I found support from my colleagues seriously lacking. In my first year of teaching, despite my frustrations with the outdated curriculum, it was expected of me to give the same common multiple-choice unit tests as everyone else teaching World Literature; and, while I found ways to tweak the curriculum wherever I could, such minor changes did not seem

40

very effective, especially when considering the students in the other World Literature classes were still being given the same, antiquated curriculum. To clarify, I have a great amount of respect for my colleagues’ abilities as teachers, but it was incredibly evident to me that the curriculum used in our classrooms was not doing enough to provide all of our students with an opportunity to truly succeed: students were still memorizing vocabulary definitions, character descriptions, and being told the means of certain symbols and motifs in order to correctly respond to questions found on a test. There was no purpose in our classrooms, no application; and so, we were, in large part, failing as educators. Thus, I was presented with the main problem of the American education system: students are not taken into consideration. The contrast between test- and student-centered curricula is incredible. While the American public education system claims to work diligently to ensure that every student is given access to a ‘good’ education, the system itself is not built to effectively produce academic success across the board. True Progressivism, a la Dewey, Kohn, et al. calls for educators to teach to the needs, abilities, and interests of their students. A nationally- or even state-standardized curriculum, as seen in recent years, will be hard-pressed to produce results showing true student success, given the socio-economic, demographic, cultural, and ethnic diversity one can see from classroom-to-classroom let alone school-to-school or state-to-state. These insights into the lack of focus on student interest and life application in current curricula serve as the main motivation and purpose of this study. Given the aforementioned emphasis on teaching to the individual needs of students, this study is limited in scope to the students on my school site whom my colleagues and I will encounter in our respective classrooms. Our students come from a mostly affluent, upper

41

middle class community, with just about 15% of the student body living below the poverty level (Newsweek, 2014). Furthermore, there is strong parental and communal involvement and support for education across the district, which has immensely affects the success of an education program. With such caveats noted, it should be made clear that this study in no way implies that the exact curriculum developed as part of this study could be transplanted to a different school site and guarantee automatic success. Certain aspects and frameworks garnered from this study can, however, serve as excellent starting points for educators anywhere who are looking to shift the focus of their curriculum. Methods of Providing Analysis As I worked to develop the proposed curriculum that would hopefully replace the curriculum we had in place at present in our World Literature courses, I looked through each unit and evaluated the place and purpose of the major texts and forms of assessments. Furthermore, as I combed through each unit, I examined the essential questions, topics, and themes that would be presented to students and evaluated the effectiveness they would have as they represented the curricular and academic motivation and expression of the unit’s purpose. Through my analysis of textual context, lexile difficulty, and major assessments, if a unit seemed lacking in a direct, relevant, and applicable purpose or curricular structure, I proposed a new unit, with a new thematic focus and possibly a new major text that might better fit the needs and expectations of a college preparatory World Literature course. On the whole, my goal was to propose a new curricular structure that emphasized the progressive research discussed in the preceding chapters.

42

Chapter Four: Analysis The following section provides a comparison between the two curricular frameworks discussed as the central focus of this study. The units for each framework are described and outlined in detail. The units from the original framework that has been in place at my school site for over a decade will come first, followed by corresponding units from my own proposed curricular framework following. In this comparison, I provide a thorough description of all aspects of each individual unit of study and draw connections referenced in the Chapter 3 of this study. Additionally, the major issues and points of change are outlined so as to provide a more in-depth understanding as to the reasoning and motivations of this specific curriculum development effort. Breakdown of Curriculum Original Unit 1. Unit title: Journeys of Discovery. There are two major works that comprise this unit: First, Allegory of the Cave from The Republic (Plato, 2006). The Lexile Measure for this work is 160L. This allegory by Plato consists of a fictional conversation between Plato’s philosopher-mentor, Socrates and his companion, Glaucon. In this fictional conversation, Socrates tells the story of prisoners who have spent their entire lives living enchained and trapped in a cave. This piece serves as an allegory for the meaning of truth and perception of reality; through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, Plato explores the prisoners’ concept of reality and whether it may differ from those whose outlooks and experiences have not been nearly as limited. Students will also read selected Cantos from Inferno from The Divine Comedy (Dante, 2003). The Lexile Measure for this work is 1120L. In this first portion of Dante

43

Alighieri’s epic poem, the author explains his understanding of what happens after people leave this world and experience the after life; particularly, he explains the nine circles of Hell and which types of people belong on each. Dante makes specific references to the actions and lives of influential people from throughout history as well as some of his contemporaries to narrative the effects and purposes of the various levels of Hell. This poem serves as an allegory for the understanding, rejection of, and redemption for sin. In this unit, students consider major philosophical aspects of the human experience: truth, reality, and sin. Through various supplemental texts and activities, students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of role these topics play in the major texts for this unit. Two of these readings come out of the World Literature textbook and have accompanying questions and activities that help guide discussion and understanding of the themes and topics conveyed. Knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Proposed Unit 1. Unit title: Tracing Our Origins. Similar to the original unit, there are two works that make up this unit: First, students will read selections from A Dictionary of Creation Myths (Leeming, 1995). There is no Lexile Measure available for this text. Students will look at different creation myths from various world cultures. They will work to understand the origins of these myth stories, the similarities between them, and how they impact our lives today. They will be reading various creation narratives and academic writings based

44

on their culture groups, thus developing an understanding of the origins of many different cultural groups as supported by Choo (2014). Due to the pertinence and applicability of the work, it is also proposed that students continue to read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave as a part of this introductory unit. One of the major shifts seen in the new curriculum is the addition of essential questions. For this unit, the students will consider the following question as they read: Where do we come from? Students will use this question as a guide to their understanding and their demonstration of mastery. The summative assessment for this unit comes in two parts. First, the students will be assigned a cultural group and its corresponding creation myth. As a team, they will work together to become experts of their assigned culture and creation myth, and teach that myth to the class via a presentation of some kind (PowerPoint, storytelling or reenactment, children’s book, etc.). The goal of their presentation will be to demonstrate an understanding of the following questions: •

Who are these people (the assigned cultural group)? What is their cultural identity?

•

What are the origins of this myth? What values or worldviews are presented in this myth? How did their cultural practices shape this myth?

•

What does this myth say about the need for humans to know and understand our origins?

•

The second part of this assessment will take the form of a creative writing piece where the students will write a “fan fiction” narrative based on their creation myth and the world and characters represented therein. This will be a fully processed

45

essay, so the students will be given ample instructional support as they work to write their narrative stories. This assessment will serve as a means of further demonstrating their knowledge and expertise of the creation myth; it will also serve as a benchmark assessment of their writing skills. One of my greatest concerns when looking at aspects of the original curricular framework was the dearth of writing assessments. I felt that it was immensely important to increase the amount of formative and summative writing that students do throughout the year; particularly, this change needed an emphasis at the beginning of the year, so as to serve as an initial assessment of the students’ writing abilities and to lay a foundation for the writing expectations for the rest of the year. As Dewey (1938) suggested, a good education is one that offers students opportunities to experience the actual development of a skill that can be applied to their lives outside of school. It was with those ideas in mind that I proposed the initial “fan fiction” writing assessment: it offers a two-fold approach at experiential learning. Having conducted an in-depth analysis of the applicable and relevant ideas of origin stories, truth, and reality represented in the Creation Myths and Allegory of the Cave, students will use the expertise gained from those experiences as they embark on their first initial writing assessment, which would, in theory, lead them to a stronger understanding of both works as well as help them to continue to develop their writing skills. As Kohn (2011) has argued, the fact that they are creating something that focuses on the issues that they find interesting, as opposed to memorizing facts for a test, they will be more likely to internalize the content and carry it with them after they leave school. Furthermore, continuing with Kohn, the addition of choice (how to present the creation myth and which story or character on which their

46

story will focus) will give them even further encouragement to buy into the proposed framework and take ownership from the beginning of the year. Original Unit 2. Unit title: Satire and French Literature. The major text for this unit is Candide (Voltaire, 2002). The Lexile Measure for this novel is 1110L. This 18th century novel by Voltaire tells the story of a young man as he leaves his sheltered upbringing and explores the vast peoples and places of the world. In this work, Voltaire creates characters and situations whose absurd natures and characteristics are meant to satirize specific aspects of 18th-century European life: the oppressive monarchy, the corrupting nature of wealth, the hypocrisy of religion, and the foolish philosophy of optimism. The text was originally written in French, but students read a version translated into English. While the language is not necessarily out of their reading range, students often express difficulty following the many and dramatic events of Candide’s life. As noted in the synopsis, this unit is meant to show students how artists and authors throughout history have used satire to provide commentary on their experiences. While reading the novel, students will trace and be able to explain Voltaire’s commentary on the oppressive monarchy, the corrupting nature of wealth, the hypocrisy of religion, and the foolish philosophy of optimism; with this understanding, students will formatively be assessed on their ability to synthesize Voltaire’s satire with events in their own lives. This, however, can be difficult for the students who are regularly struggling to follow the main points of the plot and therefore not able to fully devote focus to an understanding of the satirical message and purpose of the text. Similar to the first unit, knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The

47

questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Furthermore, following multiple-choice summative assessment, students are given an in-class essay in which they are asked to synthesize satirical ideas represented in Candide with those conveyed in a modern piece of writing as well as provide a personal opinion of the topic being satirized. Proposed Unit 2. Unit title: Dealing with Change. The major text for this unit is Things Fall Apart (Achebe, 1996), which has a Lexile Measure of 890L. This work by Chinua Achebe, a Nigerian-born writer, educator, and political activist, was the first major work of literature to come out of the African continent and become accepted in the worldwide literary canon. Through the story of Okonkwo – a stubborn, fictional warrior, father, and tribal leader – and his family, the novel depicts the effects of European imperialism on the Ibo people whose long-established practices and traditions differ greatly from those of the foreign missionaries and imperialists. As the two cultures collide, many characters find solace and understanding in the new practices of the Europeans, while others, such as Okonkwo, struggle to accept or even consider the changes being inflicted upon them. The language in the novel is not particularly challenging for high school seniors. Given, though, that many of my students are unfamiliar with the practices and traditions of traditional Nigerian tribes, there is often confusion regarding the names and terminology Achebe uses in his writing. The main focus of this unit is to explore the importance of cultural traditions, practices, and values, and to experience what it looks like when they are challenged by outside cultures. Students often come with some prior understanding of the European

48

imperialist movements from the World History courses, and so, are able to place the story in a proper context. The essential question for this unit is: How do we deal with change? While reading Things Fall Apart and the other supplemental texts, students will regularly discuss the concept of change: whether it is good or bad, how the characters in the book and readings deals with it, how we deal with is as a society, and so on. Furthermore, the students will discuss how the origins of privilege and imperial hegemony drive change, specifically, taking into consideration the worldviews of the two groups in the novel. For this unit, the summative assessment will take place in two parts. The final assessment will be a 70-question multiple-choice exam on the major readings of this unit. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Prior to that assessment, though, students will participate in a summative Socratic Seminar in which they discuss the essential question and how their understanding has been shaped by the activities and readings completed in this unit. Students will be expected to synthesize the ideas represented in the texts with their own their claims in this discussion; thus, it will serve as a valid measure of their understanding of both the essential question as well as the major readings. As seen in the original curricular framework, Things Fall Apart was the focus of another unit that comes up later in the year. The new thematic focus, however, as proposed above, allows students to decipher the ways in which the characters in Things Fall Apart deal with change and then apply that understanding to their own lives. This structure encourages students to fully embrace the experiences and opinions laid out in Achebe’s writing, while making great efforts to draw connections to their own concerns

49

and fears regarding the idea of change, which will be reflected in the Socratic Seminar at the end of this unit. This fits directly with Kohn’s (2011) suggestion that students best learn when the material interests them. Whereas Candide, despite its literary merits, often confused students, leaving them more concerned with the many plot points and characters in the story that might be found on a test than with the thematic issues, this thematic focus on dealing with change in Things Fall Apart allows students to develop and opinions and practice using their voices to express them. Original Unit 3. Unit title: American Drama. The major text for this unit is A Streetcar Named Desire (Williams, 1947). There is no Lexile Measure available for this text. This play, arguably one of Tennessee William’s most popular, tells the story of Stanley and Stella Kowalski, a young, emotionally and physically passionate couple living out their lives in post-World War II New Orleans. Both characters are from very different backgrounds and deal with problems in very different ways, which makes things interesting when Stella’s sister Blanche, a mentally unstable southern belle who struggles with letting go of her traditional upbringing and tragic past, comes to stay with them for an indefinite amount of time. Given the dramatic nature of this work, there is strong opposition between the main characters, as they represent extremes of the human experience. In this play, students are asked to consider, as represented in the script, Williams’ perceptions of love, passion, the human experience, and the impact the past has on the way we live our lives. The play is often acted out or read wholly in class, so as to allow students an opportunity to see how Williams uses the stage and performance medium to convey these themes.

50

As with previous units in the original curricular framework, knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Proposed Unit 3. Unit title: Interpreting Misinformation. The major text for this unit is Othello (Shakespeare, 2002). There is no Lexile Measure available for this text. In this tragedy by William Shakespeare, the playwright tells the story of Othello, a military hero and a Moor, and his young, innocent, Venetian wife, Desdemona. The play provides a commentary on the presence and power of jealousy, love, and misinformation and how the three can impact each other. Through the purposely-misinformed workings of Othello’s trusted advisor, Iago, relationships in the play are stressed and tested, with horrifying results. As with many Shakespeare plays, the language presented is often difficult for students to process on their own. This is particularly the case with Othello as it consists of many lengthy soliloquies and monologues that are very pertinent to developing an understanding of the play’s message. Given, however, that the topics covered are so relevant to the lives of the students, they seem to find great success in developing an understanding and appreciation for the play. The essential questions for this unit are: What outside influences have an impact on our decision-making? How do we process [mis]information? Throughout this unit, students will compare their own decision-making with those represented in Othello. They will examine the source credibility, motivation, and purpose behind the giving of information as demonstrated in Othello and make comparisons to how decisions are made

51

in the real world. They will examine what Shakespeare is saying about how we are influenced by others and the information gleaned from them. In class discussions, they will expand on these ideas and find ways to synthesize their own ideas with those represented in the play (Kohn, 2011). Additionally, the students will discuss the following themes as they read and synthesize them with the essential question: •

Race & Gender: How do race and gender affect the relationships between the characters? What opinions or judgments are cast on characters as a result of this? How do these judgments limit the characters (people in general)? Specifically, how do the various men in the play treat women? How does race or gender play a role in the development of character self-identity?

•

Love, Marriage & Jealousy: How are marriages portrayed in the play? Are the characters happily in love? What characteristics describe the quality and type of love seen in the play? How does love shape the characters in the play? How do trust, communication, and jealousy play a role in the relationships and marriages seen in the play? Is jealousy intrinsically unreasonable? Is there reasonable jealousy? What is overall message of love and jealousy in the play?

•

Manipulation & Power: Evaluate the purpose and methods used in the manipulation seen throughout the play. How and why are characters manipulated? What makes manipulators successful? Which characters are motivated by power and how does that affect their relationships with others? Is a desire for power always destructive? What aspects of the manipulation and power seen in the play can we apply to our real world experiences?

52

•

Reputation and Self-Image: Are reputation and self-image important to the human experience? How does an emphasis on these affect the way one interacts with others? Can self-identity transform over time? Why are characters (people) concerned with these traits? How can reputations change and what effect does that have on one's self-image? What is Shakespeare saying about the importance of reputation and self-image? To demonstrate a mastery and understanding of the ideas expressed in this unit,

students will be asked to write an in-class essay in which they synthesize the ideas of a nonfiction piece of writing to the ideas represented in Othello and to the essential question as a whole. In addition to assessing their understanding of the play and essential question, it will give them an opportunity to respond to a prompt within a given time period, as they would in college; thus, it will serve as a useful means of assessing those college and career readiness skills as well as continue to build on the writing experiences they have encountered previously in the course, as suggested by Dewey (2011). The replacement of A Streetcar Named Desire with Othello as the required dramatic text seemed like a very logical option. To start, per Choo (2011), in a World Literature course, there is great potential to allow students some access to the many nonAmerican works of literature and drama available. Students at my school site spend their entire junior year learning about American Literature, so it only seemed fair that we take as many opportunities to find texts outside of that genre. That being said, while Othello is still an “Anglo” text, its themes of jealousy, love, envy, and betrayal are so very applicable to the lives of high school students. Through the conversations held in class, students will synthesize the ideas represented in the play with their own understandings

53

of those emotions. This synthesis and application will likely result in a deeper internalization of the content (Kohn, 2011). Additionally, CCSS ELA Literacy standards for Reading Literature require that students be exposed to a Shakespearean play at some point in grades 11 and 12 (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). With the American Literature focus during the 11th grade at my school, 12th grade World Literature was a great option for this play. Original Unit 4. Unit title: Contemporary and Middle Eastern Literature. The major text for this unit is The Kite Runner (Hosseini, 2005) with a Lexile Measure of 840L. The most recent and most contemporary work in our World Literature curriculum, this book tells the story of a young Afghan boy named Amir growing up in 1970s Afghanistan. Amir’s life is strongly shaped by two things: the perceived absence of love from his father, and his brother-like relationship with his servant, Hassan. As the story progresses, these relationships are impacted greatly by Amir’s actions and choices. This is arguably, from the students’ perspective, the most entertaining and memorable book that we read in World Literature. Despite its 370-page length, the students enjoy the beauty of Hosseini’s writing and his ability to tell a story; many students often read through the whole book within the first few weeks of the unit. Afghanistan and the greater Middle East are seemingly permanent fixtures of our news and media cycle; thus, this text holds great relevance to the lives of the students as they read it. Furthermore, Hosseini’s story focuses on a number of themes to which students can connect: the ideas of sin and redemption, the quality of a father-son or parent-child relationship, cultural pride and traditions, and social privilege. Hosseini presents his readers with some very graphic and uncomfortable situations that help to

54

challenge the values and opinions of the students as they read. Given the relevance of these themes and ideas, students are encouraged to synthesize what they are reading with their own experiences. Given the placement of this unit at the end of the semester, knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Proposed Unit 4. Unit title: Sin and Redemption / Impacting the Lives of Others. This unit will remain largely the same as seen in the original curricular framework. The major difference will be the addition of a set of essential questions and statements. The essential questions for this unit are: Can a single event determine the course of one’s life? How does sin impact our lives and how can redemption be found? Students will work to discuss these questions throughout the unit. The Kite Runner will serve as the main focus for literary support, but these topics are very prominent in the lives of high school students, so they will have a great deal to offer as they strive to personalize these questions and develop answers of their own in light of what is read and discussed in class. These discussions, as Kohn (2011) argued, given their interest and relevance to the lives of the students, will help students internalize the content. In addition to the essential questions, students will also consider a handful of essential statements as they progress through this unit. With the information gleaned from their reading as well as their own previously held opinions, the students will develop responses to these statements and participate in class-wide discussions in which they share and react to those responses. These are the statements they will consider:

55

•

There are times when it is appropriate or necessary to remain a silent bystander when someone is being hurt (physically or emotionally).

•

We have an obligation to be loyal and truthful to our friends and family members.

•

It is possible to atone (make amends) for any of our wrongdoings.

•

Honor and pride are poor foundations for a society.

•

Moral failure can make you a better person.

These statements and the responses the students develop will help them build into any prior understanding of the content before beginning and then trace those understandings as they develop when these topics are approached in the reading and during class discussions. Through this practice and exposure, the students will shape their own personal beliefs and opinions regarding the topics discussed. As Kohn (2011) has claimed, the more they can personally invest in the material, the more likely it will be that they remember it. Original Unit 5. Unit title: University of California Analytical Writing Placement Exam (Essay). There are no major texts for this unit. Students will read a couple of different pieces and practice conducting an analysis and building a response to the ideas represented therein. This unit is mostly skill-based. Students will practice analysis of textual ideas, synthesizing those ideas with their own, and then expressing that analysis and synthesis in their writing. Many of the students applying to college will be asked to perform a similar writing task as part of the course registration process; this gives them a chance to practice those skills before being formally assessed at the college or university level. It also allows teachers an opportunity to assess their students’ ability to understand and respond to a text within a given amount of time.

56

Students will write an in-class essay in which they read, analyze, and respond to the ideas represented in a short nonfictional piece of writing. This was the second and final instance of formal writing assessment in the original curricular framework. While there were great merits in the assessment of the students’ abilities, the unit itself felt short, awkward, and lacking of substance, which, per Kohn (2011), does not help students engage with the materials. Proposed Unit 5. Unit title: Fate and Free Will. The major text for this unit is Antigone (Sophocles, 2001), which has a Lexile Measure of 1090L. This play tells the story of the aftermath following part of the Theban civil war. Upon returning to Thebes, Antigone, the play’s protagonist, finds that both of her brothers were killed fighting on opposite sides of the war. One brother, Eteocles, was given a proper burial while the other, Polyneices, was refused burial – by royal decree – and left to rot on the battlefield. The play centers on Antigone’s struggle to go against the established government and give her brother a proper and honorable burial, which she sees as a justifiable thing to do. The language of this play is rather challenging for students. There are, however, a number of different supplemental translations and interpretations of the play that students can use to supplement and scaffold their understanding of the original English translation. Furthermore, as the topics covered in the play are incredibly relevant to the lives of the students and the zeitgeist of their experience, students are intrigued by the play and draw into it as they read. The essential questions for this unit are as follows: How do we respond to injustice? What does that response say about who we are? What is the difference between good and bad? How does that understanding shape our experiences? How do our moral

57

and social values impact our relationships with others? Do human beings have an obligation to be disobedient when laws go against our moral conscience? Should a legal system support the moral beliefs of its people? For this unit, students will study the play through the lens of these essential questions and develop an understanding for their own definition of free will. As they read, students will regularly share and discuss the actions of the people in the play, particularly Antigone, and make comparisons to events in their own lives and the outside world. Given that Antigone is caught between her own will and the will of her government and compatriots in the play, students will be able to connect the play to a number of historical and current events as well as their own lived experiences. The summative assessment for this unit will be a mock trial for the character of Antigone. Students will pick from a handful of different roles (attorneys, witnesses, judge, bailiff, jury, etc.) and complete an assigned writing assignment specific to that character that in some way demonstrates a mastery of the content. They will then participate in an actual trial process in which they will construct arguments and give testimonies and statements that will help a jury determine whether or not Antigone is guilty of treason. While each role is different, all students are active and participate throughout the whole process. Per Kohn (2011) and Dewey (1938), not only is this ideal as it provides student choice as to the roles and responsibilities they hold, but it also allows students experience with regards to various aspects of the legal system, namely, writing an affidavit, creating compelling opening and closing statements, and deliberating an idea or opinion. Furthermore, this will allow students an opportunity to demonstrate

58

their knowledge of the play and showcase their ability to connect those ideas with the events going on outside of the play. Original Unit 6. Unit title: Shakespearean Drama. This unit focuses on Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare, 2000), which does not have a Lexile Measure available. This play is one of Shakespeare’s earlier comedies. It tells the story of a pair of sisters, Bianca, who is young, innocent, and loved by all, and Katherine, the older sister who is reputedly nasty and mean toward almost anyone, including her younger sister. Early in the play, Bianca expresses her longing to be married and fall in love, but her father, fearing that Bianca’s marriage would then leave him alone with Katherine, the “shrew”, decides that Bianca can only be married after Katherine is as well. Bianca’s various suitors hire Petruchio, a brash and feisty gentleman, to pursue Katherine as a bride. The rest of the play is the pursuit and “taming” of Katherine and the other women in the play. As with many Shakespearean dramas, the most challenging aspect of this play for students is the language. Further, this specific play features a number of characters that are in and out of disguise, thus increasing the general confusion. When acted out, these problems seem to dissipate a bit; there are, however, still some difficulties. This play touches on a number of themes. The most prominent is the theme of “taming” and whether you can be forced into loving someone or if love must come naturally. Shakespeare focuses greatly on the importance and influence of gender roles in society and specifically how they should determine the way one behaves. Additionally, the play touches on the influence money and relationships, particularly husband-wife and parent-child, can have on our behavior.

59

Knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Proposed Unit 6. Unit title: Humanity in Crisis. The major text for this unit is Escape from Camp 14 (Harden, 2012), which has a Lexile Measure of 1130L. This nonfiction work examines the life of Shin Dong Hyuk, the only person on record to have been born in a North Korea political prisoner camp and to have escaped. Throughout the story, readers see how the life Shin Dong Hyuk lived inside the camp shaped the life he made for himself when he finally made it out. As a child, Shin Dong Hyuk witnessed countless horrifying events that had a great impact on the way he chose to live his life. He grew up in the empty of compassion and full of hunger. He was forced to watch his mother and brother be executed as a result of his own actions. Education was limited in scope and availability. Pain and sickness were chronic distractions from the everyday life of work and survival. This text provides students with a couple of different opportunities that will help improve their future educational experiences. First, though the language is drastically different from the other texts they have been reading in this class, this type of nonfiction text is likely what they will encounter at the college or career level and so they will benefit from the initial exposure and begin building a foundation of experiences to prepare them for future academic and intellectual explorations (Dewey, 1938). Moreover, this text offers very direct thematic connections to real world events that will greatly impact and influence the views and understanding students have with regard to world

60

events. Students will access their prior knowledge and practice synthesizing the themes and topics discussed in class with their own interests and experiences (Kohn, 2011). Furthermore, this text allows students yet another glimpse into a different culture’s values and practices, as well as a general, worldly understanding of the current events tied to Harden’s text (Choo, 2014). As the students read, they will consider the following essential questions: What does it mean to survive? How do we respond to crisis? What should we do to alleviate these problems? Additionally, during this unit, students will explore the art of journalism, post-modern literature (with an emphasis on nonfiction), and the art of how stories like these are documented. Finally, the students will develop an understanding as to the difference between truth and reality, and the narrow path nonfiction authors must traverse to maintain story accuracy while still keeping readers entertained. As a summative assessment for this unit, students will write a fully processed argumentative essay in which they defend whether or not this text and others like it can be considered literature. They will use evidence from the text and the other supplemental discussions to guide their argument. This will demonstrate an understanding of the book’s message and messages conveyed in class while also allowing students an opportunity to synthesize that message with their own ideals in light of current events. Original Unit 7. Unit title: African Literature. The major text for this unit is Things Fall Apart (Achebe, 1996) with a Lexile Measure of 890L. This synopsis of this text was explained previously. Within this original curricular framework, however, the main focus of this unit is to explore the importance of cultural traditions, practices, and values, and to experience what it looks like when they are challenged by outside cultures.

61

Students often come with some prior understanding of the European imperialist moments from the World History courses, and so, are able to place the story in a proper context. Proposed Unit 7. Unit title: Spirituality and Self. The major text for this unit is Siddhartha (Hesse, 2011; 1922), which has a Lexile Measure of 1010L. This novel takes place in ancient Nepal and tells the story of a young Brahmin’s (priest’s) son, Siddhartha, as he ventures out on a journey of self-discovery and enlightenment. Throughout the novel, Siddhartha’s observations and actions lead him through a gamut of emotional and spiritual experiences; he experiences sorrow, depression, joy, elation, boredom, frustration and seemingly everything in between. Hesse’s novel touches on various philosophical and cultural aspects of Buddhism and Hinduism. In the novel, Siddhartha explores the differences between being fully engaged with his environment and fully disconnected from it. As he nears enlightenment, Siddhartha attempts to understand the importance and power of knowledge, wisdom, and experience. This text is difficult for seniors to access, not because of the language or difficulty of the plot, but rather given the fact that, at this point in the year, many of them are having difficulty focusing on school. However, with the recurring theme of selfdiscovery, and finding one’s identity seen throughout this course, this unit serves as an excellent transition into the final unit of this course. These themes are prevalent throughout Hesse’s text. The essential questions for this unit are as follows: Where do we go in search of answers? What is the difference between wisdom, knowledge, and experience? How do we know what we are supposed to do and where we are supposed to go? This book fits perfectly with the many experiences and sentiments students have at this point in their

62

high school career. Through class discussions and activities, students will explore the impactful moments of Siddhartha’s journey and work to compare it to their own experiences (Dewey, 1938). Whether it because of money, school, family, or identity, many students at this point have apprehensions and concerns regarding the future; they care deeply about these issues and are excited to pursue them further (Kohn, 2011). Taking these essential questions into account and working to develop an understanding of the accompanying themes and topics will greatly benefit their post-high school experiences. Knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Additionally, students will be expected, throughout the unit, to personally connect to the ideas and obstacles laid out in Siddhartha’s path to enlightenment (Kohn, 2011). Original Unit 8. Unit title: Norwegian Drama and Realism. The major text for this unit is A Doll’s House (Ibsen, 1992), which does not have an available Lexile Measure. This short play by Henrik Ibsen takes place in 19th-century Norway and focuses on the life and actions of a young, excitable, housewife, Nora, and her husband Torvald, a middle-aged businessman. As much as she tries to be, Nora is not the typical Victorian housewife: she takes her own actions and makes her own decisions, without Torvald’s knowledge. Torvald, however, is a very typical man for his time, and expects Nora to obey his every word and love him unconditionally; in a way, he treats her as if she were a child or a toy. Unfortunately, this difference of ideals causes great conflict in

63

their marriage, particularly when one of Nora’s hastily-made decisions backfires on her unexpectedly. With this unit, the biggest complaint heard from students is not with regard to the language, but rather, to the pace and plot of the story. Many students grow either frustrated or disengaged with the concepts suggested in Ibsen’s writing. This play largely focuses on the role of feminism in society. Ibsen spends much of the play demonstrating how the actions of a free-thinking, albeit, naïve woman, per Victorian societal expectations, are detrimental to the happiness and success of a marriage and family. Furthermore, this play examines the importance of love, trust, and communication between spouses. It is quite evident to the audience that the actions of Nora, Torvald, and the other characters in the play would not be as harmful in their results if the characters had just communicated their opinions more clearly. Finally, the play touches on the “sins” of a parent can impact his or her children. Students are expected to have an understanding of Ibsen’s use of these themes – how he uses them and why they are important. Knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit are assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Proposed Unit 8. Unit title: This I Believe. There are no major texts for this unit, but students will be exposed to various supplemental (nonfiction) texts: speeches, belief statements, and videos from various cultures, historical figures, and figures of pop culture. Students will be writing a personal narrative or expositional piece in which they

64

make some kind of belief statement. They will use these supplemental texts and guides and mentor texts for that writing. As they read and write, students will explore the following essential questions: Who are you? What do you believe? So what? At the end of their high school careers, I remind my students that if they take anything away from my class, it is that I want them to be able to believe in something, understand where that belief comes from, and find a way to express that belief, that they use their experiences to shape these beliefs (Dewey, 1938). Throughout this unit, students examine the way in which other people express their beliefs and synthesize those ideas with their own. Additionally, they will use the conversations and essential questions from throughout year to guide their thoughts. The summative assessment for this unit is going to be a personal narrative or expositional piece of writing in which the students craft a statement of belief and share it with the class. This statement can be about a belief in anything as long as it is personal and thoroughly explained. As a result, students will often choose a topic in which they have vested deep interest (Kohn, 2011). As they read out loud their statements to the class, students are assessed on the clarity of their message, the creativity of their performance, and the content of their belief. Original Unit 9. Unit title: Asian Literature. The major text for this unit is Siddhartha (Hesse, 1957), which has a Lexile Measure of 1010L. While the synopsis has already been explained, the approach to this text within the original curricular framework was different from that previously mentioned in the new curricular framework. This is a novel of self-discovery. Hesse focuses on the origins of knowledge, the importance of experience, and power of truth. He suggested that peace and truth cannot be understood

65

through knowledge gained from teachers; if one seeks truth, it must be found through experience. These themes fit nicely with the sentiments that come with the end of a school year, and more importantly for the seniors in this class, with the end of high school. However, as mentioned in the section above, given the many distractions that seniors have at this time of year, many struggle to give the themes as much focus as the teachers would like them to. Knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit will be assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and literary analysis. Given the time constraints and the in-depth nature of the thematic units in the proposed curricular framework, there is no time for a 9th unit in this new curriculum. Connection to Bloom Cognitive domain. While not explicitly stated, the old curriculum does allow students some opportunities to utilize Bloom’s cognitive domain of learning objectives (Anderson, 2001), particularly with regard to the earlier half of the domain. While reading the texts for any given unit, students are expected to demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of the unit content during summative exams. This serves as a means of accountability for both the students and the teacher as this type of assessment will require students to gain exposure to the content in order to demonstrate mastery. Furthermore, while the format of the summative assessments mainly focuses on the knowledge and comprehension aspects of the cognitive domain, there are moments throughout many of these units wherein students are encouraged to access the higher

66

domain levels such as application, analysis, and synthesis. In the thematic analysis provided for each unit, there are a number of times when students are asked to “synthesize” what they are reading with their own opinions or experiences regarding the topics being discussed. Through the knowledge and comprehension levels, students glean information that they will then apply to synthesize with what they already understand of the situation. This type of focus is quite beneficial for students as the average high school senior is continually using their experiences, both in and outside of school, to develop and help form their own opinions (Anderson, 2001; Bloom, 1971). There are number of ways in which the cognitive domain is accessed in this curricular structure; there are, however, some ways in which it could improve. The fact that only one of the units in this curriculum is consists of a summative assessment that requires them to access the high levels of the cognitive domain should not bode well for this curriculum, and was one of the main reasons I felt it needed to be overhauled. If students are going to be expected to cognitively interact with content, they should be given an opportunity to fully demonstrate their expertise using the whole of the cognitive domain. In the new curricular framework, there is a much stronger appeal toward the learning objectives laid out in Bloom’s cognitive domain. As with the “old” curricular framework, there is still a strong emphasis on the aspects of the domain pertaining to knowledge and comprehension. In novels and major texts, students are still expected to develop an understanding characters and events, themes and symbols, and so on. The difference is that, in this new curricular framework, there are many more opportunities for students to access those higher levels of the cognitive domains. With the addition of

67

essential questions, an increase in writing assessments, and more overall opportunities for discussions about relevant and applicable topics, students are required to not only demonstrate their knowledge and comprehension, but also work to find ways of connecting it to their own opinions and the opinions expressed by other classmates, in supplemental writing, and the in the other major texts. The increased presence of collaborative activities, such as Socratic Seminars, allow for a more in-depth connections and application of the essential questions and topics. Affective domain. Reviewing this original curricular framework, one concept stands out more clearly than any other: the unit which students in which my observations showed deep student interest, namely the Middle Eastern and Contemporary Literature which featured The Kite Runner, was the one set up to appeal to the general interests and experiences of high school seniors, which falls in line with Bloom’s (1977) theory of affective appeals within education. In The Kite Runner, students are exposed to a protagonist to whom they can relate: Amir is deeply affected by choices he made when he was a young boy; he longs for the love of his father; he is jealous of his closest friend; he is flawed, human, real. Moreover, the broader themes in the novel are incredibly relevant to the world experiences faced by the students on a daily basis. In the news, on social media, in their history classes, the students hear about the problems in the Middle East, about Sunni and Shi’a. They discuss the problems of pain, sacrifice, sin, and redemption with their parents and their religious or spiritual leaders. These issues are prevalent and relevant to the lives of the students, which is one of the reasons this unit is so successful.

68

Other units, too, have similar affective connections with the students; none, however, are as direct. From their history classes, students understand the problems of imperialism as it is represented in Things Fall Apart, though they are often confused with the language and the Ibo culture. Additionally, students, particularly female students, empathize with the feminist protagonists in the units: Katherine from Taming of the Shrew, Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, and Nora from A Doll’s House. In fact, there are often complaints from students that we do “too much” feminist literature, that the topic is being forced upon them ad nauseam. Still, while this curricular framework does at times appeal to the affective desires and experiences of the students, a lot more could be done to help them become emotionally engaged in their education. As mentioned previously, the appeals to Bloom’s affective domain of learning objectives (1977) were one of the biggest concerns and areas of focus regarding this curriculum overhaul. As my World Literature team and I set out to develop this new curriculum, we wanted to make sure that it would ensure that the students were given ample opportunities to relate to the topics discussed in class; thus, those topics needed to be relevant and applicable to the world outside of the classroom. With this new framework, in particular, the changes in the style of assessment, and the emphasis on essential questions or themes, students are given ample opportunities to personalize their learning, and to clearly access their affective connections with the curricular content. As mentioned previously, while there were units that allowed for a more affective connection (i.e., dealing with sin and redemption in light of The Kite Runner), the new units developed in this curricular overhaul certainly make this type of access more available. The first unit of the year, for example, in its questions about origins of faith,

69

personal and cultural histories, encourages students to evaluate their prior understandings and beliefs regarding origins, religion, and philosophies in light of the cultures they study in class. Additionally, in units on humanity in crisis and social responsibility as supplemented with Escape from Camp 14, allow students to empathize with real people around the world who are suffering and develop a personal understanding as to where their own individual actions and beliefs can help determine a plan of action in response to these tragic realities. The fact that students are exposed to the stories of real people, or to ideas and texts that represent real world problems as seen in Things Fall Apart and Escape from Camp 14 automatically makes the content more accessible from an affective perspective. Furthermore, many of the new assessments developed for this framework encourage students to make personal connections to the materials learned in class. Rather than completing 100-point multiple choice exams in which they are asked reading comprehension and literary analysis questions that require nothing but rote memorization, assessments like the “Creation Myth Fan Fiction” narrative and the “This I Believe” statements allow students opportunities to demonstrate an understanding of a concept through their own clever and creative expression. These types of assessments truly serve as great examples as to how a focus on the affective can help improve the quality of the educational experiences that students will carry with them into the world outside of the classroom. Other Aspects of Curricular Change As we looked over the “old” curricular framework, my team and I decided that in the development of a “new” World Literature curricular framework, there were a number

70

of issues that needed to be addressed. We agreed that the alleviation of these issues, whether they were structural, content-related, ideological, or otherwise, would truly help to improve the quality of education students were receiving in our classes. Structural changes. One of the major changes needed in this curriculum overhaul is a shift in curricular focus. The “old” curricular framework tends to center solely on works of literature, focusing all instructional and academic energies on the content within the text. While that does make sense in a literature course, there is a lot more that can be done with curricular focus to make the course more relevant and applicable. In the newly proposed curriculum, I suggest switching focus from the works of literature to a broader theme or topic; the works of literature can then be used as a supplement to the students’ exploration. Making this shift would allow for more opportunities for students to apply what they are learning in their English classes to their lives outside of the classrooms. Focus on purpose. Another aspect of the curricular framework which had gone largely unnoticed in the years spent developing the “old” curriculum was the practice of allowing students to understand the purpose or educational objective for each unit of study. In order to solve this issue, we pursued the development of an essential question (or a group thereof) that the students could use to guide their learning all the way through to the summative assessments. Providing students with questions to consider that are different from simple reading comprehension questions allows them the read with a “purpose” and therefore, make the all of the units, particularly the ones with the more difficult texts, easier to access (Dewey, 1938). This is very different from the original model in which the students, per the summative assessments, were only required to know

71

the general information about the readings. When students work through a unit with an objective in mind, with relevant and applicable questions to answer, they are more likely to engage with the information being presented to them. This engagement will lead to a more critical and personalized approach to education; it will revolutionize the way students in our World Literature courses learn. Non-European focus. Much of what is taught in modern English classrooms derives from some European culture. To a certain extent, this is far from surprising: the origins of the English language lie deep in histories of European cultures and languages, so it only makes sense that in English classes, our curricula are more Anglo- and European-centric. Still, in our analysis of the “old” curricular framework, my team felt that the course couldn’t be called World Literature if other world cultures were not represented, particularly in light of the ever-increasing presence of globalization efforts in our current society. With that said, as Choo (2014) has argued, it was clear that our new curriculum needed to increase the amount of non-European texts to which students were exposed. Even more so, this new curriculum needed to include texts and ideas that were more global in nature. With those changes, the curriculum would lend itself more toward conversations more steeped in globalized ideals and current events. Depth over breadth. Another aspect that we wanted to consider in this curriculum overhaul process was the amount of texts being covered in class and the amount of time allotted to each. As we worked to develop this new curriculum, my team and I focused on the idea of curricular flexibility. We found that it the education conveyed in our classrooms was of a higher quality if the students were given more time with each unit. The “old” framework was packed full of units and books, which provided

72

a great deal of exposure between students and texts; more often that not, however, it also meant that units were rushed to completion, with no real regard for the status of student learning. In the “new” curricular framework, then, we decided to throw some units away and use that time to extend some of the other units. Even with just a few additional days added to each unit, students will have more time to spend developing an in-depth focus and appreciation for the ideas being discussed. Writing assessments. One of the district-mandated changes that were thrust upon my World Literature team and me this year was an increase in the number of writing assessments required per year. Looking over the “old” framework, it was evident that writing was not a major focus of this course. We realized that if we were going to be required to give more writing assessments, it would be a good opportunity to differentiate the means at which we were assessing our students over all. The increase of more writing assessments, whether formal or informal, in-class or fully processed, supports the desire for a more purpose-driven educational experience and assessments in which students are asked to synthesize the ideas examined throughout the unit with their own (Kohn, 2011; Dewey, 1938). In an English course shifting away from a text-centered to a themecentered focus, this type of individualized, creative assessment is a much more valid measurement of student learning when compared to a multiple-choice exam. Summary of Analysis As my team met to discuss the quality of the “old” curricular framework, it was clear that certain changes needed to be made in order to improve the quality of education our students were receiving. Looking back over this comparison of both frameworks, there are a lot of encouraging aspects to the work we have accomplished. Students are

73

clearly given more time with the content. They are purpose-driven in their academic pursuits, largely due to the focus of the essential questions and the increased presence of theme-based assessments. The curriculum, unit structure and text choice allow are built out of relevance and application instead of limited to a rigid literary canon. Taking into consideration the changes that were made, this new framework answers or at least attempts to answer many of those initial concerns. As with any collaborative effort though, there were a number of points of frustration, defeat, and curricular sacrifices that were made as a result of this process, more of which I will outline in the concluding chapter of this study. By and large, however, the changes outlined here are good and very encouraging to for the future of the educational process at my school site.

74

Curriculum Map Comparison Below is a curriculum map (Table 4) that allows a side-by-side comparison of the two curricular frameworks. The map explains, in brief, the major texts and assessments for each unit. As expressed above, not all units from the original framework were removed in the proposed curriculum; however, those that were kept were likely moved or their time extended based on their relevance and the in-depth nature of the proposed units and assessments. Table 4.

Unit Title Major Work(s) (with Lexile measure and synopsis)

Curriculum Framework Side-by-Side Comparison Old Curriculum Unit 1 – Weeks 1-4 Journeys of Discovery

Proposed Curriculum Unit 1 – Weeks 1-4 Tracing Our Origins

There are three major works that

Selections from A Dictionary of

comprise this unit:

Creation Myths (Leeming, 1994). Lexile

Allegory of the Cave from The

Measure: NA

Republic (Plato & Allen, 2006)

Allegory of the Cave from The Republic

Lexile Measure: 1160L.

(Plato & Allen, 2006) Lexile Measure:

Selected Cantos from Inferno

1160L.

from The Divine Comedy (Dante & Palma, 2002), Lexile Measure: 1120L.

Summative 100-question multiple-choice Assessment exam.

Two parts:

75

•

Creation Myth Group Presentation

•

“Fan Fiction” Narrative Story

Unit Title

Unit 2 – Weeks 5-9 Satire and French Literature

Unit 2 – Weeks 5-9 Dealing with Change

Major Candide (Voltaire & Kent, Work(s) (with 2002) Lexile Measure: 1110L. Lexile rating and synopsis) Summative Two parts: Assessment • 100-question multiple-

Things Fall Apart (Achebe, 1996). Lexile Measure: 890L

Two parts: •

choice exam. •

Unit Title Major Work(s) (with Lexile rating and synopsis)

on the major readings of this unit

In-class essay

•

Major Work(s) (with Lexile rating and

Summative Socratic Seminar

Unit 3 – 10-12 American Drama

Unit 3 – Weeks 10-13 Interpreting Misinformation.

A Streetcar Named Desire

Othello (Shakespeare & Honigmann,

(Williams, 1947). Lexile

2002). Lexile Measure: NP (Non-Prose)

Measure: NA.

Summative 100-question multiple-choice Assessment exam.

Unit Title and Focus

70-question multiple-choice exam

In-class essay synthesis essay

Unit 4 – Weeks 13-18 Contemporary and Middle

Unit 4 – Weeks 14-18 Sin and Redemption / Impacting the

Eastern Literature

Lives of Others

The Kite Runner (Hosseini,

The Kite Runner (Hosseini, 2005).

2005). Lexile Measure: 840L

Lexile Measure: 840L

76

synopsis) Summative 100-question multiple-choice Assessment exam.

100-question multiple-choice exam.

Semester Break Unit 5 – Week 1 Unit Title and Focus

Unit 5 – Weeks 1-5

University of California

Fate and Free Will

Analytical Writing Placement Exam (Essay) Major There are no major texts for this Antigone (Sophocles & Woodruff, Work(s) (with unit. 2001). Lexile Measure: 1090L Lexile rating and synopsis) Summative In-class expositional essay Mock Trial with specifically assigned Assessment roles and responsibilities

Unit 6 – Weeks 2-4 Unit Title and Focus Major Work(s) (with Lexile rating and synopsis) Summative Assessment

Unit 6 – Weeks 6-11

Shakespearean Drama

Humanity in Crisis

Taming of the Shrew

Escape from Camp 14 (Harden, 2012).

(Shakespeare et al., 2000) Lexile Lexile Measure: 1130L. Measure: NP (Non-Prose) 100-question multiple-choice

Fully processed argumentative essay.

exam.

Unit 7 – Weeks 5-9

Unit 7 – Weeks 12-15

77

Unit Title and Focus Major Work(s) (with Lexile rating and synopsis) Summative Assessment

African Literature

Spirituality and Self

Things Fall Apart (Achebe,

Siddhartha (Hesse, 1951). Lexile

1996). Lexile Measure: 890L

Measure: 1010L

100-question multiple-choice

100-question multiple-choice exam.

exam.

Unit 8 – Weeks 10-13 Unit Title and Focus Major Work(s) (with Lexile rating and synopsis) Summative Assessment

Unit 8 – Weeks 16-18

Norwegian Drama and Realism

This I Believe

A Doll’s House (Ibsen et al.,

Various supplemental (nonfiction) texts.

2008). Lexile Measure: NP

No Lexile measure available.

(non-prose rating) 100-question multiple-choice

Personal narrative or expositional piece

exam.

of writing

Unit 9 – Weeks 14-18 Unit Title and Focus Major Work(s) (with Lexile rating and synopsis) Summative Assessment

Asian Literature

No Unit 9 in this curricular framework.

Siddhartha (Hesse, 1951).

The extra time is given to the other units

Lexile Measure: 1010L

as a means of allowing a more in-depth focus on the themes, texts, and topics covered in each.

100-question multiple-choice exam.

78

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion This study began by taking note of the antiquated and difficult curricular framework that was in place when I began teaching World Literature courses a few years ago. In my first year of teaching the course, I found it difficult to explain to the students the reasoning behind the text choices and the curricular structure they were being exposed to which we all found confusing and quite frustrating; without an expressed curricular purpose or planned application, my credibility as an instructor began to dissipate and the students became disengaged. After doing some research, I found that the curriculum for that course had not seen any real curricular update in over a decade and that most of my colleagues who also taught World Literature could not, for the most part, express any real connection or purpose as to why the course was structured the way it was. From these observations, the following questions arose: Would an expressed purpose help students engage at a deeper level their educational experience? Would a more relevant and thematically focused curriculum provide the same type of rigor as seen in a more rigid, canon-based curriculum? Are there means of assessing student progress, understanding, and comprehension that are more engaging than what is done in a multiple choice test? Should student interest be a factor in curriculum development? This chapter will discuss answers to these questions in light of the research and analysis conducted as a part of this study. The comparison and analysis of the old and new curricular frameworks have significant implications as to the direction in which educational policy and practice is currently headed. Further, this study, while applicable to the current educational environment of my students, contains certain limitations that need to be taken into account when considering the larger spectrum of education.

79

Specifically, one must consider the instructional differences and collaborative difficulties experienced between my colleagues and myself throughout this development process. Next, I explain the ways in which additional research might further support the claims stated in this study. Finally, before providing a summative description of the study, I will attempt to make connections to the larger realm of educational theory and curriculum development to show how this study fits into that broader context. Importance of the Study In light of current educational policy and major shifts in structure and assessment, educators at all levels will be increasingly encouraged to participate in curricular developments that require a shift from a rigid curricular structure to one that is more fluid and relevant. This is particularly pertinent in light of the CCSS that are in the process of being rolled out at the time this study was conducted (National Governors Association, 2009). Furthermore, educational theorists such as John Dewey (1915: 2001) and Alfie Kohn (2011) have been speaking of this increased curricular flexibility for years. With that said, the framework developed for the purpose of this study serves as a useful stepping stone to any educator beginning to make these changes. Moreover, the information contained in this study is incredibly pertinent on a local level. Education is a ubiquitously changing entity, with new students, texts, and educators entering the field on a yearly basis, if not more frequently than that. Despite this fluid nature of education, the observations conducted at my school site suggested that the World Literature course in particular was stuck and in dire need of a curricular overhaul. The national educational process is mired in debates about policy and testing; the structure of the current system allows for curricular improvements, such as the ones

80

suggested in this study, to be made at the local level, making this study, therefore, all the more applicable and relevant. This study examines the ways in which educators can utilize the current shifts in educational structure and policy to implement much needed changes with regard to the curriculum provided in classrooms. By comparing an antiquated curricular framework with a new, theme-based framework, directed by relevance and purpose, this study helps to inform the larger discussion about the need for curricular shifts in our English courses. By focusing on relevance and affective connections between the students and the curriculum, this study acknowledges the concept that students should be a central focus of any educational improvement. Implications of the Study Prior to this study, I observed a dearth of student interest and engagement in my World Literature courses. Given that the curriculum had not been updated in nearly a decade, I wondered whether a shift in curricular focus would improve that situation. By moving away from an essentialist focus that emphasized canonical works of literature, reading comprehension, and rote memorization (Gutek, 1981), toward a more Progressive focus on life application and relevance, I hoped to change the structure of the course for the better. That being said, the results of this study point to certain suggestions that educators, administrators, and educational policymakers can use in the educational reform and curriculum development process. While the curricular structure is focused solely on a World Literature course, the implications herein can be easily applied to the whole of educational realm.,

81

Canonical works have their place in English classrooms, as do contemporary texts. The fact that Shakespeare is the only author explicitly required by the CCSS alongside the fact that there is to be an increased exposure to and analysis of informational and nonfiction texts in classrooms (National Governors Association, 2009) is proof enough of that. With that said, there are two additional implications that arose from this study whose importance should be taken into account. The first is that students require a specific purpose to guide their learning. One of the best aspects of the new curricular framework is that from the beginning to the end of each unit, students know exactly what they need to be looking for and thinking about as they strive to develop a mastery of the content. Purpose helps provide a foundation from which they can build their understanding. This type of guidance can be done through the introduction of essential questions to guide learning and the use summative assessments like in-class essay, group projects, or creative writing pieces that differ from the arguably archaic 100-point reading comprehension exams. With access to different means of demonstrating mastery and understanding of a specific topic, and with an explicit purpose made clear from the beginning, students will be more engaged with the content and more successful in their education. In addition to purpose and differentiated means of fulfilling that purpose, this study suggests that, in choosing texts for a given curriculum, more of an emphasis should be placed on student interest and relevance instead of on lexile measurement. While there is great merit in the use of lexile measurement to determine whether or not a text is justifiable for a given grade level, the framework developed for this study suggests that the content of the text is more important. It will be more beneficial if students are reading

82

a text that is a little below their suggested lexile measurement if that text consists of themes and topics that are both relevant and rigorous in nature, as opposed to a text that whose language is complex and challenging but whose content is not relevant to the lives of the students. Per Bloom (1956, 2001), the development of an affective connection between content and learner makes a crucial impact on educational success. Finally, the development of this framework suggests that time is an important aspect of curricular development and effectiveness. In the frameworks compared as a part of this study, one of the major differences was an increase in the depth at which a student was expected to go regarding content mastery. In the “old” curriculum, students were mostly expected to reach the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s cognitive domain. The “new” framework, though, expects students to move up to higher levels of the domain. This extension would not work if the unit structure from the “old” framework was kept. Higher levels of cognitive and affective connections require more time and energy. That being said, the implication of the new framework is that teachers and students should spend more time with less content. Assigning fewer texts is an acceptable sacrifice if it means that students are able to thoroughly individualize and master the content and concepts to which they are being exposed. Furthermore, this study suggests that different units require different amounts of time. Some concepts are more difficult to grasp, or require more scaffolding, and the opposite is also true. Spending one month on a work of literature and then moving on to the next one just to maintain curricular flow does not always allow for an optimal learning experience. Curriculum development is and always has been a difficult issue for educators to tackle, given that there are a number of schools of thought on how and what students

83

should learn in their classrooms. Still, though, the implications of this study and the research contained in the literature review chapter (Dewey, 1938, 1944; Kohn, 2011; ) has suggested that the best type of curriculum is one that is centered on the needs, abilities, and interests of the students. While there is a place for complex texts, reading comprehension assessment, and the literary canon, it is of the utmost importance that students are able to access and personalize the content to which they are being exposed. Additionally, in light of that accessibility and individuality, this study and the research herein suggest that a curriculum should not only be relevant to the culture of its students, but it should also be relevant to the culture of the school in which it is being taught. Therefore, the curriculum that works for one school might not work for another. This study is based on the characteristics and interests gleaned through observations at my school site; it works, at least in part, for the culture of my school. While it has much to offer educators in the curriculum development process, there should be a big push toward developing a curriculum that is connected and relevant to one’s own educational community. Personal Limitations As mentioned in the previous chapter, there were a number of limitations that hindered the full and thorough development of the new curricular framework. Those issues stemmed from points of disagreement and collaborative failings between my World Literature colleagues and myself. Collaboration. There are myriad factors that go into the development of an effective curriculum. While unit structure, accessibility, educational theory, and instructional frameworks are the primary concerns of the development process, one must

84

also take into consideration the people who will be teaching the curriculum. A curricular framework is only as effective as the educator who uses it in his or her classroom. With that said, while the curriculum overhaul process was successful in that at least some changes were made, there were a number of issues that presented themselves as I worked with my colleagues to look critically at the old curricular framework and to develop a new curriculum for our World Literature courses. Using anecdotes, I explain herein how some issues affected the planning process and the overall effectiveness of the new curriculum. Resistance to change. Education is an all-encompassing occupation. Despite what critics say about long breaks and summers off, a teacher’s job is never done. With that said, one of the greatest challenges one might face when attempting to overhaul a whole curricular framework is a resistance to change. Given that teachers put so much time and physical and creative energy into honing and developing their craft, they are often reluctant to make changes after putting so much into that which they are already teaching. They often develop a routine and become comfortable with what they are doing, embracing the old idiom, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” However, the problem with such a mentality is that education is an ever-changing entity. No two schools, no two classes, no two students are ever the same; the needs, demands, and expectations are in a constant state of flux. Therefore, when teachers become complacent in their classrooms, it can come across as self-satisfying and, at times, neglectful. The focus of education shifts from the needs and strengths of the students to the comfort and contentment of the teacher.

85

This was the first and biggest issue I encountered with my World Literature cohort as we began working to develop a new, truly more effective curriculum. Despite the fact that our curriculum overhaul was fully-supported and mandated by both our school site and district administration, from the onset, I felt an immense amount of pushback from a majority of my World Literature colleagues any time I suggested or theorized any type of major curricular change, making the process very frustrating from the very beginning. The resistance to change that I encountered during this overhaul process was largely the result of two factors: experience and a lack of financial support. A majority of my World Literature cohort was made up of teachers admittedly either on the verge of retirement or jaded by their teaching experiences, simply waiting for something else to come along. They were career educators with decades of teaching experience and have my utmost respect. However, because they were so close to the end of their teaching careers, they were openly resistant to many of the suggested changes or modifications the curriculum they had taught and become comfortable with since the last curricular overhaul of World Literature over a decade prior. While I could see the reasoning behind their sentiments, it was crucial, for the sake of all World Literature students at our school site, that we structure this curriculum in a way that would allow for instructional equity from classroom to classroom; our administration expected us to develop a curriculum in which we were all teaching and assessing the same topics, texts, and skills. Ergo, while we did still make some phenomenal strides, some curricular sacrifices had to be made so as to maintain equity and the status quo.

86

Another factor that helped to manifest a resistance to change was an initial lack of financial support from our administration. As English teachers, we are given two paid planned learning community (PLC) days a year in which we can meet as a cohort and work on curricular goals and planning. While a lot is often accomplished on these days, two days is nowhere near enough time to effectively overhaul and restructure a curriculum. Therefore, a lot of the planning that we are required to do ends up taking place outside of the school schedule (weekends, after school, breaks, etc.), especially when trying to develop a whole new curriculum. Initially, when we began talking about the curriculum-planning process, finances we a concern across the board. People in the group we very resistant to the idea of spending time working outside of the normal school schedule if they were not going to be financially compensated for it. As the group leader, I took this concern to my department chair and to the administration, and was able to procure a small amount of financial compensation for the work we were planning to do. The amount was, however, still quite small, and the while the group decided to meet and plan during the financially-allotted time slots, when the money was gone, the group was gone soon after. This greatly hindered the curriculum development process. We were much less effective than we could have been had we chosen to not let finances determine the amount of work we were going to accomplish. Collaboration breakdown. Most educators choose to emphasize collaboration in their classrooms because they are aware of the benefits that come from working with a diverse group of people in accomplishing a goal or completing a task. This practice often will permeate the walls and structure of the classroom and teachers will find themselves

87

making great efforts to collaborate with their colleagues. There is an immense amount of benefits in these collaborative environments. As we worked to develop this new curriculum, I knew that collaboration was going to be a key factor in the success and effectiveness of our final product. The type of in-depth, deep-rooted overhaul that my administration and I were hoping to happen was only going to happen if my cohort worked together to complete the task. The problem, however, was that, over the years, the World Literature courses at my school site had become incredibly individualistic and insular; other than reading (mostly) the same texts and semi-common summative assessments, there was quite literally no real collaboration taking place from teacher to teacher. Following the sentiment that there was no need to curriculum development or improvement, teachers felt that there was no real need for collaboration. As long as all of the classes were reading the same books and taking similar texts, everything was good. With that said, when the opportunity to update and overhaul the World Literature curriculum, the responsibility fell to me to find a way to unite the classrooms that were for so long incredibly separated. As we went through the initial planning process, in light of the aforementioned resistance to change, I found much of the burden of curricular responsibility placed on my shoulders. Given that I was the assigned leader of the group and front-runner in the curriculum overhaul movement, I was initially okay with that fact; I did not mind doing the grunt work. As the process continued, though, I quickly realized that, as I mentioned earlier, this overhaul was not going to be effective unless everyone was on board and working together to accomplish it. Thus, I began working to find a way to inspire a sense of unity and camaraderie within the group. I arranged for some

88

financial compensation; I offered to do great deal of the foundation building and ground work that was needed, leaving the onus of creativity and innovation for them to pick up; I even provided food and beverages at meetings. My ears were continually open to suggestions and criticism. I wanted them to realize that this was as much their own project as it was mine. My efforts, for most part, failed. We did meet, and we did accomplish an overhaul of sorts; but throughout the process, the group felt incredibly disjointed. It was as if most of them were there out of obligation to their employment, not out of a genuine desire to make changes and improve education. In meetings, we would discuss making changes ubiquitously and holistically as a cohort; however, back in the classrooms, once the school year began, much of what we discussed was set aside and people reverted back to their old plans, the ones they knew and were comfortable with. The impact of this on the changes we had originally set out to make was much greater than I had originally anticipated. It is my opinion that the most effective of the frameworks encountered on my journey were those which took into account the strengths, abilities, and interests of the students accessing the curriculum as well as the teacher facilitating learning. Curricula that focus on the students rather than texts or tests have, in my opinion, a much greater impact on student learning. With that said, going into this study, I was determined to develop a curriculum that met those expectations and prioritized the needs and interests of the students before the Assessing assessments. Additionally, the shift from the California State Content Standards to the CCSS proved difficult with our World Literature curriculum. For years,

89

our students were given high-stakes multiple-choice exams as the summative assessments for almost all of our units. These exams, though, did not allow for much demonstration of skill mastery or application and synthesis of knowledge. That being said, for part of this curriculum overhaul, we had trouble determining exactly how to go about assessing students without creating too much work for ourselves. While we ended up leaving a couple of our multiple-choice summative assessments untouched, we added five new writing assessments – three processed, two in-class – that would allow students to show their mastery of a skill as well as their understanding of any topic covered in class. We also added a number of collaborative group-based assessments that provided students with opportunities to express their mastery of a given skill through a more individualized, divergent approach. Future Direction of Study per Study Limitations A major component of this study was the appeal to Bloom’s affective domain of educational objectives. While this was a crucial point of justification for the development of the new World Literature frame, it was a hard to find evidence to support these claims outside of my own anecdotal observations. This study suggests the need for further research into the affective connection between students and curriculum, particularly regarding the unit structure developed in this new framework. Anecdotal evidence from students, quantitative and qualitative data derived from assessments, and other outside evidence would help to solidify any changes that were suggested in this study. Furthermore, given that education is constantly changing, this additional research would serve as a good means of assessing the next steps in creating a relevant and applicable

90

curricular framework, especially given the sacrifices made for this study as a result of the aforementioned personal limitations. Additionally, while it does provide some metric to assess the difficulty and complexity of texts, lexile measurements were not available for all of the works of literature that are included in either framework. This study suggests that an additional form of textual assessment could be useful in evaluating the effectiveness and accessibility of a text. The more information provided regarding a specific text, the more specific the justification and placement of that text in a given curricular structure can be. Trends in Progressivism As mentioned previously, the current focus of educational policy is shifting greatly toward providing students with a more relevant and applicable educational experience. While public debate and acceptance of the CCSS is still ongoing, there is a definite notion that education is changing. This study serves as a supplement to the conversation regarding the shift in the state of education. Through the research and the analysis of results provided herein, this study critically supports the popularly increasing notion that education structures and curricula need to take student interest and relevance into consideration. This sentiment continues in the conversation began by progressive educators and educational theorists such as John Dewey, Theodore R. Sizer, Alfie Kohn, and Diane Ravitch, who have worked thoroughly to explore further develop the prominence and popularity of progressive education on the national level. This study attempts to connect these progressive sentiments and theories to today’s high school English classrooms. The cogent analysis of research and results provides insight into how curricular structure can influence student learning. While it is

91

limited in scope and specific to the World Literature courses as my school site, it serves as a useful example as to how the progressive emphasis on student interest, relevance, and application can be applied to an average high school classroom. Summary and Conclusion In summary, this study attempts to provide an example of how a curricular structure with a focus on student interest and relevance can be successful. Curriculum development has long been a point of debate amongst educators, particularly with regard to the value and importance of thematic focuses and textual relevance (Dewey, 1938; Labree, 2005). Despite the historical emphasis on the traditional Essentialist focus on the core academic subjects, more people are beginning to realize that learning is better achieved when students can relate to and understand the content to which they are being exposed (Choo, 2011; Kohn 2005, 2011), as opposed to simply memorizing it for an exam. It is ever more imperative, then, that educators utilize structures and develop curricular frameworks that represent this growing notion. Furthermore, this study aims to explain the various sacrifices that must be made in order to successfully develop a curricular structure that appeals to the needs and interests of students. It points out that a major aspect of curricular development is finding the time, resources, and curricular inspiration to honestly and effectively incite curricular change. Just as students need proper academic support in the classroom, teachers also require support from administrators should they want to truly develop impactful and effective curricular frameworks. By utilizing these ideas in the development of a new curricular framework, I hope that this study will help support educators seeking curricular change

92

and provide them with a starting point from which they can build their own relevant and applicable curriculum. Moreover, after developing this new curriculum and implementing some of it in my classroom, I found my research to suggest the following implications. First, I found that shifting curricular focus from texts of the literary cannon to contemporary, commonly experienced themes or ideas provided more opportunities for student engagement, expression and skill building. Second, it was very clear that the addition of diverse types of summative assessments create openings for a strong affective connection between student and content. This addition places an emphasis on rhetorical flexibility, multi-genre literacy, and other skills that will prepare students for their college and career experiences. Third, I found that the expressed curricular purpose drives student focus and interest throughout the curricular experience. Finally, it was clear that depth over breadth, with regard to the amount of texts in a curriculum, allows for a more cognitive and affection relationship between student and content. Post Script: Responses to Initial Rollout of the Proposed Framework In the last school year, I have begun to rollout in my World Literature courses the proposed framework discussed in this study. Despite the aforementioned obstacles anticipated in this study, the responses from students and colleagues have been quite enthusiastic regarding the rollout thus far. While there are certainly some issues that will need further development and scaffolding, the new thematic focuses and increase of applicable and relevant assessments have produced a number of impactful formative and summative moments and discussions in which students have demonstrated a deep, personal investment in the curriculum and an overall excitement regarding their

93

educational experiences. My colleagues, while still somewhat hesitant in light of the amount work that these curricular shifts have created for them, are also very excited about the quality of the work and discussions their students are bringing forth in their classes. This exciting opportunity to put into practice the ideas of Dewey (1938), Kohn (2011), and their Progressive colleagues, in an effort to make the educational experiences of our students increasingly relevant and applicable, has been and continues to be an amazing turning point in the curricular structuring of English courses at my school site. I am very excited to continue in this pursuit of a curricular framework that connects with the lives of my students and to assist other educators as they work to develop similar frameworks in their classes.

94

References Achebe, C. (1996). Things fall apart (Expanded ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Anderson, L. W. (1999). Rethinking Bloom's taxonomy: Implications for testing and assessment. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Anderson,  Lorin  W.;  Krathwohl,  David  R.,  eds.  (2001).  A  taxonomy  for  learning,   teaching,  and  assessing:  A  revision  of  Bloom's  taxonomy  of  educational   objectives.  New  York,  NY:  Allyn  and  Bacon Aviles, C. B. (2000). Teaching and testing for critical thinking with Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Buffalo, NY: Buffalo State College. Baines, L. (2011). Stalinizing American education. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org Bloom, B. S. (1977). Affective outcomes of school learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 59(3), 193-198. Bloom, B. S., & et al. (1971). Handbook on formative and fummative evaluation of student learning. Burdick, J. (2012). The legacy of "A Nation at Risk": Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533909. Choo, S. S. (2011). On literature's use(ful/less)ness: Reconceptualizing the literature curriculum in the age of globalization. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 4767. Choo, S. S. (2014). Cultivating a hospitable imagination: Re-envisioning the world literature curriculum through a cosmopolitan lens. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 6889.

95

Clark, D. (2014). Bloom's taxonomy of learning domains. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html Clark, S. (1968). Color me complete and sequential: The curriculum builder's game adapted for the secondary English program. Champaign,IL: National Council of Teachers of English Cochran, D., & Conklin, J. (2007). A new bloom: Transforming learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(5), 22-25. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: "Student voice" in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. Costa, A. L. (2008). The thought-filled curriculum. Educational Leadership, 65(5). 20-24 Dante, A. (2002). Inferno. M. Palma, (Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Department of Education. (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-five years after "A Nation at Risk”. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Dewey, J. (1915: 2001) School and society & The child and curriculum. New York, NY: Dover Publications. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Gangi, J. M., & Reilly, M. A. (2013). Laying bare of questions which have been hidden by answers: The English language arts standards of the Common Core, K-5. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 23(1), 7-19. Garnett, N. A. (1998). Cognition and affect for successful FLES programs: Are both domains vital? Hispania, 81(2), 373-378.

96

Glass, L. W.(1970). Assessment of affective outcomes of instruction with high school sophomore biology students and teachers. Iowa City, IA: Iowa University. Goldstein, D. (2014). Teacher wars: A history of America's most embattled profession. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw –Hill. Griffith, P. L., & et al. (1992). Student-curriculum maps: Applying the Rasch model to curriculum and instruction. Journal of Research in Education, 2(1), 13-22. Grossman, T., Reyna, R., Shipton, S., & National Governors Association, (2011). Realizing the potential: How governors can lead effective implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices. Guisbond, L. (2012). NCLB's lost decade for educational progress: What can we learn from this policy failure?. Jamaica Plain, MA: National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest). Guskey, T. R. (2001). Benjamin S. Bloom's contributions to curriculum, instruction, and school learning. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Gutek, G. L., & Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation, B. I. (1981). Basic education: A historical perspective. Fastbook 167. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. Harden, B. (2012). Escape from Camp 14: One man's remarkable odyssey from North Korea to freedom in the West. New York: Viking. Hesse, H. (1951). Siddhartha. New York: New Directions. Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending

97

the strengths of Bloom's taxonomy and Webb's depth of knowledge to enhance classroom-level processes. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517804. Hosseini, K. (2005). The kite runner. New York: Riverhead Books. Hunt, J. W. (2008). "A Nation at Risk" and no child left behind: Deja vu for administrators? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 580-585. Ibsen, H (2008). A doll's house (Rev. ed.). M. L. Meyer, & N. Worrall, (Eds.). London: Methuen Drama. Knapp, C. E. (1994). Progressivism never died, it just moved outside: What can experiential educators learn from the past? Journal of Experiential Education, 17(2), 8-12. Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 20-24. Kohn, A. (2011). Ten obvious truths that we shouldn't be ignoring. Education Digest, 77(1), 11-16. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: McKay Co., Inc. Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41(1/2), 275-288. doi: 10.1080/0030923042000335583 Ladd, H. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 203-227. Leeming, D. A., & Leeming, M. A. (1995). A dictionary of creation myths. New York: Oxford University Press.

98

Metametrics. (2014). The lexile framework for reading: Matching readers with texts., Retrieved from https://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/gradeequivalent-chart/ Nasstrom, G. (2009). Interpretation of standards with Bloom's revised taxonomy: A comparison of teachers and assessment experts. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 39-51. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, W. D. C. (2001). No child left behind act of 2001. Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. 107th Congress, 1st Session. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk : the imperative for educational reform : a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: The Commission : [Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor]. National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). About the Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/ Newell, G. E., & Sweet, M. (1999). "Headed into more and more important things": Transforming a World Literature curriculum. English Journal, 88(5), 38-44. Newsweek. (2014). America's top high schools: 2014. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/high-schools/americas-top-schools-2014 Pierre, E., & Oughton, J. (2007). The affective domain: Undiscovered country. College Quarterly, 10(4), 1-7. Plato (2006). The republic. R. E. Allen (Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to kill 'No Child Left Behind'. Education Digest, 75(1), 4-6.

99

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books. Savickiene, I. (2010). Conception of learning outcomes in the Bloom's taxonomy affective domain. Quality of Higher Education, 7(1), 37-59. Shakespeare, W. (2002). Othello. E. A. J. Honigmann (Ed.). London: Thomson. Shakespeare, W. (2000). The taming of the shrew. W., B. Morris, G. R. Proudfoot, A. Thompson, & D. S. Kastan (Eds.). London: AS. Shanahan, T. (2013a). Letting the text take center stage: How the Common Core State Standards will transform English language arts instruction. American Educator, 37(3), 4-11. Shanahan, T. (2013b). The Common Core ate my baby and other urban legends. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 10-16. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Sophocles (2001). Antigone. P. Woodruff (Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Sunderman, G. L., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. M. A. (2006). The unraveling of no child left behind: How negotiated changes tansform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Tagliaferro, H. (2012). The power of collaboration: Connecting the classroom to the real world. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22(1), 49-51. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, (1998). A nation "still" at risk. An Education Manifesto. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Toscano, M. (2013). The Common Core: Far from home. Academic Questions, 26(4),

100

411-428. Voltaire (2002). Candide. R. Kent (Ed.). New York: Modern Library. Williams, T. (1947). A streetcar named Desire. New York: New Directions. Zhao, Y. (2006). Are we fixing the wrong things? Educational Leadership, 63(8), 28-31.

101