Northfield Township English/Language Arts Articulation Report
Susan Levine-Kelley
Edward Solis
Helene Spak
Cathy Terdich
February 2010
1
INTRODUCTION
RATIONALE
The teaching of the humanities is vital in the twenty-first century. Today, students’ attentions are
pulled in multiple directions; the language arts give us the opportunity to bring focus and passion
to students’ lives. The language skills of reading fiction and non-fiction, writing, vocabulary,
speaking and listening are at the very foundation of all education and at the center of language
arts/English instruction. Literature gives each of us the opportunity to stand in the shoes of
another person, to develop empathy and understand the world in a way that would not otherwise
be possible. The ability to express ourselves in an articulate, thoughtful, logical way requires the
critical thinking and analytical skills that are called upon every day in the classrooms of our
Northfield Township middle schools and high schools.
The Northfield Township Language Arts/English Articulation process has given the teachers of
our Township the chance to assess our curriculum and practice to ensure that high quality
instruction continues and improves as the challenges of the twenty-first century continue to
emerge. To accomplish this charge, the exploration focused on three questions:



What do students need to know and be able to do as a result of the study in English to be
successful in the emerging and changing global society?
Where is current curriculum and instructional practice in English in the Township in
terms of meeting those standards?
What recommendations can be made after analysis of research and current Township
curriculum and instructional practices?
To begin answering these questions the committee used four documents as our foundation:
Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century by the Alliance for Excellent Education,
To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence by the National Endowment of the
Arts and Learning for the 21st Century by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. The committee
also looked for guidance in National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading
Association Standards for the Language Arts, the College Board College Readiness Standards
and the Illinois Assessment Framework.
The foundation of these documents led the committee to further best practice research in (1)
reading and literature and (2) communication including writing, listening, speaking, and
vocabulary. The committee made the decision to divide the research in each area into three
sections: content, instruction and assessment. Technology with attention to twenty-first century
skills was a segment for all areas in the study. The research is summarized below.
READING
Literature arts educators must help students approach the job of constructing meaning while
reading. Teachers must explicitly point out that people read for different purposes. Helping
students to acknowledge that reading for pleasure can be different than reading for academic
2
purposes might assist in managing their expectations. This distinction assists students in
realizing that every reading task involves a different level of critical engagement.
Teachers must explicitly teach students the unique nature of the varied types of texts they will
encounter, and must therefore present various genres to students. Teachers are thus able to
inform students’ pre-reading expectations and their choices of strategic approaches during the
reading process. It is also important to note that student access to a variety and volume of texts
is ever-expanding in the 21st century.
Educators must also acknowledge the implications of what they choose to ask students to read.
Teachers must ask, when evaluating the scope of chosen texts, who is doing the writing? Who is
left out? Who is included and who is not? As anti-racist educators Emily Style and Enid Lee
point out, teachers have an obligation to present a multicultural versus mono-cultural selection of
texts, to widen student perspectives with “windows” into less familiar territory, and at the same
time, to “mirror” familiar aspects of their own experiences.
Because reading is a process of constructing meaning through interactions between readers and
writers, strategies that promote this interaction enhance reading comprehension. Reading and
writing, furthermore, are reciprocal processes and should not be separated (Rief 2007). During
instruction, students both read and produce texts (Smagorinsky 2008). People who read get
better at writing; people who write get better at reading (NCTE 2004). Reading allows one to
synthesize prior knowledge with new knowledge; writing allows one to create texts that reflect
that knowledge (Smagorinsky 2008). The use of patterns in both reading and writing helps
students to comprehend and produce ideas more efficiently (Weinstein 2001).
Similarly, vocabulary plays an important part in reading comprehension. As early as 1924,
researchers noted that growth in reading meant continuous growth in word knowledge (Whipple
1925). Direct vocabulary instruction improves comprehension, but prior knowledge and
experience support increased vocabulary knowledge (Allen 1999).
Assessments in reading need to have a purpose and must be construed in a way that makes it so
that a student has a way out and doesn’t feel trapped. Throughout the school year, students’
reading processes should be assessed in an ongoing manner through meaningful formative and
summative assessments. All assessments should have a purpose.
“Teachers who know their students and the curriculum well and use this knowledge to diversify
instruction to meet students’ needs enhance the process of learning to read” (Wolf 1988). In
order to get a true assessment of where a student starts and ends throughout the year, teachers
need to ask: How do we know a student individually in terms of his/her reading skills? What
can we do to get to know our students’ reading abilities, especially when we have many kids?
How do we assess them so that the valuable information that we have gained can be passed from
one teacher to another?
3
Ultimately, as teachers instruct students in reading and literature, they need to make assessments
meaningful to the teacher and the student. There is a fluid relationship between curriculum,
instruction and assessment. In the best classrooms, it can be difficult to distinguish between
instruction and assessment (Cobb 2003).
In order to modify curricula in a meaningful way, teachers need to understand the reason for and
behind formal assessments. Knowing how to apply the results will improve instruction in
reading across the board. “Assessments should not mark the end of learning but rather a
checking point for the level of learning, as well as a reflection of what needs to happen
next”(Cobb 2003). The most effective way to guide instruction, curriculum and assessment is
for both administrators and teachers to sit down and talk about the student work. The students
should have multiple ways and times to show their various amounts of knowledge. Then the
follow up with the students can be effective, meaningful, and have a lasting impact.
According to Buly and Valencia in “Are Assessment Data Really Driving Middle School
Reading Instruction?”, “teachers often assume students not performing at grade level on
standardized tests of reading are demonstrating a lack of ability in relation to early literacy skillsregardless of the skills being assessed…” Struggling readers are not being provided with books
to read” (Wolf 1988).
Assessment is two-fold in reading and literature. While teachers are assessing the students, the
students should also be assessing the material. Through the active reading strategies, small
group and online discussion, the students can flush out a new meaning of the material.
WRITING
As noted above, reading and writing inextricably related. Writing is a fundamental human tool
that connects human beings to their past and to each other. Schools must provide students with
this tool so they will learn to successfully formulate thoughts and articulate ideas. Current
research about writing has identified a number of best practices for writing instruction.
The National Council of Teachers of English, (NCTE) believes that everyone can write, that
teachers can provide direction for the teaching of writing, and that writing needs to be grounded
in real-life experiences and is used for a variety of purposes (NCTE 2004, 2008). Teachers must
tailor lessons according to students’ “strengths, interests, and needs” (Rief 2007), provide
meaningful writing experiences and instruction, practice the craft of writing themselves (Murray
2007), and sometimes even do the assignment themselves (Smagorinsky 2008). Students need
mentor texts to provide models for good writing, feedback about their writing, and time for
reflection about writing (Atwell 1987 and Fletcher 2007). They also need exposure to and
comfort with a variety of writing genres: journal entries, responses to literature or curricular
concepts, poetry, editorials, fiction, etc. (Romano 2007).
4
Teachers must also consider various factors about students when they teach writing. For
example, Fletcher (2007) found that boys tend to avoid writing, but that when they do write, they
tend to write more for each other as an audience. Writing by boys also reflects action, violence
(intended as humor), satire and parody. Girls, on the other hand, avoid writing less than boys do,
perceive writing differently, and focus more on nouns in their writing (Fletcher 2007).
Smagorinsky (2008) finds that boys tend to relate to a more authoritative style of knowledge that
is competitive, aggressive, and autonomous, while girls are more “connected” in their learning,
thus being more tentative, nurturing, cohesive, collaborative, and situational (Smagorinsky
2008). In creating writing curricula, Smagorinsky advises teachers to consider the influences of
culture, tradition, race, community values, demographics, personal interests, and the
psychological, developmental, and circumstantial needs of students. As teachers select content
for instruction and develop English curricula, teachers must weigh the merits of a traditional
versus liberal canon of literature, the literary value of their selections, a variety of textual forms
(short story, novel, play, film, drama, dance, art, etc.), the homogeneous versus heterogeneous
composition of classes, and the propriety of skills and content for the age, school, and
community. Literature should reflect authorship that balances men, women, various races,
traditions, and cultures and include canon as well as non-canon works. Curricular design should
reflect the psychology of human development, cultural significance, literary significance, civic
awareness, current social problems, the preparation for future needs, and finally, the alignment
with professional teaching standards in its content (Smagorinsky 2008).
Writing, furthermore, is not a “formulaic set of steps” but rather a recursive process that evolves
and continues as a lifelong process of “refining” skills (NCTE 2004, 2008). Writers must
collect, focus, order, develop, and clarify ideas as well as interact with each other during writing
(Murray 1987). Revision, discussion, and feedback from peers are productive means by which
students may sort and clarify their thoughts (Weinstein 2001). Weinstein cautions against
outlines that lead to flat and formulaic writing if students merely fill in blanks; good writing
depends on the flow of ideas, so first drafts do not need perfect organization or structure. Free
writing, in which students write continuously without breaks for ten minutes, promotes writing
fluency and thought (Weinstein 2001). Smagorinsky (2008) finds that students benefit from
alternatives and options, from both conventional and unconventional writing assignments.
During the process of writing, students may engage in brainstorming, outlining, drafting, taking
notes, and getting both feedback and recommendations from peers (Smagorinsky 2008).
Students also benefit from structured mini-lessons, small group instruction, and individual
teaching with conferences (Ray 2001); Atwell maintains writers need individual topics and
consistent writing time. Once drafting is complete, writers should reread their work again three
different times: for meaning, order, and voice.
Voice in writing must be developed by each writer, and because writing is closely related to
talking, discussion enhances development of voice (NCTE 2004, 2008). Students rehearse this
relationship through telling stories, explaining, giving oral directions, having writing
5
conferences, and speculating about people and things. This rehearsal process continues as
students talk about their writing to themselves and others, thus helping writers to develop voice
as an integral part of their writing (NCTE 2004, 2008).
Writing is similarly a thinking tool that helps students to generate ideas, solve problems, identify
issues, construct questions, try new ideas, and reconsider previous ideas (NCTE 2004). Writers
must decide whether or not they want to be honest as they share their thoughts through writing.
Weinstein (2001) maintains that it is more important for students to value writing as a thinking
tool rather than a product with absolute answers.
Writing, moreover, has a multitude of purposes and audiences and is used for civic, social,
personal, spiritual, professional, academic, relational, and aesthetic communications (NCTE
2004). Teachers must encourage students to remember their audience as they write for personal
growth, expression and reflection, participate in democratic processes, create aesthetic and
artistic forms of writing, and produce academic texts suited to various disciplines. Such writing
may range from casual draft e-mails to carefully crafted legal documents or research papers
(NCTE 2004). Smagorisnky observes that writing may also be exploratory, affective,
collaborative, or creative (2008). Exploratory writing allows for alternatives and options that
demonstrate new products and new learning without the pressure of a final draft; affective and
collaborative writing may include affective response journals, student-generated discussions,
narratives, multi-genre products, or interpretive texts for students. Creative writing may include
poetry, fiction, or drama.
Research concurs with the NCTE position that conventions must be followed within writing
(NCTE 2004). Atwell (1987) maintains that writers learn mechanics and writing strategies
through the context of their own writing. Weinstein (2001) believes that grammar errors pose
problems when they create confusion about meaning, affect the writer’s credibility about the
topic, or distract the reader from the meaning of content. Smagorinsky (2008) argues that
“rambling syntax” and deviations from standard English both limit students’ future success and
handicap them on standardized tests. Moreover, one hundred years of grammar research
supports the position that grammar must not be taught in isolation but rather within the context of
writing (Hillocks 1986; Weaver 1996; Smagorinsky 2008). Grammar concepts should be taught
slowly and thoroughly according to what is correct in specific situations and what will result in
better sentence structure (Pool, 1954 as cited by Smagorinsky 2008 p 165). Teachers should also
target language issues that affect status, use corrective terminology for text purposes, and focus
instruction on recurring errors (Smagorinsky 2008). Finally, teachers should be aware that some
errors may be developmental (Shaughnessey, 1977 as cited by Smagorinsky 2008), and may be
signs of growth (Rose 1990, p 188-189 as cited by Weinstein 2001, p 75).
Research further supports that writing is a social activity in which writers talk individually about
their writing and with others in class (NCTE 2004). Smagorinsky’s (2008) approach to
scaffolding requires social interaction between the teacher who introduces a concept through
6
accessible material and students who learn the concept in small groups. Eventually, students
move toward independence. Weinstein concurs that students benefit from small group work and
scaffolding of concepts (2001). Social interaction may occur at any time during the writing
process and it may be corrective, constructive, or supportive. Small groups create valuable
feedback that a student may apply to both critical reading of his or others’ papers (Smagorinsky
2008). Because writing is social, NCTE also maintains that writers must know their audience and
that this knowledge must direct the writer’s content, tone, and voice.
The assessment of writing can take many forms, from conventional to alternative (Smagorinsky
2008), or formal to informal. Casey (2008) laments the practice in some schools that lessons to
raise test scores take priority over the use of computers for writing instruction. Effective
evaluation should “highlight the strengths of process, content, and conventions, and provide
techniques to strengthen the weaknesses.”(Rief 2007, p. 189-208). Smagorinsky believes that
the challenge is to create assessments for students with different needs, backgrounds, and skills
(2008). Ray (2001) suggests evaluation take place at the beginning, middle, and end of
instruction and may include items such as portfolios, reflections, extended definitions, analytical
essays, multi-media projects, literary analyses, argumentation, and research. Smagorinsky
(2008) recommends that writing assessment include the following: description of general task;
set of parameters for producing text; how it will be evaluated; teacher goals; what the teacher
needs to teach students how to do; and criteria to guide assessment. One such guide is the rubric,
which should be based on the following questions:





“What might students learn and how do I know?
What conventions are necessary for this assignment?
What level of detail is necessary?
What degree of cohesion should the student achieve?
To what degree has the student met each point in the assignment?” (Smagorinsky
2008, 102).
Although Alfie Kohn (2006) as cited by Smagorinsky (2008) cautions that rubrics can turn
teachers into “grading machines” that promote standardization, Smagorinsky (2008) believes that
good rubrics can lead to richer and more sympathetic readings of text, using the analogy of a
builder who follows the code but deviates as needed.
Ray (2001) recommends that teachers use a variety of assessment tools for students. Assessment
should focus on both the learning process and products created by the student. These student
artifacts should be accompanied by questions that ask about the student’s history with writing
experiences, actions taken as a writer, decisions made during the writing process, and selfevaluation about growth and process. Students might self-assess their use of independent writing
time, strategies to support independent writing, productive peer interactions, and engagement
with all steps of the writing process. Artifacts thus support student assessment.
7
Technology plays an essential role in reading and writing and is a vital part of students’ daily
lives (Casey 2008). English teachers are therefore obligated to merge their knowledge of reading
and writing with what students know about technology (Kajder 2007). Technology, however,
must be used in the pursuit of learning (Casey 2008). Smagorinsky (2008) says that everything
students read or produce is a tool for learning and that instruments for learning may be languagebased, non-verbal, or artistic devices that allow for the integration of all forms of visual, artistic,
or performance-based media and technology in the English classroom.
Advances in technology and the creation of new electronic media will pose new advantages and
challenges for literacy, reading, and writing. These developments will create new areas of
research with future implications for teaching.
COMMUNICATION
The integration of speaking and listening instruction is seminal to the development a highlyskilled, contributing citizen. As early as 1973, the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) demonstrated support for explicit instruction and assessment on a national level.
Research in the twenty-first century literacies supports the need to teach varied speaking and
listening skills including traditional public speaking skills, collaborative group skills, and the
proficient use of technology tools. This developmental instruction needs to focus on process and
preparation as much on the product. As in writing, assessments should take many forms:
formative and summative; formal and informal; teacher, peer, and self. Rubrics aid in skill focus,
ensuring that the assessment reflects instruction.
VOCABULARY
Vocabulary instruction strengthens learning in all areas. Vocabulary refers to words that are used
in speech and print to communicate. Vocabulary can be divided into two types: oral vocabulary,
the words used in speaking or recognized in listening, and reading vocabulary, the words used in
print (National Institute for Literacy 2007). Good readers have a wide range of oral and print
vocabulary; often, word schema results from extensive and repeated exposure to words through
speaking and reading. Without knowing what words mean, readers cannot understand what they
read (NIL 2006). One of the most important findings in the research on vocabulary indicates the
strong connection between vocabulary knowledge of readers and their ability to understand what
they read (Blachowicz, C. and Peter Fisher 2001). According to research by the National
Reading Panel, vocabulary knowledge is the single most important factor contributing to reading
comprehension.
Pre-teaching the meaning of vocabulary words before students encounter them in text facilitates
reading and understanding. Without knowing what words mean, readers cannot understand what
they are reading (National Institute for Literacy 2007). Once vocabulary words have been
introduced, teachers need to continue to expose students to these same words so that they
become part of the students’ oral and written vocabulary (National Institute for Literacy 2007).
8
In classrooms where vocabulary growth, awareness of new words, and a curiosity of word
learning are promoted, vocabulary extends beyond the lesson or the classroom. Students
increase their interest in word histories, play with words, and use new words in speech and
writing.
Research suggests that there is no single best way to teach vocabulary. Yet, the National
Reading Panel (2000) found that vocabulary is learned both indirectly and directly and that
“dependence on only one instructional method does not result in optimal growth” (Rasinski, et
al. 2007). Vocabulary learning can occur in a variety of ways, not always as teacher directed
learning (Blachowicz, C. and Peter Fisher 2001). Although many vocabulary strategies have
been effective in improving adolescent literacy, using a variety of techniques is most effective.
Vocabulary instruction leads to gains in comprehension, but the methods must be appropriate to
the age and ability of the reader.
For teaching new vocabulary words, independent word learning strategies, such as dictionary use
and context clues, are useful. Research also suggests three key methods for vocabulary growth:
wide reading; direct, explicit instruction of words and word strategies; and a learning
environment that fosters word knowledge (Yopp and Yopp 2007).
Research supports the use of direct, explicit, systematic instruction for teaching vocabulary.
Lessons should be fast-paced, brief, multi-sensory, and interactive so that students can see, write,
and hear new words. Explicit vocabulary instruction can occur through specific word instruction
and word learning strategies that require active engagement with words and should focus on
important words, key words, useful words, and difficult words. Explicit instruction also involves
explaining word meanings and modeling the use of difficult content-area vocabulary in sentences
relevant to the subject area; guiding students to practice using vocabulary in different sentences
and contexts and giving feedback; providing time for practice using the new vocabulary; and
repeating the instructional steps until students are able to use the vocabulary independently in
their reading, writing, and speaking.
To learn and retain new words and concepts, students need to connect these words and concepts
to what they already know. They also need repeated exposure to words and concepts and
opportunities to practice them in different contexts. Twelve word repetitions, for example, are
often needed for retention. Students learn the meanings of words indirectly through everyday
experiences with oral and written language. Students do so by engaging in oral language, by
listening to adults read, and by reading extensively themselves.
Because students also learn most new words incidentally through wide reading, teachers must
help students learn strategies for vocabulary development. Research suggests that key strategies
include the efficient use of the dictionary, the use of context clues, and the knowledge of word
parts such as prefixes, roots, suffixes, and compounds to unlock meaning. Students need explicit
instruction and modeling to learn how to look up the meanings of unfamiliar words and how to
decide which definition is the most appropriate within context. Teaching students strategies for
using context clues to determine meaning is a significant strategy. Context clues include
9
definitions, examples, and restatement. Modeling and teaching students how to use information
about word parts can be extremely valuable in vocabulary development. Because much of the
English language comes from Greek and Latin prefixes, roots, and suffixes, it has been proven
that knowledge of these roots often gives clues to word meanings. This is especially true in
science because the terms are multi-syllabic. Thus, it would be good to teach derivatives.
Discussion is an important teaching strategy to improve vocabulary. From discussion, students
can understand a word’s meaning from pieces of knowledge in a class discussion; good
discussions can clarify meaning. Not all words, however, need discussion; teachers should
review and focus on the terms that are needed to understand a story.
All content areas have specific vocabularies; teachers, however, cannot teach all the words in a
text which students need to know. Teachers should teach several words well per week so that the
words and their meanings are retained; such time should be spent on direct vocabulary
instruction. Students may also understand much of the text without knowing the meaning of
every text word. Focus should be on important words, useful words, and difficult words. Words
with multiple meaning should be directly and explicitly taught because they are particularly
challenging for students. Similarly, idiomatic expressions can be difficult for students,
especially ELL students, and often need to be explained in order to be understood (National
Reading Panel 2000). Students remember more when they relate new information to known
information.
Indirect vocabulary learning occurs in many ways. Regardless of grade, students learn
vocabulary from hearing text read aloud; students learn words from hearing a variety of texts
read to them. Reading aloud works best when teachers discuss the selection before, during, and
after reading. Teachers need to discuss the new vocabulary and concepts and relate new words
to prior experiences and concepts. Students should also be encouraged to read independently and
extensively in order to learn vocabulary indirectly. In addition, teachers need to share their love
of words with their students. In all vocabulary learning strategies, modeling, guided practice,
and both using and applying the strategy independently are essential for increasing vocabulary.
Vocabulary knowledge can be assessed in many ways. Vocabulary tests can be formal or
standardized, or less formal teacher-made tests designed specifically for individual classes and
content areas (Kruidenier 2002).
In an effort to successfully assess vocabulary knowledge, a distinction needs to be made between
receptive and expressive vocabularies. A student’s receptive vocabulary includes words he/she
can recognize; whereas a student’s expressive vocabulary includes words he/she can use
correctly and with confidence (Kinsella 2008).
Many formats for assessment like simple matching, writing a definition or using the word in an
original sentence reveal little about a student’s actual word mastery; teachers should refrain from
designing such assessments. Because assessing a student’s vocabulary is quite difficult and no
10
single measure or strategy is enough, both standardized and informal inventories can prove
useful (Joshi 2005).
Research shows that vocabulary instruction using computer technology can be useful for
struggling readers who need additional vocabulary practice. Activities such as engaging in
computer games, using hyperlinks where students click on words and icons to add depth to
vocabulary, utilizing online dictionaries rather than print dictionaries, finding content websites
where students can access information, and using other high interest computer programs are
extremely effective in vocabulary instruction. In recent research studies, the use of computers in
instruction was found to be more effective than traditional methods; computer technology is
clearly seen as an aid in instruction.
REPORT OVERVIEW
This report examines the Language Arts/English curricula in grades 6-10 throughout the
Northfield Township and seeks to identify a core set of skills and content knowledge (aligned
with Illinois State Standards) that students should attain in the core areas of literature/reading,
writing, speaking and listening, and vocabulary with an attention to a successful, smooth move
from 8th to 9th grade. This report is also interactive with the Township Wiki,
http://northfieldtownshipschools.pbworks.com/ and should be referenced when sections of the
report call for its use.
REPORT STRUCTURE
This report is organized into several numbered sections Section 1: Methodology; Section 2:
Teaching Survey; Section 3: Skills Continuum; Section 4: Content & State Standards;
Section 5: Recommendations and Section 6: Conclusions. The Methodology section describes
the committee formation, lists the essential questions guiding the report, and briefly describes the
meeting agendas and actions of the Northfield Township Language Arts/English Articulation
Committee used to generate this report. The Teaching Survey section details the methods by
which data was collected from all Township Language Arts/English teachers via an online
survey and lists the results of the survey as findings. The complete survey and survey results are
provided in Appendices II and III. The Skills Continuums are the products of articulation
meetings with middle school and high school teachers.
11
SECTION ONE: METHODOLOGY
COMMITTEE FORMATION
On December 14, 2007, Ed Solis and Susan Levine-Kelley and the English Department
Instructional Supervisors at Glenbrook North High School and Glenbrook South High School
respectively, Cathy Terdich, English teacher at Field Middle School, Northbrook School District
31, and Helene Spak, Middle School Reading/Language Arts Coordinator for Northbrook School
District 27, met to discuss the proposed Township Curriculum Study for English. At this
meeting, the members reviewed the purpose of the study and discussed the essential questions
developed by the Township Curriculum Directors. The purpose of the study was to provide a
venue for the Township Districts to collaboratively explore current research in the context of
current curricular practice. In addition, the committee was asked to answer essential questions
prepared by the Township Curriculum Directors. A timeline was developed to guide the process
of the study with an initial planning phase, a research phase, a data collection phase, a data
analysis phase, and a time to disseminate the information to the Township Curriculum Directors.
The Township Curriculum Directors recommended English teachers from each district to
participate on the committee. Initially, the committee consisted of twelve teachers with at least
one representative from each public high school, the sender schools, and North Shore Academy.
No representatives from the Township parochial schools participated on the committee. Please
see Appendix 1 for a list of committee members.
ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS
Several essential questions were developed to guide the process and to analyze and collect data.
These questions were formulated based on the input from the Township Curriculum Directors
and Susan-Levine Kelly, Ed Solis, Cathy Terdich, and Helene Spak. The guiding questions used
in this report are:
 What do students need to know and be able to do as a result of the study in English to be
successful in the emerging and changing global society?
 Where is current curriculum and instructional practice in English in the Township in
terms of meeting those standards?
 What recommendations can be made after analysis of research and current Township
curriculum and instructional practices?
MEETINGS
Members of the English Articulation committee met on February 5, 2008, on June 24, 2008,
June 26, 2008, and October 6, 2008. At the first committee meeting on February 5, 2008, the
goals and objectives of the study were shared, the essential questions were reviewed, and the
proposed parameters of the study were presented. The committee also determined the need for a
method for data analysis and the need for the determination of the standards to be used. Three
articles were disseminated for discussion at the June 24 meeting. These articles included To
Read or Not to Read, November, 2007 from the National Endowment for the Arts; Adolescents
12
and Literacy, Reading for the 21st Century, November, 2003, by Alliance for Excellent
Education; and Learning for the 21st Century from The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
At the June 24, 2008 meeting, the goals, framework, and timeline for the articulation study were
reviewed. The three assigned articles were discussed to develop baseline knowledge, to relate to
the township districts’ philosophies, to share common language, and to forecast implications for
the study. Also, the committee members agreed on the following parameters for the study:
reading/literature, writing, vocabulary, 21st century skills, visual literacy, critical thinking, and
communication, which include speaking and listening. Each teacher selected one of the
parameters of the study for individual or group research which would reflect current research and
best practice on the topic. Focus for each topic would include content, instruction/process,
assessment, and technology. At that meeting, it also was decided that the Illinois State Standards
and the IRA/NCTE Standards for English Language Arts would be used for research purposes,
data collection, and data analysis.
At the June 26, meeting the teachers gathered and synthesized the research on their specific
topic. The research would be used in developing questions for a Township survey. Because we
would not meet again until the fall, the teachers were responsible for continuing their research
over the summer and through the first month of school.
At the October 6, meeting the committee members reported their progress and findings on the
research topics, and a wiki was created for the group to share their research. In addition, the
members were asked to finalize their questions based on the research to be used in a Township
survey for all English teachers grades six through twelve.
Between October and April, the committee members completed their research and developed the
survey questions. In April, the four committee chairs collated and reviewed the survey
questions. Then, Susan Levine Kelley finalized all the questions to be used from each of the
research topics. The survey was disseminated to the Township 6th through 12th grade English
teachers. Next, the committee chairs reviewed the survey data in light of Illinois State Standards
and the NCTE/IRA Standards to determine findings and trends.
During that time, Ed Solis contacted Carol Jago, incoming president of National Council of
Teachers of English (NCTE), who was moving from California to Chicago. She was available to
speak to the Township English teachers on October 9, 2009. The four committee chairs met
several times to plan for a professional learning experience that would be meaningful to 6th
through 12th grade Township English teachers.
More than one-hundred Township English teachers attended the first Professional Learning day.
Based on the survey findings, Carol discussed Reading in the 21st Century. At this time, the
teachers were informed of the work of the Township Curriculum Study for English and the
survey results were shared. In addition, at the morning session, teachers from all of the feeder
schools and the high schools met in small groups to discuss a variety of topics gleaned from the
survey findings. The topics included: Supporting Reading Instruction in the 21st Century; Active
Reading; Differentiated Reading Instruction; Formative Reading Assessments in Reading and
Literature Study; What Books Should We Teach; Instructional Reading Strategies for Fiction and
Non-Fiction; and Teaching Issues of Race, Class, and Gender in the 21st Century. Lunch was
13
provided for the teachers. The eighth and ninth grade teachers only met in the afternoon to
discuss focus on Bridging the Gaps and Future Collaboration. Groups met to review and update
the 6-12 research continuum; to share the various writing programs and writing strategies used in
the Township; to review and update the 6-12 novel, short stories, and films used; to discuss the
writing products, including genres taught, for what purpose and audience; to share the support
systems for struggling learners; and to examine the use of technology across the Township.
Based on the evaluations and feedback, the Township teachers valued the day and were looking
forward to future Township professional learning opportunities.
SECTION TWO: TEACHING METHODOLOGY
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODS
The Northfield Township Schools have worked over the past two years to research best practices
in four areas of our language arts/English programs: literature/reading, writing, vocabulary, and
speaking/listening. These four areas of the discipline are all measured on a variety of
standardized tests and appear on the Illinois state standards. The survey questions that teachers
were asked were based on Best Practice research and will help to guide our Township
articulation and professional development over the next few years. The survey took
approximately 30 minutes and a total of 96 teachers took the survey. The graphic below
represents the Township schools participation:
Northfield Township Language Arts Professional Development Survey
Please identify the school where you teach:
Answer Options
Attea
Field
Maple
Northbrook Jr. High
North Shore
Academy
Springman Jr. High
Wood Oaks
Glenbrook North
Glenbrook South
Other (please specify)
Response Percent
Response Count
6.3%
3.2%
4.2%
5.3%
6
3
4
5
0.0%
0
6.3%
13.7%
29.5%
31.6%
6
13
28
30
3
14
During the course of the study, each school recorded their current state of the content and skills
in each of the following sub groups: Research, Readings (Novels, Short Stories, Poems),
Teaching Writing, Writing Products, Support Systems, and Technology. Each school’s
representative recorded, to the best of his or her ability, the practices and materials used in the
language arts/English program.
FINDINGS
The following data reports on some of the highlights from the survey taken by the Township
teachers. 77% of teachers use the Illinois State Standards to influence their assessments, and
43% used the College Readiness Standards to influence their assessments.
 In the category of Writing, the survey results showed that 100% of the teachers use
rubrics for evaluating student work. 90% of teachers reported they work in teams to share
assessment data/information, and 90% also said they adapt instruction based on
assessment information.

In the area of Literature, the survey showed that 95% of the teachers required students to
annotate fictional texts, and 86% required students to annotate non-fictional texts. In the
area of technology and reading, 31% assigned electronic texts as part of their course
readings. 89% of teachers said that they adapt instruction on the basis of assessment.

In the area of Vocabulary, the survey results showed that 75% of teachers pre-teach
vocabulary before a reading selection, while 94% teach vocabulary in context. 74% of
teachers design instruction that gives students opportunities to use newly learned
vocabulary, and 80% of teachers adapt instruction on the basis of student assessment.

In the area of Speaking and Listening, 90% of teachers cited they have students deliver
formal individual presentations, and 94% make informal individual presentations a part
of their instruction. 92% of teachers make time for formal and informal group
presentations, while 87% have students debate issues in their classroom. Also noteworthy
was that 70% of teachers use technology to support presentations, and 67% have students
evaluate other speakers. 87% employ active listening skills in practice settings.
SECTION THREE: SKILLS CONTINUA
Skills continua and content maps are recorded and posted on the Township Wiki as they have
been developed at articulation meetings and at home schools. This represents the most up-todate information from each of the Township schools.
http://northfieldtownshipschools.pbworks.com/
SECTION FOUR: ALIGNMENT TO STATE STANDARDS
During the entire process of the English/Language Township work, the Illinois state standards
were used to align objectives, create categories, guide research, and create survey questions. The
updated Illinois state standards are linked to the Township Wiki.
http://northfieldtownshipschools.pbworks.com/
15
SECTION FIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
The research and survey results indicate that practice in the Township is strong and professional
development needs to focus on continued revision and refinement of design and practice. In 2007
and 2009, the Fall Township Articulation Meetings focused on establishing what the present
practices in curriculum and instruction are in the instruction of literature/reading,
writing/research, and speaking and listening. Based on the findings, the Northfield Township
Language Arts/English Articulation Committee makes the following recommendations:
Northfield Township middle and high school teachers should improve and continue to:
o view reading, writing, speaking and listening as reciprocal processes and provide
practice in all domains
o help students develop voice through oral conversation of various forms
o view writing as a thinking tool rather than a product with absolute answers
 teach writing as a recursive process
 include free-writing opportunities to promote student thinking
 allow for brainstorming, outlining, drafting, note-taking, and getting
feedback during writing
 build in time for students to write, interact with others about their writing,
and reread and revise their work
 help students develop a sense of voice in their writing through
social interaction and rehearsal of the writing process
 use mini-lessons, small groups, and individual conferences to promote
writing
 teach the conventions and grammar of standard English and may
strengthen these conventions by using the context of student writing
o create opportunities for students to write for various purposes
 provide opportunities for students to write about real-life experiences
 provide models of good writing across a variety of genres
o create opportunities for students to explore, collaborate, and create new products
o be aware of factors that impact student learning such as gender, culture,
community, individual interests, as well as psychological, developmental and
circumstantial needs of students
o recognize that technology is a commonplace tool used by students in their daily
lives. Therefore, in instruction teachers should:
 use technology to support the teaching of both reading and writing
 regard all forms of technology as instruments for learning
 use language-based, non-verbal, or artistic devices in the writing
classroom
 allow for the use of all forms of visual, artistic, or performance-based
media and technology in the English classroom.
o view the teaching of literature through the lens of the reading instruction process
using the stages of reading - pre, during, and post – as a guide for instruction
16
o use the explicit instruction of reading strategies to develop students’
metacognitive skills
 predicting / inferring
 questioning
 connecting
 determining importance
 synthesizing
 visualizing/sensory imagery
o use a variety of genre and subject matter that reflect the “mirrors and windows”
perspective of choosing literature
 ensure that there is a balance of independent and whole-class reading
 ensure that there is a balance of pleasure vs. assigned reading
o model reading strategies including
 developing one’s own reading process
 marking up/annotating text for multiple purposes including noticing text
structure
o incorporate speaking and listening activities throughout the curriculum
o incorporate vocabulary instruction throughout the curriculum
o make use of assessment in multiple ways including
 using both formal and informal assessments
 using both conventional and unconventional methods of assessment
 using a wide variety of assessment tools across a variety of products
 considering portfolios as a means to monitor student growth
 giving careful thought to the construction of rubrics for the assessment of
writing
The list above reflects the multiple demands of the language arts/English curriculum and
instruction. Through the committee research and Township survey, the decision was made to
focus the morning of this past fall’s articulation on reading and the afternoon on continued
middle school-high school teacher articulation. Carol Jago, president of the National Council of
Teachers of English, presented the argument that we need to carefully evaluate the amount and
difficulty of the reading we have students do. She advocated for teachers to ensure that students
read often fiction and non-fiction literature that appropriately challenges them in many ways.
Teachers left the morning session with a renewed energy to evaluate the literature they teach
based on Dr. Jago’s perspective.
SECTION SIX: LIMITATIONS OF STUDY AND REPORT
Although we feel that the Township Curriculum Study for English has been extremely
successful, we recognize that the research has some limitations. The committee members were
diligent in their work. However, the communication group’s research was incomplete, and due
to limited time, two of the committee chairs had to take over the research topic on short notice.
Another limitation was the timing of sending the survey to the Township districts. The survey
was sent to the 6th through 12th grade Township teachers towards the end of the school year.
Although some Township districts had 100% participation in the survey, others had less than
50% participation. An additional limitation involving the survey is that different people may
17
have interpreted the same question quite differently. This became evident when analyzing some
of the respondents’ comments. On the day of articulation, it was the committee’s hope that we
would have full and equal representation as we began to map skills and content across grade
levels. This was not the case. For example, we sometimes had an eighth grade reading teacher
attempting to represent writing practices for his or her entire school or district. In addition,
several of the Township Curriculum directors changed during the time of the study due to
retirement and administrative moves. With these changes, adjustments and modifications to the
study were necessary.
We have valued the process involved in answering the essential questions, the opportunity to
collaborate with the Township English teachers, and the learning that has occurred. We look
forward to future discussions, additional Township wide professional learning opportunities, and
continued articulations between the sender schools and the high schools.
SECTION SEVEN: CONCLUSION
Over the past three years, the middle school and high school teachers have begun to identify the
content and skills that are taught at the different levels. This is the first step in establishing
standards and goals for grade levels that will more readily ensure a smooth transition from
middle school to high school. The recursive and divergent nature of our discipline continues to
challenge some of this work, but the research done by the committee provides guideposts for our
areas of professional development.
Two additional elements now add to the complexity of our continued work and articulation. The
Response to Intervention (RtI) law now touches the high school and will certainly influence the
nature and perimeter of our discussions. Also, our committee used 21st Century Learning Skills
in many of our discussions, but struggled to always find a way to authentically integrate into our
work. On-going study by the Township English teachers in this realm should continue. We have
the expertise and resources in all of the districts to make that happen.
The four facilitators of the Township report will continue to meet to plan the annual articulations
and keep the Township focused and moving forward. This past fall, the articulation meeting
focused on reading instruction and the reporting of curriculum and instruction in key areas of
writing, literature and support services. The structure of having a morning keynote for grades 6 –
12 teachers followed by work in small groups in the morning and then grades 8 and 9 teachers
working together in the afternoon kept everyone energized and engaged. That structure should
continue.
18
SECTION EIGHT: FUTURE INITIATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The need for annual articulation meetings is clear. The predominant request from middle school
and high school teachers alike on the October 2009 articulation meeting’s evaluations was for the
middle school and high school teachers to keep meeting and talking to each other. Continued
conversation should be the aim of any curriculum work since curriculum is dynamic, evolving to
meet the common needs of all students in each district in the Township. Ongoing articulation
among the Township districts bodes well for future professional development and for improved
transition from middle school to high school.
The survey identified inconsistencies in the application of writing standards across the Township
districts. Teachers use various writing standards to guide their instruction and assessment. For
example, fewer than 50% of teachers refer to Illinois State Standards most or all of the time;
fewer than 25% refer to the College Readiness Standards and only 25% refer to the National
Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association standards most or all of the
time. In addition, the National Common Core standards will be published in March 2010. Since
the State of Illinois is a finalist for the Race to the Top federal funds, the state adoption of the
National Common Core standards is imminent. These findings indicate the direction of our
future professional development. First, Township teachers must identify the consistencies among
the standards that are used and the gaps that need to be bridged. Once the standard language is
identified, understood, and agreed upon by the teachers, a common set of scaffolded writing
standards can be created and integrated into our practice. Instruction and assessment can then be
better delivered across the Township. Because of the recursive nature of writing development, a
set of student writing exemplars from grades six through ten should be compiled. These samples
would demonstrate the expected level of development at each grade.
The goals of the proposed articulation cannot be accomplished in one day. The fall articulation
should be viewed as a day in which a strong foundation is established. The committee
recommends that all of the middle school districts participate in at least one additional day of
professional development and articulation. The goal of this additional work would be to bring
consistency in the application of the common Township standards at the middle schools.
Similarly, the two high schools should participate in a second professional development
articulation to bring consistency between the two schools. At least one articulation meeting per
year with middle school and high school teachers should be continued in ensuing years to
strengthen the use of common standards. This process would strengthen the transition from
middle to high school. An additional recommendation is to provide a representative from the
respective high school(s) for language arts curriculum initiatives at the middle school level.
For the October 2010 articulation day, the committee would like to bring in a dynamic speaker
who could address the Common Core Standards and the commonalities with the other standards
mentioned above. This person would help on that day to guide the Township teachers in
developing the foundation of our Township writing initiative. If this is a local person, their
continued guidance would be important. A spring meeting and summer workshop that includes
all of the committee members are needed to plan and realize the articulation.
19
In October 2009, the Township articulation meeting had a focus on reading in the twenty-first
century. The success of that day is reflected in the documentation of the teachers’ work posted
on the wiki and in the professional, complex discussion that happened on that day. The
excitement and energy produced last October endures in professional discussions among
colleagues to this day. The proposed plan outlined above builds on the groundwork of curricular
exploration and collegiality that was established.
20
Works Cited
Adler, Mortimer. “How to Be a Demanding Reader.” How To Read a Book.
Adler, Mortimer, and Charles Van Doren. New York: MJF Books, 1940.
45-56.
Allen, Janet. Words, Words, Words. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers, 1999.
Atwell, Nancie. In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with
Adolescents. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1987.
Banks, James A. "Teaching Literacy for Social Justice and Global
Leadership." Language Arts 81.1, 2003: 18-19.
Blachowicz, Camille L., and Peter Fisher. Teaching Vocabulary in All
Classrooms. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Bloom. Benjamin. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Bloom, et al. 1974.
Bomer, Randy. "Writing to Think Critically: The Seeds of Social Action."
Voices from the Middle 64: 2-8, 1999.
Bromley, Karen. "Nine Things every teacher should know about words and
vocabulary instruction." Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 50 (2007).
Chapman, Anne. Making Sense: Teaching Critical Reading Across the
Curriculum. College Entrance Examination Board, 1993. 50.
Cobb, Charlene. Effective reading instruction begins with purposeful assessments. Reading
Teacher. 57 (4) 386-388, 2003.
Collier, Lorna. “The Shift to 21st-Century Literacies.” The Council Chronicles.
November, 2007.
Davis, Chris and Jennifer Davis. “Using Technology to Create a Sense of
Community.” English Journal. Vol. 94, No. 6. July, 2005.
21
Fletcher, Ralph. Boy Writers: Reclaiming Their Voices. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse
Publishers, 2006. Notes from Ralph Fletcher presentation, November,
2007.
Fletcher, Ralph. Live Writing: Breathing Life into Your Words. New York:
Avon Books, Inc., 1999.
Joshi, R. M. "Vocabulary: A Critical Component of Comprehension." Reading
& Writing Quarterly, 2005, 21:209.
Kamil, Michael L. "Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century."
Alliance for Excellent Education. November, 2003.
Kinsella, Kate, Colleen Stump, and Kevin Feldman. "Strategies for
Vocabulary Development." Pearson eTeach. 2002. Pearson Prentice
Hall. 1 Oct. 2008 phschool.com.
Kruideneier, John. Research-based Principles for Adult Basic Education. The Partnership for
Reading. RMC Research Corporation: Portsmouth, New Hampshire, October, 2002.
Learning for the 21st Century: "A Report and Mile Guide for 21st
Century Skills." Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2002.
Luke, Allan. "Literacy Education for a New Ethics of Global Community."
Language Arts 81.1 (2003): 20- 22.
Mancina, Hannah. "Empowering Students Through a Social Action Writing
Project" English Journal 94.6 (2005): 31-35.
Maynard, John. “Model Questions and Key Words to Use in Developing
Questions.” Unpublished handout. Pomona, CA.
Murray, Donald. "Teaching Writing Your Way". Adolescent Literacy: Turning
Promise into Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2007, 179-187.
22
Murray, Donald. Write to Learn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1987.
National Council of Teachers of English. Resolution on Including Speaking and
Listening in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Assessments. Urbana, IL. , 2008.
National Council of Teachers of English. 21st-Century Literacies. A Policy
Research Brief. Urbana, IL., 2007.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "What Works In
Comprehension Instruction." AdLit.org. 25 June, 2008
<www.adlit.org/article/105>.
National Institute for Literacy. "What Content-Area Teachers Should Know
About Adolescent Literacy." (2007).
National Reading Panel. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching People to Read.
Washington. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000.
Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind. New York: Penguin, 2005.
"Questions about Vocabulary Instruction." AdLit.org. 25 June 2008
<http://www.adlit.org/article/3471>.
Rasinski, Timothy, Padak Nancy, Newton Rick, and Newton Evangeline.
Building Vocabulary from Word Roots. Huntington Beach, CA: Beach
City P, 2007. 12-12.
Ray, Katie Wood. The Writing Workshop: Working Through the Hard Parts.
Urbana: NCTE, 2001.
Rief, Linda. "Writing: Commonsense Matters." Adolescent Literacy: Turning
Promise into Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2007, 189-208.
23
Romano, Tom. "Teaching Writing from the Inside". Adolescent Literacy:
Turning Promise into Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2007, 167178.
Smagorinsky, Peter. Teaching English by Design: How to Create and Carry
Out Instructional Units. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2008.
Texas Education Agency. "The Components of Effective Vocabulary
Instruction." AdLit.org. 25 June, 2008 <http://www.adlit.org/article/1969>.
Tompkins, Gail E., Cathy L. Blanchfield, and Patricia A. Tabloski. Teaching
Vocabulary : 50 Creative Strategies, Grades K-12. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall, 2003.
Weinstein, Larry. Writing at the Threshold. Urbana: National Council of
Teachers of English, 2001.
Wolf, Dennie Palmer. Reading Reconsidered: Literature and Literacy in High
School. The College Board, 1988.
Writing Study Group of the NCTE Executive Committee. “Beliefs About the
Teaching of Writing.” National Council of Teachers of English, 2008.
<http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/write.
Yopp, Ruth Helen, and Hallie Kay Yopp. "Ten Important Words Plus: A
Strategy for Building Word Knowledge." The Reading Teacher, 2007, 61: 157-60.
24