English literature has gone from being considered primarily British literature to being any literature that is written in English. This allows for a multicultural canon within the family of what’s considered English literature.

English is spoken by over 1.5 billion people worldwide. The English language is everywhere, literally. As a teacher in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, I see the desire for the local population to lean our global language. They want to be able to read, speak, and listen to English so they can engage with the world and access a much broader pool of tertiary education opportunities and subsequent career options. Although many schools, including my own school of employment, accommodate these local students, we also see the danger in glorifying the western culture and allowing our ethnocentricity to create a students body who believe the West is better than the East, especially the developing South East Asian countries. An introduction to regional literature, either originally written in English or translated into the English language, helps promote a more balanced student perspective on global issues and ideals.

A school-wide (or class-wide) balanced perspective may not always be easy to gauge or assess but a developing cultural competence will likely be seen through many “windows” of observation - a comment made, a friendship fostered, a journal entry, a debate, a casual conversation, a video production, or a prevailing mood of cultural tolerance and acceptance.

English language arts curriculum has access to literature from all over the world. There likely is not a culture in existence that a student could not be given access to through literature. Here at Logos International School, we use local stories like First They Killed My Father, Angkor Priestly journals, and A Dragon Apparent to ensure students have adequate time to engage with their own culture while studying the English language and preparing for a cross-cultural university education.

Differentiation

Differentiation is for every student in every classroom. No two students are exactly alike. While there are similar levels of readiness, learner profiles, and levels of interest, each student brings into the classroom a nuanced background that requires careful consideration as a teacher prepares the content, process, and product of a lesson (McCarthy, 2014).

There are, however, some learners who require considerably more differentiation than others and these are the learners who will receive the greatest benefit from a teacher’s efforts to differentiate instruction at the needed levels. It is important to keep in mind that these students may come from all walks of life and may have varied academic backgrounds. Students who need the most differentiation in one subject may require little alteration in another subject. Jesse is a case in point. A bright, relatively engaged student, Jesse excels in math, science, drama, and plays after school sports. Obviously, quite well rounded, Jesse is not a troubled student who may have a stereotypical need for learning support and significant instructional differentiation. Regardless of his positive academic and behavioral background, Jesse found himself in need of differentiation in his 12th grade Philosophy class.

The evaluation for Jesse’s need of content and process differentiation came early as a result of daily formative assessments. Formative assessments take the form of online daily wrap-ups, weekly low-stakes 10 question quizzes, and plickers fun quizzes at the beginning of class. In addition, students record confusion and clarity in a philosophy journal. After two quizzes, a few wrap-ups, and an initial review of student journals, it was clear that the content being taught in Jesse’s philosophy class was not being delivered in an accessible way, at least for him. This is not uncommon for a subject like philosophy that often students are not introduced to until university studies. Clearly, a plan for instruction modification was in need.

The plan for differentiated content, process, and product was successful enough that the teacher adopted a few new learning strategies that benefitted many other students. Until this point, content had mostly been delivered through mini-lecture and students outside class reading. While the mini-lectures seemed effective in introducing students to new concepts, the textbook clearly required more scaffolding during class time. The teacher began differentiating content instruction by incorporating a type of readers workshop (Kleine, n.d.) where students who had proven, through formative assessments, to have a solid grasp on the content, were partnered with a circle of students who were struggling, of course, this included Jesse. Each learner is given a second reading of the chapter and the teacher is able to engage with each circle to enhance content acquisition.

Another content differentiation strategy adopted uses screencastify to make a 5 minute video covering the key concepts of each chapter. The screencast video is released to the students the day before the class mini-lecture and can be previewed to help the student prepare for the lesson. Student come with a few questions even before the lesson begins and they are asked to record the answer to their question if their question is answered during the lesson. Students with unanswered questions are then given time to ask at the end of the mini-lecture.

To differentiate for process, Jesse, along with four other students who were identified as requiring differentiated instruction, were asked to meet with the teacher for 10 minutes during Thursday’s lunch period. During this time the teacher models the processing of the content by having a conversation with himself. It may sound something like, “I wonder what it means to think presuppositionally? You know, the word presupposition can be broken down by looking at its prefix and suffix…”  At first the students observed this external processing with reservation but after about 4 meetings, were able to engage in the process themselves.  

The reading workshops proved to be a better way to tackle a difficult textbook for many learners (and the learners who do not need the reading workshops are leading them, thus, acquiring many other skills), and lunch period external processing was goofy but seemingly effective (especially in building teacher and student relationship). This left differentiation in product. A menu of activities proved to be an effective way to allow for many different learners to choose from a variety of activities that suited their learning styles and preferences. Students are able to choose very challenging activities that counted for their weeks work or from a number of activities that will give them access to multiple areas of the learning content.    

References:

McCarthy, J. (2014, July 23). 3 Ways to Plan for Diverse Learners: What Teachers Do. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/differentiated-instruction-ways-to-plan-john-mccarthy

Kleine, R. (n.d.). Rick's Reading Workshop: Overview. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/reading-workshop-overview

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The [person] who can make hard things easy is the educator.”

While I endeavor to accomplish this in, during, and throughout each unit, the test of my success as an educator comes from the results of an assessment - do the students now possess the complex skills and knowledge at a level where long term understanding has taken place? Have they learned what I’ve attempted to teach? The idea of an assessment, both formative and summative makes sense; students need to prove knowledge and skill acquisition. The challenge is in developing an engaging assessment that accurately measures student learning.

Below, I will attempt to describe a good formative and summative assessment that is intended to assess understanding for a particular standard and its accompanying learning objectives. But first, let me define these two different types of assessments, if not for any other reason, for my own external processing needs. A formative assessment is an informal, often low-stakes, check for understanding (Alber, 2011). These informal assessments can be quizzes, ticket-outs, quizlet type games, journal entries, or even a conversation with a student after class. The idea is to check for students learning along the way and assess if content comprehension is taking place long before the big high-stakes test or project. The summative assessment, on the other hand, is the high-stakes “end game” that determines whether or not the students have a high, mid-level, or low skills and knowledge comprehension for the whole unit’s content. Although these summative assessments have been traditionally pen and paper tests, they are not bound to that format and many teachers are creating and discovering creative and effective ways to structure summative assessments (Wolpert-Gawron, 2012).

A simple breakdown of the unit will assist in determining the effectiveness of the following assessments.

Big Idea: Authors usually know the rules and use them to inform and move the reader.

Essential Question: How has Mary Shelley used dramatic conventions to define themes and effect    

                                  readers?

Virginia State English Grade 12 Standard: Analyze how dramatic conventions including character, scene, dialogue, and staging contribute to the theme and effect.

Five SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely) objectives have been developed to guide instruction and the creation of activities for class learning. The 5th lesson objective is relevant as it includes the preparation for the formative assessment: By the beginning of next class SWBAT justify the thematic contribution of 2 characters in Frankenstein (other than Frankenstein and the monster) by completing the “prepare for pop-up debate” worksheet.

Formative Assessment: a pop-up debate will be used to measure students understanding of author’s use of  minor characters in developing themes. Students will be evaluated using the self-evaluation sheet (see pic below). In addition, students will answer a wrap-up scaling question on a Google Form (see pic below). The pop-up debate allows me to see the students in action and carefully observe debate content to listen for keywords, phrases, and impromptu dialogue that indicates students level of content comprehension, in this specific case, their understanding of how Shelley uses minor characters to define themes in her book Frankenstein.

Summative Assessment: In testing for unit content knowledge, or in this case the skill and content knowledge in each objective, the students will create a Screencastify presentation. Each student will create a script that includes a definition of dramatic conventions, an explanation of how authors use them in general, three specific examples from modern literature (from students recreational reading list; my students read 50% academic and 50% recreational; Kelly Gallagher, Readicide), and three specific examples from Frankenstein. Students will make slides with at least 1 graphic/picture per slide (to enhance understanding) and keywords or phrases that help guide the presentation. Combining script and slides, student will use the free Chrome application Screencastify to record their video. A rubric is distributed that includes details like proper citations, etc. The screencastify video will allow students the final opportunity to prove unit content learning in an engaging and creative manner. The process of writing (script), connecting content to graphic, reading (script), and reviewing multiple times for editing, etc. will enhance the likelihood of long-term memory transfer. In addition, creating a Screencastify offers a “real world” skill and technology proficiency that can be applied to other learning opportunities.

Alber, R. (2011). Why Formative Assessments Matter. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/formative-assessments-importance-of-rebecca-alber

Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2012). How Can We Make Assessments Meaningful? Retrieved December 05, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/making-assessments-meaningful-heather-wolpert-gawron

Since I started my teaching career without an education in teaching, I was prone to all the beginner mistakes that one can imagine. The mistakes were many and included such follies as not setting rules and procedures, believing hour long lectures is “just how teaching’s done”, and even showing a youtube video on Hindu practices without actually viewing the whole video first - yikes! (The last mistake had little to do with not having an education degree and more to do with lacking some good ol’ common sense).  

One of my mistakes included a mistake in perspective or belief. I had the dubious perspective that an education degree was a waste of time when all one really had to do was major in their respective field and then after obtaining all the knowledge needed, you would just saunter into the classroom and of course, teach. Well, it took me about twenty minutes in the classroom before I realized that there is serious method to the madness and since I totally lacked the method, well, total madness was the learning objective we most often accomplished.

Years of experience gleaned from “real” teachers and an annual recurring enrollment in the school of hard knocks has shaped things up quite well for me and my students. While I am grateful for this, I must say that the Teach-Now program is far exceeding my expectations and is serving as the polished finish on this rusty teacher.

There have been multiple activities and insights that have propelled my teaching ability forward exponentially. This lesson, however, has topped them all. Until this lesson, I did not really grasp the importance of standards to shape everything else that goes on in the classroom. What a revelation it is to be able to unpack these standards and watch closely as the big idea emerges from the nouns, the skills to be taught and honed arrive from the verb(s), assessments become more clear and focused, and relevant and pinpoint accurate activities can be developed.  

I look forward to the unpacking of each standard that I select for a unit and I know that through this unpacking process the lessons will be much richer and relevant, teaching more focused, learning more enjoyable, practical, and measurable, and assessment strategies more broad.

I have created my own standard unpacking grid:

“Why do we need to study British Literature in Cambodia?”

This 12 grade student had the same question I asked myself when I was approached about teaching this class at the close of last school year. Of course, I didn’t actually voice this question to the administration the way he voiced it to me on this day. But I did go and get some answers and fortunately, I had the foresight to teach these answers to the students before we began our British literature adventure.

“Great question!” I enthusiastically said. “One reason can be seen in our need to be able to really analyze people and time periods and relate those qualities and influences to the art and literary works of their time period. This just is one of the ways we come to grasp a fuller understanding of our world and the people who shape our cultures. We need to be able to analyze an author, for example, and see the connections between their character and personality and the literary work they produced.” Although I didn’t tell him, I knew that this was the reason I chose this particular standard for this Gothic literature unit where Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is used as our primary text.

Virginia State English 12 Standard | Reading 12.4.d

Relate literary works and authors to major themes and issues of their eras.

Through this unit students will become proficient at:

Identifying themes in literature

Identifying the major issues of the romantic time period

Understanding the concept of author profiling

Connecting common era issues with themes in literature

Connecting author personality with key themes in literature

Students will prove their proficiency through three formative and one summative assessment. Two Plickers quizzes will be presented in the unit as a check for understanding. In addition, a reflection paper on the learning outcome of the “anticipate” activity will serve as a formative check for understanding. As a summative assessment the students will create a storyboard that includes characteristics and personality traits of Mary Shelley, issues of the Romantic era and connect them with the major themes in Frankenstein.   

The first activity to engage and move students towards proficiency will involve anticipating the personality traits of the author, Mary Shelley, by reading a bio of the romantic era and a short bio on Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley’s mother. The students will speculate on the personality of Mary Shelley by writing a fictitious bio. The students will then read a real bio on Mary Shelley and compare and contrast the real bio with their speculative bio.

The second activity to engage and move students towards proficiency will involve anticipating the major themes of Frankenstein by reading a second bio on Mary Shelley and the romantic era. Students will list speculative themes (at least 5) with an accompanying explanation. Students will keep this speculative theme activity and see how many themes they got correct (or close) as they read through Frankenstein.

The third activity will involve a mix and match game where student groups are given a many themes to multiple British literature text of the romantic era. The students will read excerpts from each novel and choose which theme belongs to which novel. They will need to give a reason for that particular theme connecting with a particular novel. The game will end with answers revealed and explained.

When considering reinforcement for classroom behavior, it is as important to offer as much positive reinforcement for good classroom behavior as it is for corrective reinforcement for negative classroom behavior (Marzano, 2007). The style, frequency, and consistency of reinforcement for both positive and negative classroom behaviors may make the difference between a classroom atmosphere of respect and learning and one where chaos is a norm.

The style of both positive and negative reinforcement for behavior is of critical importance. While it is often beneficial to offer positive reinforcement in public, so as to highlight positive student behavior expectations, it is recommended that negative reinforcement be as private as possible so as to not shame the student, nor allow for more of a disruption than the negative behavior has already caused (Marzano, 2007). For example, technology makes it possible to highlight and reinforce positive behavior in a tactful but public manner. During a classroom learning activity a teacher may have ClassDojo on the screen where students can observe points being awarded to students who are on task or participating (ClassDojo, n.d.). Other forms of positive reinforcement can be verbal praise, smiles, or encouraging words after class. In addition, it has been well documented that contacting parents to report positive student behavior can be a very powerful reinforcement tool (Marzano, 20017).

Negative behavior can be corrected with less public, distraction minimizing strategies (Marzano, 2007). With clear classroom rules and procedures in place, each student can be expected to know proper classroom behavior during instruction and activities. With these rules and procedures in place, a teacher can then confidently offer correction to students who are engaged in negative classroom behavior. With students who have particularly challenging diagnosis, like ADHD, a teacher may choose to collaborate with the student to minimize classroom distractions. For example, a teacher and student may set up an agreement where the teacher taps student on shoulder when the student is displaying behavior that usually precipitates negative classroom behavior (Marzano, 2007). Another strategy that ensures minimal distraction is to use a student management card (SMC). A SMC can be used anytime a student is displaying a disrupting and/or negative classroom behavior (see pic).

The presenting of the card to the student indicates to the student that they have been flagged for a particular negative behavior. In addition, the card lets the student know the consequence that they can expect if the behavior does not cease. As indicated on the card, the student keeps the card in the corner of their desk and if the negative behavior stops, the student may simply throw the chit away at the end of class. However, if the negative behavior persists, the teacher will simply indicate to the student that the consequence is being carried out.

With a plethora of options for reinforcing positive behavior and correcting negative behavior, a teacher can ensure that they are frequently and consistently managing classroom behavior in such a way so as to fosters a positive learning environment. Public but tactful reinforcement of positive class behavior and private, collaborative correction of negative class behavior helps make this type of classroom a reality. The conceptualization of this type of classroom management strategy can be seen in the flow chart below.

ClassDojo for Teachers. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2017, from

https://teach.classdojo.com/#/classes/5a031a1a21f124210ccf049c/points?_k=yn8mn8

Marzano, R. J. (2007, June 30). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Instruction. Retrieved November 07, 2017, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509077

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times, teaching is an art. Roller coaster physics, 3rd grade Chinese math, and whole brain teaching offer three diverse teaching strategies that all require training, practice, and seem to be quite effective. What a great reminder that teaching has no one-size-fits-all strategy or what I guess you could call a meta-strategy. Teaching requires creative teachers willing to learn, develop, make mistakes, and keep moving forward for the sake of the students and their futures.

The roller coaster physics class was, for me, the ideal learning situation. The teacher had obviously implemented and practiced excellent norms and procedures. From what could be observed on the video, it seemed every child knew what was expected of him/her and remained on task and engaged. There seemed to be an extremely high level of respect for one another (even the young girl with a severe speech impediment was not afraid to speak out) and this only aided their organized and safe learning situation. For a 5th and 6th grade class that was engaged to the level I observed in the video, student academic expectations must be consistently high. This high level of student expectation could be deduced from the teacher’s explanation of the unit and what she expected from each student.

The 3rd grade Chinese maths class is structured in a way considered “old school” by many western teachers and curriculum coordinators. Rote memorization, whole class focused on the teacher at the whiteboard, and student work being displayed on the whiteboard while peers observe student working out a problem have all but been disregarded for more more collaborative, creative, and less risky strategies. That being said, it is well documented that China (especially cities like Shanghai) boast top scorers on international maths tests. I have no doubt that procedures and norms are put in place, as students seem to know what’s expected of them. This teaching model may lend itself to a lower student expectancy than other models but likely students in this environment have very high social and parental learning expectations. In countries, like China, where education is valued so highly, behaviour problems are less frequent that in other learning cultures.

The whole brain teaching method seemed engaging if not a little overactive. As the website advertises, this teaching method is often found most effective for challenging learners. Student who have ADHD or any type of behavior concerns may find this whole body engaging way of learning necessary for engagement. Procedures and norms are obviously extremely high for this method of teaching. In fact, I am sure that as the year begins, there is a long process of teaching students the signs and procedures and then practicing often. Once in place, however, students will likely know exactly what’s expected of them in the classroom and this may result in less frequent behavior concerns and other distractions that take time away from learning.    

As a high school English and Biblical Studies teacher, I knowingly and unknowingly use some of these same strategies to create a learning environment that fosters high student expectations. Through my learning in this program, I have encountered strategies that I will implement to improve learning, behavior, and expectancy outcome in my students. After our learning from unit 2, it occurred to me that the few behavior challenges that I have had this year have been due to my lack of clear communication and implementation of rules, procedures, and norms as the year began. This is something I plan to change at the semester break. When class resumes for the second semester, I will be implementing some rules and procedures regarding the use of technology that I am certain will improve our class learning environment.

For this unit it became clear to me that I treat students differently depending on my level of learning expectancy that I have for them. Understanding this, I have taken stock of who and why I expect less from certain students and I have made a commitment to override my bias and ensure that I treat each student the same, exhibiting the same behaviors for each student. Today in class, I had a chance to mentally self-correct as I approached a student who I have a lower expectancy towards. I reminded myself that this student really does have the capability to learn at the highest level and my actions, tone, and demeanor adjusted to match what it is for the more “gifted” students.  

Each day, at least ten major cultural and ethical backgrounds cross the threshold of my classroom. Teaching in Phnom Penh, Cambodia at an international school, I am graced with the presence of Khmer, Korean, Chinese, Singaporean, Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese, African, Canadian, and American students. Of course, each of these major cultural and ethical representatives are also bringing with them nuanced differences that come from being a part of a diverse clan, tribe, family, caste, religion, etc. To assume a teacher can adequately manage a multicultural classroom community of this level of diversity in such a way as to guarantee the proper representation of all students cultures and ethnic backgrounds is likely not realistic. However, there are many steps a teacher can take to ensure a climate of caring and concern that fosters a safe place where students feel free to be who God created them to be (if you don’t like my use of God, check your tolerance meter). A classroom that models Christian love, emphasizes real tolerance, and provides students an opportunity to serve and mingle with peers of a different culture, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds promotes a learning environment where diversity is celebrated and biases challenged.

Paul the Apostle couldn’t have made a more tolerant statement when he reminded the Galatian church that “We are no longer Jews or Greeks or slaves or free men or even merely men or women, but we are all the same—we are Christians; we are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Paul was making it clear that to understand the love of Jesus is to understand unity in the midst of diversity. In other words, we may have these superficial differences, and those difference are special, unique, and sacred but we have a commonality that unifies us. A classroom that models this love promotes a learning environment where diversity is celebrated and biases challenged. This love is extended to all, regardless of religion, creed, beliefs, etc. and is expected of all. This holds a perfect balance with the types of programs and values being promoted in the public school system in the west. For example, listening, humility, respect, trust, and voice (Critical Practice, 1991; Davis, 2013) during shared inquiry, as an active learning experience, are emphasized in a classroom where a God-centered love for all humanity dominates the classroom ethos.  

Tolerance has been haphazardly and destructively redefined in recent years. Tolerance is now defined as the bland affirmation of all viewpoints (about everything and anything) being equally true, valid, and/or binding. Unfortunately, what’s so destructive is this total cultural relativism really does nothing to promote real tolerance. In fact, it actually expects cultures to flash freeze their current beliefs, understanding, and practices by promoting an idea that those very things that make a culture what it is, will not need further refinement, change, or possibly abandoned altogether. This is actually very intolerant of cultures (and subcultures) as they naturally need to develop towards greater clarity of meaning. Real tolerance is the ability to vehemently disagree with someone and yet deeply respect them at the same time. I am not tolerant of the homosexual community because I agree with them, I am tolerant of them because I vehemently oppose their beliefs while totally respecting them at the same time. An emphasis on real tolerance allows students the freedom to disagree with each other while expecting they will not waver in their deep respect for one another. This idea of maintaining and expecting a high level of respect can be seen in the abandonment of “zero tolerance” policies and the implementation of “zero indifference” policies to replace (Critical Practice, 1991; Davis, 2013). Students know they are cared for and that there is real concern for all they prioritize when they are embraced with an attitude that says, “Regardless of what we don’t agree on, I will respect you.”

It’s one thing to promote care and concern in a classroom, it’s another to promote it in the greater community. Providing students with the opportunities to serve and mingle with peers of a different culture, ethnic, and socioeconomic background, not only increases their awareness of the vast differences that surround them but helps promote a deeper celebration of diversity in the classroom. Using technology to partner with a school in a different part of the world, for a collaborative unit project, affords students the experience of academically and socially interacting with someone who may be very different. Providing the students with a rubric that requires students to evaluate their collaborative efforts in light of cultural differences forces students to recognize these differences in a work related context. In addition, student participation in a variety of community service projects allows our students the opportunity to interact with those who are significantly socioeconomically different. As unreasonable biases against the poorer class persist in this community, it is essential to place the students in proximity to those whom they otherwise may stereotype.  

Critical Practice for Anti-bias Education. (1991). Teaching Tolerance

Retrieved from

http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/general/PDA%20Critical%20Practices_0.pdf

Davis, M. (2013). Preparing for Cultural Diversity: Resources for Teachers.

Retrieved October 17, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/preparing-cultural-diversity-resources-teachers