Validated+Practices+Project

**Topic **
This validated practices project focused on measuring student growth in a ninth grade Gifted and Talented (GT) English class at Owings Mills High School in Baltimore County, Maryland. Currently, there are 881 students enrolled at Owings Mills High School, and of this population, 54% of students are African American, 22% are Caucasian, 14% are Hispanic, 8% are Asian, and 2% are two or more races. Furthermore, Owings Mills High School is a center for the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program in Baltimore County, so there is a large population of students with Limited English Proficiency (16% of school population). In regards to the other special programs at Owings Mills High School, 46% of students receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARM), 21% of students are enrolled in GT programs, and 10% of students receive special education services.

Within this larger population, this validated practices project specifically focused on a GT English 9 class with eleven students, eight females and three males. Seven of the students (63.6%) are African American, two students are Caucasian (18.2%), one student is Asian (9.1%), and one student identifies with two or more races (9.1%). None of the students receive special education services or have limited English proficiency although two students are fluent in languages other than English. All of these students are tracked as Gifted and Talented, and most of their academic performances reflect this classification. Currently, five students (45.4%) have an ‘A’ in the course, three students (27.3%) have a ‘B’ in the course, two students (18.2%) have a ‘C’ in the course, and one student (9.1%) has an ‘E’ in the course. Similarly, students’ standardized test data matches their high academic performance. On their eighth grade MSA, eight of these students were classified as advanced (72.7%) while the remaining three students were in the proficient category (27.3%). More specific data, including student numerical MSA scores, can be found in the Student Reading Data Chart in Section II.

The achievement and standardized data above was closely considered when planning instruction for this validated practices project. When creating small groups for the Station Activity (see lesson 2), I chose to place students in heterogeneous groupings based on their achievement data, aiming to have at least one high performing student, one average student, and one struggling student in each group. Because all students were reading the same three articles (at or below grade level), the mixed-ability grouping allowed lower achieving students to receive help and motivation from their higher achieving peers. Additionally, all students scored at least proficient on their MSA, so they should have been able to read the texts independently; however, the heterogeneous groups allowed lower achieving students to reach the same level of analysis as their higher performing peers. During the jigsaw activity (see lesson 3), I placed students in homogenous groups based on standardized reading scores. Because each group of students was responsible for reading, comprehending, and analyzing a specific text, the homogenous groupings allowed me to give students’ texts that were at their independent reading levels. The groups of students with Advanced MSA scores read articles from The New York Times, which is estimated to be a ninth grade reading level. Because students’ standardized data suggests these students read above grade level, they should be able to independently read, comprehend, and analyze a text at their grade level. On the other hand, the group of students with Proficient MSA scores received an article from CNN to read. When I ran the article through the LexileAnalyzer, it received a score of 940L, meaning it is rated in the 6-8th grade text complexity band. Therefore, because this text is below students’ grade level, the students in this group, who are reading at-grade level, should be able to read, comprehend, and analyze it independently.

**Curriculum Learning Goals and Objectives **
This validated practices project began with a pre-test, which was followed by three days of lessons and then a post-test on the fourth day of instruction. Over the course of this period, students worked towards three objectives, which are listed below. The first day of instruction dealt with Objective 1 and focused on learning the terminology necessary to meet Objectives 2 and 3 with success. On the second day of instruction, students mainly focused on the second objective; however, they started moving towards the third objective by the end of class. The students spent the final day of instruction working towards the final objective. They were assessed on all three objectives the following day with the post-test.
 * Objective 1: Students will successfully define the elements of the rhetorical triangle (speaker, audience, and subject) and the rhetorical devices (logos, pathos, ethos).
 * Objective 2: Students will successfully identify examples of the rhetorical devices (logos, pathos, ethos).
 * Objective 3: Students will successfully analyze how rhetoric (the rhetorical triangle and the rhetorical devices) contributes to purpose and meaning.

Each of these objectives was aligned to state and national standards in order to ensure that students were covering the necessary material and working at an appropriate level of rigor. For each of the objectives above, state and national standards are listed below. The state standards are taken from the Maryland Core Learning Goals, and the national standards are taken from the Common Core State Standards.


 *  Standards for Objective 1: **
 * CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.9-10.6: Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose.
 * MD Core Objective 1.1.4: The student will apply knowledge of word meaning, context, structure, and origin to define unfamiliar words.


 * Standards for Objectives 2 and 3: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.9-10.6: Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">MD Core Objective 2.1.2: The student will analyze stylistic elements in a text or across texts that communicate an author’s purpose.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">For more information on how my lesson objectives and activities align with state and national standards, please view the alignment table of this validated practices project, which is located in Section III.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> In addition to aligning with state and national standards, the three lessons included in this project assisted students in meeting the unit goals, which are listed below.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Students will connect different literary and informational texts to the theme of censorship, explaining the similarities and differences between the texts’ interpretations of the theme.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Students will identify rhetorical strategies and devices in informational texts and explain how these devices affect the author’s purpose and theme.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Because each of the articles related to the themes of censorship and silenced voices, students worked towards meeting the first goal by simply reading about real-life examples of censorship and comparing/contrasting how censorship is manifested in fiction (Fahrenheit 451) and in reality (newspaper articles). Furthermore, in the jigsaw activity, expert groups had to summarize their article so when they switched groups to share out, they could discuss how censorship differs around the world. However, students did not simply read these articles to talk about the theme of censorship, they focused on how authors used rhetoric to make a point about censorship, allowing them to meet the second goal. When students highlighted rhetorical devices in texts or worked in expert groups to identify elements of the rhetorical triangle, they were identifying how authors used rhetoric. When they discussed and wrote how and why authors used these rhetorical devices, they were explaining and analyzing how rhetoric contributes to purpose. Through the texts they read and the activities they completed, students successfully met both of the unit goals.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Assessment **
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The pre- and post-tests were identical and assessed each of the three objectives stated above. For the first section of the test, students were asked to match each part of the rhetorical triangle to its definition, determining if students successfully met Objective 1. Overall, students did well on the first portion of the pre-test. Every student could successfully define at least two elements of the rhetorical triangle, and the class average for the first section of the test was 2.45/3 or 81.8%. Therefore, I assumed that my students had some previous knowledge about the rhetorical triangle, an inkling that was confirmed by my mentor teacher who informed me that she taught the rhetorical triangle in the beginning of the school year. Knowing that my students had considerable background knowledge on this topic, I decided to spend less time defining the elements of the rhetorical triangle. Instead, I led students in a short review of these terms and focused my time on defining the rhetorical devices, an area which students had less background knowledge in.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The second portion of the assessment was multiple-choice and asked students to select an example of each rhetorical device. To begin, this part of the assessment determined if students successfully met Objective 2, which asked them to identify examples of the rhetorical devices. However, in addition, this portion of the assessment also gauged if students met the second part of Objective 1, which also asked students to define the rhetorical devices. In order to select the correct example, students needed to comprehend the definition of logos, pathos, and ethos. Students’ pre-test scores demonstrated that they struggled with meeting these objectives. None of the students successfully identified all three examples of rhetorical devices, and many students did not get any correct in this section of the test. The mean score for part two of the assessment was 1.18/3 or 39.3%. Therefore, I knew that my students had little to no background knowledge of the rhetorical devices, which prompted me to spend more time with this objective. Since I only used half of a class to define the rhetorical triangle, I chose to spend the additional class time defining the rhetorical devices, so students were prepared to annotate texts for rhetorical devices the following day.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Finally, the third part of the pre- and post-tests assessed if students met Objective 3, which required students to analyze how rhetoric affects purpose. The first question in this section, “How does an author use the rhetorical triangle to create purpose?,” was used to determine if students could analyze how speaker, audience, and subject helped form and shape purpose. The second question, “How do rhetorical devices add to an author’s argument? What do they do for you as a reader?,” assessed if students could successfully analyze how rhetorical devices helped authors reach their purpose in writing, thus aligning with the final objective. Like the previous portion of the test, students also scored poorly on this part of the pre-assessment with an average score of 1.73/10 or 17.3%. Because students had difficulty with these assessment questions, I decided to incorporate analysis questions into the second and third day of instruction, preparing students for the post-assessment.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In addition to adapting my lesson plans based on students’ prior knowledge, I also conducted various formal and informal assessments to ensure that students were successfully meeting daily objectives. During the first lesson, I asked students to write definitions for speaker, subject, and audience on post-it notes. By reading the post-it notes, I could assess what my students already knew about these terms and lead them in creating class definitions. In addition, I also informally gauged students’ progress during discussions. For instance, when students were discussing how the video clips tried to convince them, I could determine if students could differentiate between appeals to logic, credibility, and emotion. As a formative assessment, I collected students’ notes to ensure that they successfully defined all terms.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">On the second day, students annotated texts for logos, pathos, and ethos. By collecting the highlighted articles, I could assess if students could correctly identify how authors used rhetorical devices in informational texts. Additionally, students’ exit writing asked them to explain how writers use rhetorical devices to fulfill their purpose. By reading students’ responses, I could determine if students were able to analyze how each type of appeal helped an author build an argument. On the final day of instruction, students completed a jigsaw where they needed to identify the speaker, audience, subject, and rhetorical devices in an informational text before analyzing how these elements worked together to fulfill the purpose. By circulating around the classroom and listening to groups’ discussions, I identified which students needed additional assistance. At the end of the lesson, I collected students’ graphic organizers in order to assess if students could successfully analyze how all the elements of rhetoric combined to create and affect purpose. From all of my formative assessments during the three days of instruction, I determined that students met the stated objectives and predicted that they would be successful on the post-test.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Instruction **
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As previously stated, my first lesson focused on Objective 1, namely defining the elements of rhetoric. This lesson was necessary in order to prepare students for the following two lessons. As a drill, students answered the question: What are some strategies you use to make an argument or get your point across to someone? I then reviewed the objective and agenda. After students knew the topic of the lesson, I gave each student a blue, pink, and orange post-it note. On the post-its, they wrote definitions of speaker, subject, and audience, placing their completed definitions on a class chart. I read these definitions aloud to the class, and together we formed class definitions for these words. Students recorded the definitions in their notes. Next, I wrote the words logos, pathos, and ethos on the board, telling students that they were called the three rhetorical devices. For each appeal, I showed a commercial clip and asked students to think about how the advertisement tried to convince them. After each clip, I led students in a discussion where they formulated definitions for the rhetorical devices. They recorded these definitions in their note packet, which was collected at the end of class.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The next lesson built on students’ knowledge of the rhetorical devices, asking them to identify examples in texts. For their drill, I asked students to pretend that they were trying to convince me to not give homework for the week and state which rhetorical devices they would use in their argument and why they picked those devices. The drill helped students recall the definitions of the rhetorical devices, and it sparked discussions about why devices are effective and add to arguments in different ways. After the drill, I reviewed the objective and agenda for the day. I then split students into mixed ability groups, placing a strong, average, and struggling student in each group. Each group received a folder with a reading and a highlighter. Groups read the article together and highlighted examples of a rhetorical device. Then, we rotated the folders and repeated with another rhetorical device. After highlighting for all three devices, students answered an assessment question: How do the rhetorical devices help writers fulfill their purpose. Use at least one example from today’s reading to explain your answer.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">For this lesson, I chose to use mixed ability groupings to help my struggling readers. All of the texts were The New York Times or CNN; therefore, they were written at or below grade level. Because my students all scored at least proficient on the MSA, they should be able to read these at an independent level. However, because students also needed to apply their knowledge of rhetorical devices to an analysis of the text, I used mixed ability groupings, so my stronger students could assist my struggling students. Stronger students modeled how to critically think and analyze texts for their lower-achieving peers, and these struggling students could bounce ideas off of their peers during discussion. Overall, I thought these mixed ability groupings were successfully. All students participated in the discussions about articles, and their final assessments showed that every student met the objective.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">On the final day of instruction, students engaged in a jigsaw activity where they analyzed the rhetoric and purpose of informational texts about censorship. For their drill, students answered the question: Why would it be a good idea to consider audience and subject before giving a presentation on censorship? This question was designed to help students recall what they learned about the rhetorical triangle in the first lesson while also prompting them to go deeper into analyzing why and how authors use rhetoric. After students shared their drill responses, I reviewed the day’s objective and agenda. I then split students into homogenous groups based on reading ability (standardized MSA data) and achievement data. Each group was given a manila folder with an article and graphic organizers for each group member. As a group, students read their articles and completed their section of the organizer, which asked them to summarize the article, name the subject, speaker, audience, and purpose, and analyze how rhetoric helped the author fulfill his or her purpose. While groups were working, I gave students different colored post-it notes. When it was time to switch groups, students found people with the same color post-it and started sharing responses.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Unlike in the second lesson, I chose to place students in homogenous groups because they would only be responsible for reading one article unlike in the previous lesson where every student read all three articles. In this manner, I could tailor the informational texts that students read based on their ability levels. Three of my groups were comprised of students who scored Advanced on their MSA and who had at least a ‘B’ as their current third quarter grade. These students were reading above grade level, so I chose to give them articles from The New York Times, which is written at a ninth grade level. Because the text’s difficulty was below their reading ability, I knew that students would be able to read it independently and also analyze it for rhetoric and purpose. I did not want to give students an above grade text because I wanted them to focus on analyzing rather than comprehending the material. My final group was comprised of students who scored Proficient on their MSA and who had a ‘C’ or lower in the class. To this group, I gave a CNN article that LexileAnalyzer placed in the 6-8th grade text complexity band. Again, I choose a reading below their ability, so they would feel confident analyzing its rhetoric and purpose.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When I listened to groups’ discussions and reviewed students’ graphic organizers, I determined that students met the objective for the lesson. Not only did students comprehend the readings independently but they were also able to analyze the rhetoric and explain how it contributed to purpose. Additionally, students were interested in the texts because they dealt with censorship and silenced voices in the contemporary world, a topic that students have shown interest in throughout this unit on censorship and freedom of speech. After students shared their expert articles, I had several students ask to take additional articles home to read because they were interested in the topics. Because some of my students, especially those in the Proficient category for MSA, are reluctant readers, I considered this a huge success.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Analysis, Reflection, and Self-Evaluation **
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Following these three lessons, students completed the post-test, which was identical to the pre-test. On the pre-test, the average score for the first section (defining the rhetorical triangle) was 81.8%. The average post-test score for this section was 90.1%. While this is only a small improvement, it demonstrates that the vast majority of my students successfully met objective 1. Furthermore, every student who missed points answered the same question incorrectly. There were four definitions and three terms in this section of the test, and all of the students who missed points defined speaker as C/D instead of picking one response as an answer. Therefore, their error could be a result of the assessments’ construction instead of their own lack of knowledge.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The average score for the second portion of the pre-test (identifying rhetorical devices) was 39.3%, which improved to 87.8% on the post-test. Students improved greatly on this portion of the exam, demonstrating that the majority of my students met the second objective. There were two students who did not perform well on this portion of the post-test and only identified one correct example. I was surprised by these scores because based on my formative assessments, students were successfully identifying examples of rhetoric; however, I now realize that the majority of these formative assessments were done with groups. Therefore, I recognize the importance of conducting more individual checks during my instructional lessons to ensure that all students are meeting the objectives. If I had previously known that these two students were struggling to identify rhetorical devices, I would have returned to the videos to review the definitions and then modeled how to analyze an article for logos, pathos, and ethos.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">On the final portion of the assessment (analyzing rhetoric), the average pre-test score was 17.3% while the average post-test score was 89.1%. Again, students improved dramatically in this area of the assessment. Further, every student scored at least satisfactory (70% or more) on this portion of the assessment, so the entire class demonstrated that they successfully met the third objective. In part, I believe that students were successful on this portion of the test because they had the most practice with it. I tried to weave analysis into each of the three lessons, so they had ample practice looking at rhetorical devices and explaining how they contributed to purpose.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">By the end of this validated practices project, students improved their assessment scores by 57%, moving from an average grade of 32% on the pre-test to an average grade of 89% on the post-test. Clearly, students’ knowledge and ability increased during these three days of instruction, and I believe that my activities helped students reach these goals. I think the color coordinated rhetorical triangle chart helped students create definitions for new terminology based on their previous knowledge. Because they were connecting new information to their prior knowledge, students better retained the definitions for these terms. I also think it was beneficial to identify rhetorical devices in informational texts because it gave them practice at differentiating between appeals to logic, credibility, and emotion. In other words, it allowed them to apply the definitions of these terms to a close reading, an important disciplinary activity. Further, I think the jigsaw activity was a huge success because it gave students the opportunity to synthesize all their knowledge about rhetoric and apply it to an analysis of a text. Overall, I believe that my lessons prepared students to meet the objectives and succeed on the assessment.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">However, there is always room for improvement. As I stated before, I think I should have built more individual assessment checks into my lessons to ensure that all students were meeting the day’s objective. By simply adding a quick exit ticket to each lesson, I could have identified that two of my students were struggling to identify rhetorical devices and gave them additional help in the following class. Furthermore, if I were to teach this lesson segment again, I would model activities more for students, especially the rhetorical device highlight. Thinking aloud, I would give students insight about how they should approach texts in a rhetorical analysis and make them more prepared to identify rhetorical devices or analyze how rhetoric relates to purpose. In other words, I would model how a disciplinarian would approach the topic, so they knew how to think, read, and analyze during the lesson. Now knowing the importance of formative assessments and modeling, my professional learning goals for the remainder of student teaching are to research different ways to assess students and model information and try these strategies in my classroom to see which are most effective.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Conclusion **
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Overall, I think this project was a success. My students improved as a result of my instructional sequence, and I learned a wealth of valuable knowledge about assessing student growth. While the pre- and post-tests took some instructional time and planning, they are something that I plan to use in my future classroom because they provide a helpful insight into what students already know and allow teachers to concretely assess if students are growing as a result of instruction.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Alignment Table
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Student Reading Table
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Pre-Tests
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lessons and Artifacts
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lesson 1 Plan: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lesson 1 Artifacts: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lesson 2 Plan: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lesson 2 Artifacts: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lesson 3 Plan: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lesson 3 Artifacts: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Post-Tests
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Impact on Student Learning
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">References
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Boylan, J. F. (2011, August 12). We want cake, too. The New York Times. Retrieved from: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Bradbury, R. (1951). Fahrenheit 451. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Dugger, C. W. (2011 June 11). Mugabe faces pro-democracy push from powerful neighbor, South Africa. The New York Times. Retrieved from: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">http://search.proquest.com.proxy-tu.researchport.umd.edu/docview/871245867/E1269A7478544E51PQ/9?accountid=14378 <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Guizhen, X. (2012, October 31). Silencing a voice for justice. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/in-china-silencing-a-voice-for-justice.html?_r=0 <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Kilusu, M. (2013, March 8). Married at 13 to a man in his 70s: Child bride who’s changing attitudes. CNN. Retrieved from: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/opinion/child-marriage-kilusu/index.html <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lemmon, G. (2013, October 11). Child brides robbed of their future. CNN. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/opinion/lemmon-girls- <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">day/index.html?iref=allsearch <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Maryland State Department of Education. (2013). State Curriculum for English Grades 9-12. Retrieved from: mdk12.org/share/hsvsc/source/VSC_english_hs.pdf <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Walker, B. (2011, March 20). ‘Voice of Free Libya’ silenced by sniper’s bullet. CNN. Retrieved from: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/20/voice-of-free-libya-silenced-by-snipers-bullet/?iref=allsearch <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Yardley, J. (2012, October 28). A village rape shatters a family, and India’s traditional silence. The New York Times. Retrieved from: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">http://search.proquest.com.proxy-tu.researchport.umd.edu/docview/1115409382/14179EDD4636D8CE397/1?accountid=14378