ela network team institute: principals’ sessions · deviate from the conventions of common genres...

ELA Network Team Institute: Principals’ Sessions Grades 9-12 March 19-20, 2015

New York State Common Core — ELA & Literacy EngageNY.org

Name: ________________________________________

Phone: ________________________________________

Email: ________________________________________

Please note: These materials are occasionally updated online to reflect revisions made in response to classroom or other feedback. We advise checking EngageNY.org before using a resource printed here to ensure you are accessing the most recent version.

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS & LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS

The standards’ approach to text complexity

To help redress the situation described above, the Standards define a three-part model for determining how easy or difficult a particular text is to read as well as grade-by-grade specifications for increasing text complexity in successive years of schooling (Reading standard 10). These are to be used together with grade-specific standards that require increasing sophistication in students’ reading comprehension ability (Reading standards 1–9). The Standards thus approach the intertwined issues of what and how student read.

A Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity As signaled by the graphic at right, the Standards’ model of text complexity consists of three equally important parts.

(1) Qualitative dimensions of text complexity. In the Stan- dards, qualitative dimensions and qualitative factors refer to those aspects of text complexity best measured or only measurable by an attentive human reader, such as levels of meaning or purpose; structure; language conventionality and clarity; and knowledge demands.

(2) Quantitative dimensions of text complexity. The terms quantitative dimensions and quantitative factors refer to those aspects of text complexity, such as word length or frequency, sentence length, and text cohesion, that are difficult if not impossible for a human reader to evaluate efficiently, especially in long texts, and are thus today typically measured by computer software.

(3) Reader and task considerations. While the prior two elements of the model focus on the inherent complexity of text, variables specific to particular readers (such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences) and to particular tasks (such as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned

Figure 1: The Standards’ Model of Text Complexity

and the questions posed) must also be considered when determining whether a text is appropriate for a given student. Such assessments are best made by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject.

appendix

a | 4

1

Common Core State StandardS for engliSh language artS & literaCy in hiStory/SoCial StudieS, SCienCe, and teChniCal SubjeCtSa

pp

en

dix

a | 5

The Standards presume that all three elements will come into play when text complexity and appropriateness are determined. The following pages begin with a brief overview of just some of the currently available tools, both quali-tative and quantitative, for measuring text complexity, continue with some important considerations for using text complexity with students, and conclude with a series of examples showing how text complexity measures, balanced with reader and task considerations, might be used with a number of different texts.

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of Text ComplexityThe qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity described below are representative of the best tools presently available. However, each should be considered only provisional; more precise, more accurate, and easier-to-use tools are urgently needed to help make text complexity a vital, everyday part of classroom instruction and curriculum planning.

Qualitative Measures of Text Complexity

Using qualitative measures of text complexity involves making an informed decision about the difficulty of a text in terms of one or more factors discernible to a human reader applying trained judgment to the task. In the Standards, qualitative measures, along with professional judgment in matching a text to reader and task, serve as a necessary complement and sometimes as a corrective to quantitative measures, which, as discussed below, cannot (at least at present) capture all of the elements that make a text easy or challenging to read and are not equally successful in rat-ing the complexity of all categories of text.

Built on prior research, the four qualitative factors described below are offered here as a first step in the development of robust tools for the qualitative analysis of text complexity. These factors are presented as continua of difficulty rather than as a succession of discrete “stages” in text complexity. Additional development and validation would be needed to translate these or other dimensions into, for example, grade-level- or grade-band-specific rubrics. The qualitative factors run from easy (left-hand side) to difficult (right-hand side). Few, if any, authentic texts will be low or high on all of these measures, and some elements of the dimensions are better suited to literary or to informational texts.

(1) Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts). Literary texts with a single level of meaning tend to be easier to read than literary texts with multiple levels of meaning (such as satires, in which the author’s literal mes-sage is intentionally at odds with his or her underlying message). Similarily, informational texts with an explicitly stated purpose are generally easier to comprehend than informational texts with an implicit, hidden, or obscure purpose.

(2) Structure. Texts of low complexity tend to have simple, well-marked, and conventional structures, whereas texts of high complexity tend to have complex, implicit, and (particularly in literary texts) unconventional structures. Simple literary texts tend to relate events in chronological order, while complex literary texts make more frequent use of flashbacks, flash-forwards, and other manipulations of time and sequence. Simple informational texts are likely not to deviate from the conventions of common genres and subgenres, while complex informational texts are more likely to conform to the norms and conventions of a specific discipline. Graphics tend to be simple and either unnecessary or merely supplementary to the meaning of texts of low complexity, whereas texts of high complexity tend to have simi-larly complex graphics, graphics whose interpretation is essential to understanding the text, and graphics that provide an independent source of information within a text. (Note that many books for the youngest students rely heavily on graphics to convey meaning and are an exception to the above generalization.)

(3) Language Conventionality and Clarity. Texts that rely on literal, clear, contemporary, and conversational language tend to be easier to read than texts that rely on figurative, ironic, ambiguous, purposefully misleading, archaic or otherwise unfa-miliar language or on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary.

(4) Knowledge Demands. Texts that make few assumptions about the extent of readers’ life experiences and the depth of their cultural/literary and content/discipline knowledge are generally less complex than are texts that make many assumptions in one or more of those areas.

2


pp

en

dix

a | 6

Figure 2: Qualitative Dimensions of Text Complexity

Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts)• Single level of meaning Multiple levels of meaning

• Explicitly stated purpose Implicit purpose, may be hidden or obscure

Structure • Simple Complex

• Explicit Implicit

• Conventional Unconventional (chiefly literary texts)

• Events related in chronological order Events related out of chronological order (chiefly literary texts)

• Traits of a common genre or subgenre Traits specific to a particular discipline (chiefly informational texts)

• Simple graphics Sophisticated graphics

• Graphics unnecessary or merely supplementary to understanding the text Graphics essential to understanding the text and may provide information not otherwise conveyed in the text

Language Conventionality and Clarity• Literal Figurative or ironic

• Clear Ambiguous or purposefully misleading

• Contemporary, familiar Archaic or otherwise unfamiliar

• Conversational General academic and domain-specific

Knowledge Demands: Life Experiences (literary texts)• Simple theme Complex or sophisticated themes

• Single themes Multiple themes

• Common, everyday experiences or clearly fantastical situations Experiences distinctly different from one’s own

• Single perspective Multiple perspectives

• Perspective(s) like one’s own Perspective(s) unlike or in opposition to one’s own

Knowledge Demands: Cultural/Literary Knowledge (chiefly literary texts)• Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required Cultural and literary knowledge useful

• Low intertextuality (few if any references/allusions to other texts) High intertextuality (many references/allusions to other texts)

Knowledge Demands: Content/Discipline Knowledge (chiefly informational texts)• Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required Extensive, perhaps specialized discipline-specific

content knowledge required

• Low intertextuality (few if any references to/citations of other texts) High intertextuality (many references to/citations of other texts)

Adapted from ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author; Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York; Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conrad, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Cambridge, UK: Brookline Books; Hess, K., & Biggam, S. (2004). A discussion of “increasing text complexity.” Published by the New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont departments of education as part of the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP). Retrieved from www.nciea.org/publications/TextComplexity_KH05.pdf

3


pp

en

dix

a | 7

Quantitative Measures of Text Complexity

A number of quantitative tools exist to help educators assess aspects of text complexity that are better measured by algorithm than by a human reader. The discussion is not exhaustive, nor is it intended as an endorsement of one method or program over another. Indeed, because of the limits of each of the tools, new or improved ones are needed quickly if text complexity is to be used effectively in the classroom and curriculum.

Numerous formulas exist for measuring the readability of various types of texts. Such formulas, including the widely used Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test, typically use word length and sentence length as proxies for semantic and syntactic complexity, respectively (roughly, the complexity of the meaning and sentence structure). The assump-tion behind these formulas is that longer words and longer sentences are more difficult to read than shorter ones; a text with many long words and/or sentences is thus rated by these formulas as harder to read than a text with many short words and/or sentences would be. Some formulas, such as the Dale-Chall Readability Formula, substitute word frequency for word length as a factor, the assumption here being that less familiar words are harder to comprehend than familiar words. The higher the proportion of less familiar words in a text, the theory goes, the harder that text is to read. While these readability formulas are easy to use and readily available—some are even built into various word processing applications—their chief weakness is that longer words, less familiar words, and longer sentences are not inherently hard to read. In fact, series of short, choppy sentences can pose problems for readers precisely because these sentences lack the cohesive devices, such as transition words and phrases, that help establish logical links among ideas and thereby reduce the inference load on readers.

Like Dale-Chall, the Lexile Framework for Reading, developed by MetaMetrics, Inc., uses word frequency and sentence length to produce a single measure, called a Lexile, of a text’s complexity. The most important difference between the Lexile system and traditional readability formulas is that traditional formulas only assign a score to texts, whereas the Lexile Framework can place both readers and texts on the same scale. Certain reading assessments yield Lexile scores based on student performance on the instrument; some reading programs then use these scores to assign texts to students. Because it too relies on word familiarity and sentence length as proxies for semantic and syntactic complex-ity, the Lexile Framework, like traditional formulas, may underestimate the difficulty of texts that use simple, familiar language to convey sophisticated ideas, as is true of much high-quality fiction written for adults and appropriate for older students. For this reason and others, it is possible that factors other than word familiarity and sentence length contribute to text difficulty. In response to such concerns, MetaMetrics has indicated that it will release the qualita-tive ratings it assigns to some of the texts it rates and will actively seek to determine whether one or more additional factors can and should be added to its quantitative measure. Other readability formulas also exist, such as the ATOS formula associated with the Accelerated Reader program developed by Renaissance Learning. ATOS uses word dif-ficulty (estimated grade level), word length, sentence length, and text length (measured in words) as its factors. Like the Lexile Framework, ATOS puts students and texts on the same scale.

A nonprofit service operated at the University of Memphis, Coh-Metrix attempts to account for factors in addition to those measured by readability formulas. The Coh-Metrix system focuses on the cohesiveness of a text—basically, how tightly the text holds together. A high-cohesion text does a good deal of the work for the reader by signaling relation-ships among words, sentences, and ideas using repetition, concrete language, and the like; a low-cohesion text, by contrast, requires the reader him- or herself to make many of the connections needed to comprehend the text. High-cohesion texts are not necessarily “better” than low-cohesion texts, but they are easier to read.

The standard Coh-Metrix report includes information on more than sixty indices related to text cohesion, so it can be daunting to the layperson or even to a professional educator unfamiliar with the indices. Coh-Metrix staff have worked to isolate the most revealing, informative factors from among the many they consider, but these “key factors” are not yet widely available to the public, nor have the results they yield been calibrated to the Standards’ text complexity grade bands. The greatest value of these factors may well be the promise they offer of more advanced and usable tools yet to come.

Reader and Task Considerations

The use of qualitative and quantitative measures to assess text complexity is balanced in the Standards’ model by the expectation that educators will employ professional judgment to match texts to particular students and tasks. Numer-ous considerations go into such matching. For example, harder texts may be appropriate for highly knowledgeable or skilled readers, and easier texts may be suitable as an expedient for building struggling readers’ knowledge or reading skill up to the level required by the Standards. Highly motivated readers are often willing to put in the extra effort re-quired to read harder texts that tell a story or contain information in which they are deeply interested. Complex tasks may require the kind of information contained only in similarly complex texts.

Numerous factors associated with the individual reader are relevant when determining whether a given text is ap-propriate for him or her. The RAND Reading Study Group identified many such factors in the 2002 report Reading for Understanding:

The reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory, critical analytic ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest in the content, self-efficacy as a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of

4


pp

en

dix

a | 8

comprehension strategies); and experiences.

As part of describing the activity of reading, the RAND group also named important task-related variables, includ-ing the reader’s purpose (which might shift over the course of reading), “the type of reading being done, such as skimming (getting the gist of the text) or studying (reading the text with the intent of retaining the information for a period of time),” and the intended outcome, which could include “an increase in knowledge, a solution to some real-world problem, and/or engagement with the text.”4

Key considerations in Implementing text complexity

Texts and Measurement ToolsThe tools for measuring text complexity are at once useful and imperfect. Each of the qualitative and quantitative tools described above has its limitations, and none is completely accurate. The development of new and improved text complexity tools should follow the release of the Standards as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the Stan-dards recommend that multiple quantitative measures be used whenever possible and that their results be confirmed or overruled by a qualitative analysis of the text in question.

Certain measures are less valid or inappropriate for certain kinds of texts. Current quantitative measures are suitable for prose and dramatic texts. Until such time as quantitative tools for capturing poetry’s difficulty are developed, de-termining whether a poem is appropriately complex for a given grade or grade band will necessarily be a matter of a qualitative assessment meshed with reader-task considerations. Furthermore, texts for kindergarten and grade 1 may not be appropriate for quantitative analysis, as they often contain difficult-to-assess features designed to aid early readers in acquiring written language. The Standards’ poetry and K–1 text exemplars were placed into grade bands by expert teachers drawing on classroom experience.

Many current quantitative measures underestimate the challenge posed by complex narrative fiction. Quantitative measures of text complexity, particularly those that rely exclusively or in large part on word- and sentence-level fac-tors, tend to assign sophisticated works of literature excessively low scores. For example, as illustrated in example 2 below, some widely used quantitative measures, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test and the Lexile Frame-work for Reading, rate the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel Grapes of Wrath as appropriate for grades 2–3. This coun-terintuitive result emerges because works such as Grapes often express complex ideas in relatively commonplace language (familiar words and simple syntax), especially in the form of dialogue that mimics everyday speech. Until widely available quantitative tools can better account for factors recognized as making such texts challenging, includ-ing multiple levels of meaning and mature themes, preference should likely be given to qualitative measures of text complexity when evaluating narrative fiction intended for students in grade 6 and above.

Measures of text complexity must be aligned with college and career readiness expectations for all students. Qualita-tive scales of text complexity should be anchored at one end by descriptions of texts representative of those re-quired in typical first-year credit-bearing college courses and in workforce training programs. Similarly, quantitative measures should identify the college- and career-ready reading level as one endpoint of the scale. MetaMetrics, for example, has realigned its Lexile ranges to match the Standards’ text complexity grade bands and has adjusted up-ward its trajectory of reading comprehension development through the grades to indicate that all students should be reading at the college and career readiness level by no later than the end of high school.

Figure 3: Text Complexity Grade Bands and Associated Lexile Ranges (in Lexiles)

Text Complexity Grade Band in the Standards Old Lexile Ranges

Lexile Ranges Aligned to

CCR expectations

K–1 N/A N/A

2–3 450–725 450–790

4–5 645–845 770–980

6–8 860–1010 955–1155

9–10 960–1115 1080–1305

11–CCR 1070–1220 1215–1355

4RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. The quoted text appears in pages xiii–xvi.

5


pp

en

dix

a | 9

Readers and TasksStudents’ ability to read complex text does not always develop in a linear fashion. Although the progression of Read-ing standard 10 (see below) defines required grade-by-grade growth in students’ ability to read complex text, the development of this ability in individual students is unlikely to occur at an unbroken pace. Students need opportuni-ties to stretch their reading abilities but also to experience the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading within them, both of which the Standards allow for. As noted above, such factors as students’ motivation, knowledge, and experiences must also come into play in text selection. Students deeply interested in a given topic, for example, may engage with texts on that subject across a range of complexity. Particular tasks may also require students to read harder texts than they would normally be required to. Conversely, teachers who have had success using particular texts that are easier than those required for a given grade band should feel free to continue to use them so long as the general movement during a given school year is toward texts of higher levels of complexity.

Students reading well above and well below grade-band level need additional support. Students for whom texts within their text complexity grade band (or even from the next higher band) present insufficient challenge must be given the attention and resources necessary to develop their reading ability at an appropriately advanced pace. On the other hand, students who struggle greatly to read texts within (or even below) their text complexity grade band must be given the support needed to enable them to read at a grade-appropriate level of complexity.

Even many students on course for college and career readiness are likely to need scaffolding as they master higher levels of text complexity. As they enter each new grade band, many students are likely to need at least some extra help as they work to comprehend texts at the high end of the range of difficulty appropriate to the band. For ex-ample, many students just entering grade 2 will need some support as they read texts that are advanced for the grades 2–3 text complexity band. Although such support is educationally necessary and desirable, instruction must move generally toward decreasing scaffolding and increasing independence, with the goal of students reading in-dependently and proficiently within a given grade band by the end of the band’s final year (continuing the previous example, the end of grade 3).

6

What is text complexity? The Standards’ Approach to Text Complexity The standards define a three-part model for determining how easy or difficult a particular text is to read as well as grade-by-grade specifications for increasing text complexity in successive years of schooling (Reading standard 10). These are to be used together with grade-specific standards that require increasing sophistication in students’ reading comprehension ability (Reading standards 1–9). The standards thus approach the intertwined issues of what and how students read. (Adapted from CCSS Appendix A.)

Model for Measuring Text Complexity Key Points

Qualitative Measures of Text

Complexity

Quantitative Measures of Text

Complexity

Reader and Task Considerations

Reader and

Task

Quantitative Qualitative

March 2015

©2014 Public Consulting Group. All rights reserved.

7

Qualitative Analysis: Literature Text Complexity Rubric

Text ___________________________________________________ Reviewer__________________________ Date___________

Criteria

Very Complex Moderately Complex Readily Accessible Notes

Meaning

Multiple levels of meaning that may be difficult to identify, separate, and interpret; theme is implicit, subtle, or ambiguous and may be revealed over the entirety of the text.

Multiple levels of meaning that are relatively easy to identify; theme is clear but may be conveyed with some subtlety.

One level of meaning: theme is obvious and revealed early in the text.

Text Structure

Prose or poetry includes more intricate elements such as subplots, shifts in point-of-view, shifts in time or non-standard text structures.

Prose includes two or more storylines or has a plot that is somewhat difficult to predict (e.g.: in the case of a non-linear plot); poetry has some implicit or unpredictable structural elements.

Prose or poetry is organized clearly and/or chronologically; the events in a prose work are easy to predict because the plot is linear; poetry has explicit and predictable structural elements.

Language Features

Language is generally complex with abstract, ironic, and/or figurative language, and regularly includes archaic, unfamiliar, and academic words; text uses a variety of sentence structures including complex sentences with subordinate phrases and clauses.

Language is often explicit and literal but includes academic, archaic, or other words with complex meaning (e.g.: figurative language); text uses a variety of sentence structures.

Language is explicit and literal, with mostly contemporary and familiar vocabulary; text uses mostly simple sentences.

Knowledge Demands

The text explores complex sophisticated or abstract themes; text is dependent on allusions to other texts or cultural elements; allusions or references have context and require inference and evaluation.

The text explores several themes; text makes few references or allusions to other texts or cultural elements; the meaning of references or allusions may be partially explained in context.

The text explores a single theme; if there are any references or allusions, they are fully explained in the text.

Quantitative Analysis Briefly explain recommended placement

Lexile: Flesch‐Kincaid: Reading Maturity Metric:

Final Placement

Complexity Level _______

8



Criteria


Meaning




Text Structure




Language Features




Knowledge Demands






Final Placement


9



Criteria


Meaning




Text Structure




Language Features




Knowledge Demands






Final Placement


10

Qualitative Analysis: Informational Text Complexity Rubric Text ___________________________________________________ Reviewer__________________________ Date___________

Criteria


Meaning

The text contains multiple purposes, and the primary purpose is subtle, intricate, and or abstract.

The primary purpose of the text is not stated explicitly but is easy to infer based upon context or source; the text may include multiple perspectives.

The primary purpose of the text is clear, concrete, narrowly focused, and explicitly stated; the text has a singular perspective.

Text Structure

Connections among an expanded range of ideas, processes, or events are often implicit, subtle, or ambiguous; organization exhibits some discipline-specific traits; any text features are essential to comprehension of content.

Connections between some ideas, processes, or events are implicit or subtle; organization is generally evident and sequential; any text features help facilitate comprehension of content.

Connections between ideas, processes, and events are explicit and clear; organization is chronological, sequential, or easy to predict because it is linear; any text features help readers navigate content but are not essential to understanding content.

Language Features

Language is generally complex, with abstract, ironic, and/or figurative language, and archaic and academic vocabulary and domain-specific words that are not otherwise defined; text uses many complex sentences with subordinate phrases and clauses.

Language is often explicit and literal but includes some academic, archaic, or other words with complex meaning; text uses some complex sentences with subordinate phrases or clauses.


Knowledge Demands

The subject matter of the text relies on specialized, discipline-specific knowledge; the text makes many references or allusions to other texts or outside areas, allusions or references have no context and require inference.

The subject matter of the text involves some discipline-specific knowledge; the text makes some references or allusions to other texts or outside ideas; the meaning of references or allusions may be partially explained in context.

The subject matter of the text relies on little or no discipline-specific knowledge; if there are any references or allusions, they are fully explained in the text.

Use of Graphics (optional)

Graphics are essential to understanding the text; they may clarify or expand information in the text and may require close reading and thoughtful analysis in relation to the text.

Graphics are mainly supplementary to understanding of the text; they generally contain or reinforce information found in the text.

Graphics are simple and may be unnecessary to understanding the text.


Lexile Flesch‐Kincaid: Reading Maturity Metric RMM:

Final Placement


11


Criteria


Meaning




Text Structure




Language Features




Knowledge Demands










Final Placement


12


Criteria


Meaning




Text Structure




Language Features




Knowledge Demands










Final Placement


13


pp

en

dix

b | 10

1

Grades 9–10 text exemplars

Stories

Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York: Viking, 1996. (8th century BCE)From Book One

Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turnsdriven time and again off course, once he had plunderedthe hallowed heights of Troy.Many cities of men he saw and learned their minds,many pains he suffered, heartsick on the open sea,fighting to save his life and bring his comrades home.But he could not save them from disaster, hard as he strove—the recklessness of their own ways destroyed them all,the blind fools, they devoured the cattle of the Sunand the Sungod blotted out the day of their return.Launch out on his story, Muse, daughter of Zeus.Start from where you will—sing for our time too. By now,all the survivors, all who avoided headlong deathwere safe at home, escaped the wars and waves.But one man alone…his heart set on his wife and his return—Calypso,the bewitching nymph, the lustrous goddess, held him back,deep in her arching caverns, craving him for a husband.But then, when the wheeling seasons brought the year around.That year spun out by the gods when he should reach his home,Ithaca—though not even there would he be free of trials,even among his loved ones—then every god took pity,all except Poseidon. He raged on, seething againstthe great Odysseus till he reached his native land.

“Book 1: Athena Inspires the Prince” by Homer, from THE ODYSSEY by Homer, translated by Robert Fagles, copyright © 1996 by Robert Fagles. Used by permission of Viking Penquin, a division of Penguin group (USA) Inc.

Ovid. Metamorphoses. Translated by A. S. Kline. Ann Arbor: Borders Classics, 2004 (AD 8). From “Daphne”

‘Wait nymph, daughter of Peneus, I beg you! I who am chasing you am not your enemy. Nymph, Wait! This is the way a sheep runs from the wolf, a deer from the mountain lion, and a dove with fluttering wings flies from the eagle: ev-erything flies from its foes, but it is love that is driving me to follow you! Pity me! I am afraid you might fall headlong or thorns undeservedly scar your legs and I be a cause of grief to you! These are rough places you run through. Slow down, I ask you, check your flight, and I too will slow. At least enquire whom it is you have charmed. I am no mountain man, no shepherd, no rough guardian of the herds and flocks. Rash girl, you do not know, you cannot realise, who you run from, and so you run. Delphi’s lands are mine, Claros and Tenedos, and Patara acknowledges me king. Jupiter is my father. Through me what was, what is, and what will be, are revealed. Through me strings sound in harmony, to song. My aim is certain, but an arrow truer than mine, has wounded my free heart! The whole world calls me the bringer of aid; medicine is my invention; my power is in herbs. But love cannot be healed by any herb, nor can the arts that cure others cure their lord!’

He would have said more as timid Peneïs ran, still lovely to see, leaving him with his words unfinished. The winds bared her body, the opposing breezes in her way fluttered her clothes, and the light airs threw her streaming hair behind her, her beauty enhanced by flight. But the young god could no longer waste time on further blandishments, urged on by Amor, he ran on at full speed. Like a hound of Gaul starting a hare in an empty field, that heads for its prey, she for safety: he, seeming about to clutch her, thinks now, or now, he has her fast, grazing her heels with his outstretched jaws, while she uncertain whether she is already caught, escaping his bite, spurts from the muzzle touch-ing her. So the virgin and the god: he driven by desire, she by fear. He ran faster, Amor giving him wings, and allowed her no rest, hung on her fleeing shoulders, breathed on the hair flying round her neck. Her strength was gone, she

14


pp

en

dix

b | 10

8

his accident. I maintain that the Ewells started it all, but Jem, who was four years my senior, said it started long before that. He said it began the summer Dill came to us, when Dill first gave us the idea of making Boo Radley come out. I said if he wanted to take a broad view of the thing, it really began with Andrew Jackson. If General Jackson hadn’t run the Creeks up the creek, Simon Finch would never have paddled up the Alabama, and where would we be if he hadn’t? We were far too old to settle an argument with a fist-fight, so we consulted Atticus. Our father said we were both right.

Shaara, Michael. The Killer Angels. New York: Ballantine, 1996. (1975)From “Longstreet”

“. . . have no doubt,” Fremantle was saying, “that General Lee shall become the world’s foremost authority on military matters when this war is over, which would appear now to be only a matter of days, or at most a few weeks. I suspect all Europe will be turning to him for lessons.”

Lessons?

“I have been thinking, I must confess, of setting some brief thoughts to paper,” Fremantle announced gravely. “Some brief remarks of my own, appended to an account of this battle, and perhaps others this army has fought. Some notes as to tactics.”

Tactics?

“General Lee’s various stratagems will be most instructive, most illuminating. I wonder, sir, if I might enlist your aid in this, ah, endeavor. As one most closely concerned? That is, to be brief, may I come to you when in need?”

“Sure,” Longstreet said. Tactics? He chuckled. The tactics were simple: find the enemy, fight him. He shook his head, snorting. Fremantle spoke softly, in tones of awe.

“One would not think of General Lee, now that one has met him, now that one has looked him, so to speak, in the eye, as it were, one would not think him, you know, to be such a devious man.”

“Devious?” Longstreet swung to stare at him, aghast.

“Oh my word,” Fremantle went on devoutly, “but he’s a tricky one. The Old Gray Fox, as they say. Charming phrase. American to the hilt.”

“Devious?” Longstreet stopped dead in the road. “Devious.” He laughed aloud. Fremantle stared an owlish stare.

“Why, Colonel, bless your soul, there ain’t a devious bone in Robert Lee’s body, don’t you know that?”

Tan, Amy. The Joy Luck Club. New York: Ballantine, 1989. (1989)From “Jing-Mei Woo: Two Kinds”

My mother believed you could be anything you wanted to be in America. You could open a restaurant. You could work for the government and get good retirement. You could buy a house with almost no money down. You could become rich. You could become instantly famous.

“Of course you can be prodigy, too,” my mother told me when I was nine. “You can be best anything. What does Aun-tie Lindo know? Her daughter, she is only best tricky.”

America was where all my mother’s hopes lay. She had come here in 1949 after losing everything in China: her mother and father, her family home, her first husband, and two daughters, twin baby girls. But she never looked back with regret. There were so many ways for things to get better.

We didn’t immediately pick the right kind of prodigy. At first my mother thought I could be a Chinese Shirley Temple. We’d watch Shirley’s old movies on TV as though they were training films. My mother would poke my arm and say, “Ni kan”—You watch. And I would see Shirley tapping her feet, or singing a sailor song, or pursing her lips into a very round O while saying, “Oh my goodness.”

“Ni kan,” said my mother as Shirley’s eyes flooded with tears. “You already know how. Don’t need talent for crying!”

15


pp

en

dix

b | 12

3

battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevi-table and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Washington, George. “Farewell Address.” (1796)

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instru-ment of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to sur-render their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissi-tudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Lincoln, Abraham. “Gettysburg Address.” (1863)

Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We are met to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting-place of those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a large sense we cannot dedicate,—we cannot consecrate,—we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly carried on. It is, rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that Government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

16


pp

en

dix

b | 12

4

Lincoln, Abraham. “Second Inaugural Address.” (1865)

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no predic-tion in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted alto-gether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was some-how the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous alto-gether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “State of the Union Address.” (1941)

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

Jobs for those who can work.

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privilege for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:

17


pp

en

dix

b | 12

5

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.

A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I shall recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.

If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will se-cure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggres-sion against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

Hand, Learned. “I Am an American Day Address.” (1944)

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitu-tions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a soci-ety where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.

Smith, Margaret Chase. “Remarks to the Senate in Support of a Declaration of Conscience.” (1950)

Mr. President:

I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustra-tion that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch of our Govern-ment.

18


pp

en

dix

b | 12

7

responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate—and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for ir-responsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from the side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide, and conquer.” As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or “cover-up” any more than a want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican “Fascist” just as much I condemn a Democratic “Communist.” I condemn a Democrat “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Republican “Communist.” They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts that I have drafted what I call a “Declaration of Conscience.” I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye, and Senator Hendrickson have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

King, Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Why We Can’t Wait. New York: Signet Classics, 2000. (1963)

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criti-cisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Confer-ence, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all in-directly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

License granted by Intellectual Properties Management, Atlanta, Georgia, as exclusive licensor of the King Estate.

King, Jr., Martin Luther. “I Have a Dream: Address Delivered at the March on Washington, D.C., for Civil Rights on August 28, 1963.” (1963)

19

Text Complexity and Task Considerations Sample Performance Tasks The following performance tasks further clarify the meaning of the Standards. These sample tasks illustrate specifically the application of the Standards to texts of sufficient complexity, quality, and range. Relevant Reading standards are noted in brackets following each task, and the words in italics in the task reflect the wording of the Reading standard itself. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf

Stories, Drama, and Poetry Informational Text • Students analyze how the character of Odysseus from

Homer’s Odyssey—a “man of twists and turns”—reflects conflicting motivations through his interactions with other characters in the epic poem. They articulate how his conflicting loyalties during his long and complicated journey home from the Trojan War both advance the plot of Homer’s epic and develop themes. [RL.9–10.3]

• Students analyze how Michael Shaara, in his Civil War novel The Killer Angels, creates a sense of tension and even surprise regarding the outcome of events at the Battle of Gettysburg through pacing, ordering of events, and the overarching structure of the novel. [RL.9–10.5]

• Students analyze in detail the theme of relationships between mothers and daughters and how that theme develops over the course of Amy Tan’s The Joy Luck Club. Students search the text for specific details that show how the theme emerges and how it is shaped and refined over the course of the novel. [RL.9–10.2]

• Students analyze how the Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa in his film Throne of Blood draws on and transforms Shakespeare’s play Macbeth in order to develop a similar plot set in feudal Japan. [RL.9–10.9]

• Students analyze how artistic representations of Ramses II (the pharaoh who reigned during the time of Moses) vary, basing their analysis on what is emphasized or absent in different treatments of the pharaoh in works of art (e.g., images in the British Museum) and in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias.” [RL.9–10.7]

• Students compare George Washington’s Farewell Address to other foreign policy statements, such as the Monroe Doctrine, and analyze how both texts address similar themes and concepts regarding “entangling alliances.” [RI.9–10.9]

• Students analyze how Abraham Lincoln in his “Second Inaugural Address” unfolds his examination of the ideas that led to the Civil War, paying particular attention to the order in which the points are made, how Lincoln introduces and develops his points, and the connections that are drawn between them. [RI.9–10.3]

• Students evaluate the argument and specific claims about the “spirit of liberty” in Learned Hand’s “I Am an American Day Address,” assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of his reasoning. [RI.9–10.8]

• Students determine the purpose and point of view in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, “I Have a Dream” speech and analyze how King uses rhetoric to advance his position. [RI.9–10.6]

Write a performance task based on the following text and lesson: Sugar Changed the World “Satyagraha” (pp. 121–126),

March 2015


20

NYS Common Core ELA & Literacy Curriculum D R A F T Grade 9 • Module 4 • Unit 1 • Lesson 22

File: 9.4.1 Lesson 22 Date: 3/28/14 Classroom Use: Starting 4/2014

© 2014 Public Consulting Group. This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

9.4.1 Lesson 22

Introduction

In this lesson, students read and analyze “Satyagraha” (pp. 121–126), the concluding section of Sugar

Changed the World. This lesson provides an opportunity for students to review and synthesize the

development of central claims in Sugar Changed the World. Students consider how the authors’ choice

to conclude the text with an exploration of Gandhi’s fight for Indian independence further develops and

refines these central claims.

Students collaborate in groups to trace the authors’ development of a central claim in “Satyagraha.”

Students continue their collaboration by completing an Unfolding Analysis Tool that prompts them to

make connections between the claims developed in “Satyagraha” and the claims developed in other

sections of Sugar Changed the World. The lesson assessment asks students to respond to the following

prompt: How does the concluding section, “Satyagraha,” refine a central claim developed throughout

Sugar Changed the World?

For homework, students preview the concluding essay, “How We Researched and Wrote This Book” (pp.

127–130), boxing any unfamiliar words and looking up their definitions.

Standards

Assessed Standard(s)

RI.9-10.5 Analyze in detail how an author’s ideas or claims are developed and refined by

particular sentences, paragraphs, or larger portions of a text (e.g., a section or

chapter).

Addressed Standard(s)

None.

Assessment

Assessment(s)

Student learning is assessed via a Quick Write at the end of the lesson. Students respond to the

following prompt, citing textual evidence to support analysis and inferences drawn from the text.

21







Activity 3: Reading and Discussion 30%

Instruct students to form pairs. Post or project the questions below for students to discuss.

Instruct students to independently read the final section of Sugar Changed the World, “Satyagraha” (pp. 121–126).

If necessary to support comprehension and fluency, consider providing a masterful reading of the

focus excerpt for the lesson.

Provide students with the following definitions: reprisals means “acts or instances of retaliation,” oppressors means “people who burden others with cruelty,” tyrants means “any people in positions of authority who use power unjustly,” vanquish means “to conquer by superior force; to overcome or overpower,” weaned means “to be withdrawn from some object, habit, form of enjoyment, or the like,” passive means “used to describe someone who allows things to happen or who accepts what other people do or decide without trying to change anything,” ultimatum means “a final, uncompromising demand or set of terms; a final proposal or statement of conditions.”

Students write the definitions of reprisals, oppressors, tyrants, vanquish, weaned, passive, and

ultimatum on their copy of the text or in a vocabulary journal. Then students read “Satyagraha”

independently.

Instruct student pairs to answer the following questions before sharing out with the class.

How do the authors define “Satyagraha”?

Student responses may include:

o The authors define Satyagraha as resistance through inner courage with the goal of

“convinc[ing] or convert[ing] the opponent [through] patience and sympathy” rather than

physical violence (p. 123).

o It is described as “the opposite of the idea that a human being can be made into property by

someone else’s laws, or guns, or prejudice” (p. 123).

o It is also defined as “truth with force,” “firmness,” or “love force” (p. 123).

Define the concepts of “passive resistance” (p. 123) and “noncooperation” (p. 124). Use the historical

examples from “Satyagraha” to support your response.


o “Passive resistance” means “non-violence,” as practiced on September 11, 1906, in the

Empire Theater in Johannesburg when Gandhi “invited each person in the theater to join

him in an exceptional oath, a pledge not to register, not to accept the government’s rules”

(pp. 122–123).

22







o “Noncooperation” means the refusal to participate, such as when Gandhi “told Indians not

to buy goods manufactured by their colonial master” (p. 124).

How do the central ideas of Gandhi’s “Satyagraha” compare to the ideas that sparked revolutions in

Haiti and British Guiana?


o Gandhi’s Satyagraha was a non-violent revolution based on the central idea of “passive

resistance” (p. 123). This concept stands in contrast to “defeat[ing] and vanquish[ing] the

enemy” (p. 123) that sparked the “bloody trail” of “gruesome revenge” in earlier revolutions

like those in Haiti and British Guiana.

o Satyagraha is defined by the goal of “convinc[ing] or convert[ing] the opponent” without the

use of violence. In Haiti and British Guiana, workers fought the violence of sugar work by

being “harder, tougher, and more willing to accept bloodshed than the owners” (p. 122).

o While earlier revolutions relied on violence to overcome hardship, Satyagraha is based on

the idea that freedom does not only “come from rising up against oppressors or tyrants” but

is also “found in oneself” (p. 122).

Consider providing time for students to review “The Sound of Liberty” (pp. 83–91) and their notes

and annotations for that section.

What connection do the authors establish between the global sugar trade and Satyagraha in South

Africa and India?

While the global sugar trade “turned human beings into property” Satyagraha led people to

reject the idea that any person could be owned by another” (p. 125).

Why might the authors choose to conclude Sugar Changed the World with an exploration of

Satyagraha?


o The authors may have chosen to conclude the text with an exploration of Satyagraha as an

example of positive change that arose out of intense and brutal struggle.

o This section of text signals the end of the slavery and indentured servitude, concluding the

brutal history of slavery and sugar on a positive note while ushering in a new era in which

people continue to work for freedom.

Lead a brief whole-class discussion of student responses.

23







Activity 4: Unfolding Analysis Activity 35%

Instruct students to reread the final two paragraphs of “Satyagraha” (p. 125) in their groups. Post or project the following question to focus student reading:

What central claim(s) do the authors make in the final two paragraphs of “Satyagraha”?

Student responses should identify the following claims:

o “Sugar turned human beings into property, yet sugar led people to reject the idea that any

person could be owned by another.” (p. 125)

o “Sugar murdered millions, and yet it gave the voiceless a way to speak.” (p. 125)

o “Sugar crushed people, and yet it was because of sugar that Gandhi began his experiment in

truth—so that every individual could free him- or herself.” (p. 125)

o “Only sugar—the sweetness we all crave—could drive people to be so cruel, and to combat

all forms of cruelty.” (p. 125)

o “this one substance forever marked our history” (p. 126)

o “Every day, we live in the world sugar created…where equality...exists in each one of us.

That is the sweet truth bought at the price of so much bitter pain.” (p. 126)

o “Sugar changed the world.” (p. 126)

Distribute copies of the Unfolding Analysis Tool: Connecting Ideas. Explain to students that they are to build upon their analysis of “Satyagraha” by exploring how the authors’ choice to conclude the text with this passage shapes and refines central claims developed throughout Sugar Changed the World. Instruct students to select one of the central claims they identified in the final two paragraphs of “Satyagraha” and fill in the “Central Claim from ‘Satyagraha’” section on their tool. Instruct students that they should return to the sections identified on this tool to make connections between this central claim in “Satyagraha” and the claims in previous sections of Sugar Changed the World.

Differentiation Consideration: If students need additional support working with this tool, consider

modeling one row as a class.

The Unfolding Analysis Tool: Connecting Ideas supports student’s engagement with RI.9-10.3.

Variations of this tool appear in Lessons 3, 11, and 15. The structure of and questions in this tool

vary based on the section of text under analysis, including its placement in the text as a whole, and

whether students analyze a series of ideas or a series of events.

Students review the Unfolding Analysis Tool and listen.

See the Model Unfolding Analysis Tool: Connecting Ideas for sample student responses.

Differentiation Consideration: Consider having students complete this tool in groups for support.

24







Activity 5: Quick Write 10%

Instruct students to respond in writing to the following prompt:

How does the concluding section, “Satyagraha,” refine a central claim developed throughout Sugar

Changed the World?

Instruct students to use their texts, notes, and completed tools to respond to the prompt. Ask students to use this lesson’s vocabulary wherever possible in their written responses. Remind students to use the Short Response Rubric and Checklist to guide their written responses.

Display the prompt for students to see, or provide the prompt in a hard copy.

Students follow along.

Transition students to the independent Quick Write.

Students independently answer the prompt, using evidence from the text.

See the High Performance Response at the beginning of this lesson.

Activity 6: Closing 5%

Display and distribute the homework assignment. For homework, instruct students to read “How We Researched and Wrote This Book” (pp. 127–130). Direct students to box any unfamiliar words and look up their definitions. Instruct them to choose the definition that makes the most sense in the context, and write a brief definition above or near the word in the text.

Students follow along.

Homework

Read “How We Researched and Wrote This Book” (pp. 127–130). Box any unfamiliar words and look up

their definitions, choosing the definition that makes the most sense in context. Write a brief definition

above or near the word in the text.

25







Unfolding Analysis Tool: Connecting Ideas

Name: Class: Date:

Central Claim from “Satyagraha”

“Sugar crushed people, and yet it was because of sugar that Gandhi began his experiment in truth—so that every individual could free him—or herself.” (p. 125)

Section What is the main idea?

How does the main idea in this section connect to the central claim you identified in “Satyagraha”?

26







Model Unfolding Analysis Tool: Connecting Ideas

Name: Class: Date:

Central Claim from “Satyagraha”

“Sugar crushed people, and yet it was because of sugar that Gandhi began his experiment in truth—so that every individual could free him- or herself.” (p. 125)

Section What is the main idea?

How does the main idea in this section connect to the central claim you identified in “Satyagraha”?

“A Cycle of Death and Sweetness” (pp. 35–41)

Slaves on sugar plantations were not treated like people, they were treated like parts of a “sugar machine” whose only job was to participate in the “brutal cycle” of making sugar (p. 36).

This section connects to the idea that “sugar crushed people” through brutal working conditions and slavery.

“The Pulse of Sugar Life” (pp. 54–55)

Sugar slaves found ways to express their humanity, to say that they were “not just bodies born to work and die” through music and dance (p. 54).

The sugar slaves were “experiment[ing] in truth” through their music, like Gandhi did with Satyagraha.

“The Sound of Liberty” (pp. 83–91)

The global connections that resulted from the sugar trade spread ideas about liberty across the world and resulted in revolutions in Haiti and British Guiana. Sugar caused slavery, but it also spread ideas of “liberty, equality, fraternity” (p. 83).

Although the sugar trade caused slavery, it also caused the spread of ideas about equality that Ghandi drew upon in his campaign.

27


Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12) Version 5 Grade: Literacy Lesson/Unit Title: Overall Rating:

Quality Review Rubric developed by the Tri-‐State Collaborative (MA, NY, RI facilitated by Achieve) Version 5, January 2013 rubric for EQuIP Quality Review View Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Educators may use or adapt. If modified, please attribute Tri-‐State and re-‐title.

I. Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional Supports IV. Assessment The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of grade-‐level CCSS ELA/Literacy standards.

Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction.

Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-‐level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose. (i.e., presents vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-‐level exemplars in Appendices A & B)

In addition, for units: Integrates reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills.

(Grades 3-‐5) knowledge and their understanding of reading and writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts.

The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence, and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction.

Text-‐Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-‐based discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-‐provoking, and text-‐dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video, and media).

Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains, or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses, or formal essays).

Academic Vocabulary: vocabulary in context throughout instruction.

In addition, for units: Increasing Text Complexity: Focuses students on reading a progression of complex texts drawn from the grade-‐level band. Provides text-‐centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the CCR level.

Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provides opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-‐specific texts.

Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade level units a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5).

Balance of Writing: Includes a balance of on-‐demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing, and speaking about texts.

Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text.

Focuses on challenging sections of text(s) and engages students in a productive struggle through discussion questions and other supports that build toward independence.

Integrates appropriate supports in reading, writing, listening and speaking for students who are ELL, have disabilities, or read well below the grade level text band.

Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read well above the grade level text band.

In addition, for units: Includes a progression of learning where concepts and skills advance and deepen over time.

Gradually removes supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities.

Provides for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-‐directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation, and/or reflection.

Integrates targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3-‐5.

Includes independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence, and motivation; indicates how students are accountable for that reading.

Uses technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-‐based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the major targeted grade level CCSS standards with appropriately complex text(s).

Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students.

Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance.

In addition, for units:

Uses varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre, formative, summative, and self-‐assessment measures.

Rating: 3 2 1 0 Rating: 3 2 1 0 Rating: 3 2 1 0 Rating: 3 2 1 0

28

Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12) Version 5 Quality review process for individuals or groups: Step 1 Review Materials

Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the recording form; scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance Study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing text complexity, quality, scope, and relationship to instruction

Step 2 Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment Identify the grade-‐level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets Individually check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Identify and record input on specific improvements that might be made to meet criteria or strengthen alignment Enter your rating 0 3 for Dimension I: Alignment

Note: Dimension I is non-‐negotiable and a rating of 2 or 3 is required for the review to continue. If the review is discontinued, consider giving general feedback to developers/teachers regarding next steps. Step 3 Apply Criteria in Dimensions II IV

Record comments on criteria met, improvements needed and then rate 0 3

When working in a group, individuals may choose to compare ratings after each dimension or delay conversation until each person has rated and recorded their input for the remaining Dimensions II IV. Step 4 Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments

Review ratings for Dimensions I IV adding/clarifying comments as needed Write summary comments for your overall rating on your recording sheet Total dimension ratings and record overall rating E, E/I, R, N adjust as necessary

Step 5 Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps Note the evidence cited to arrive at final ratings, summary comments and similarities and differences among raters. Recommend next steps for the lesson/unit and provide recommendations for

improvement and/or ratings to developers/teachers Additional Guidance for ELA/Literacy When selecting text(s) that measure within the grade-‐level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose, see The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts/Literacy at www.corestandards.org/ELA-‐Literacy; and the Supplement for Appendix A: New Research on Text Complexity as well as Quantitative and Qualitative Measures at www.achievethecore.org/steal-‐these-‐tools/text-‐complexity. See The riteria for Grades K-‐2 and the same for Grades 3-‐12 at www.achievethecore.org/steal-‐these-‐tools.

Rating Scales Note: Rating for Dimension I: Alignment is non-‐negotiable and requires a rating of 2 or 3. If rating is 0 or 1 then the review does not continue.

Rating Scale for Dimensions I, II, III, IV: 3: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension 2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension

1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension 0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension

Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in dimensions II, III, IV (total 11 12) E/I: Exemplar if Improved Aligned and needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (total 8 10) R: Revision Needed Aligned partially and needs significant revision in one or more dimensions (total 3 7) N: Not Ready to Review Not aligned and does not meet criteria (total 0 2)

Descriptors for Dimensions I, II, III, IV: 3: Exemplifies CCSS Quality meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion-‐based observations. 2: Approaching CCSS Quality meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-‐based observations.

1: Developing toward CCSS Quality needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion-‐based observations. 0: Not representing CCSS Quality does not address the criteria in the dimension.

Descriptors for Overall Rating: E: Exemplifies CCSS Quality Aligned and exemplifies the quality standard and exemplifies most of the criteria across Dimensions II, III, IV of the rubric. E/I: Approaching CCSS Quality Aligned and exemplifies the quality standard in some dimensions but will benefit from some revision in others.

R: Developing toward CCSS Quality Aligned partially and approaches the quality standard in some dimensions and needs significant revision in others. N: Not representing CCSS Quality Not aligned and does not address criteria.

29

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

http://www.achievethecore.org/steal-these-tools/text-complexity

http://www.achievethecore.org/steal-these-tools

Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12) – Version 4.2 Grade: Literacy Lesson/Unit Title: Overall Rating: E/I: Exemplar if Improved

Quality Rubric created by the Tri-‐State Collaborative (Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island) – facilitated by Achieve 5/18/2012. No changes to this rubric will be considered by the Tri-‐State Collaborative until after September 3, 2012. A state may use this rubric as is. A state must attribute this work to the Tri-‐State Collaborative if it chooses to modify.

I. Alignment to the Rigors of the CCSS I. Alignment to the Rigors of the CCSS II. Key Areas of Focus in the CCSS II. Key Areas of Focus in the CCSS The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of grade-‐level

ELA/Literacy CCSS for teaching and learning. **


Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-‐level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose. (i.e., present vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-‐level exemplars in Appendices A & B) **

In addition, for units: Integrates reading, writing, speaking

and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills.

(Grades 3-‐5) Builds students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading and writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts. [Disciplinary rubrics for grades 6-‐12 under development.]

Observations and Comments:

The lesson receives a 3-rating because it meets all “must have” criteria and is clearly aligned instructionally to the six ELA CCSS listed as instructional targets on p.2. [Note: Parallel standards from Literacy in History could also be targeted, if the focus of the lesson were more clearly on historical content and context.] The lesson is very strong in making text the focus of instruction and in developing a clearly purposeful lesson progression. The text (which measures 1170L) is appropriately complex for the 8th grade. Reading, speaking, listening, and writing are well-integrated. Suggestions for Improvement: The instructional purpose of the lesson would be even more clear to a teacher who intended to use it if the overview were more explicit about how and where the targeted CCSS skills are focused on within the lesson. If the lesson intends also to teach argument [W.8.1], as suggested by its titling of the second assignment, then the prompt and scaffolding could be revised to extend beyond their current focus on interpretive summary.

The lesson/unit addresses key areas of focus in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual

evidence, and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction. ** Text-‐Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-‐based

discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-‐provoking, and text-‐dependent questions (including, when applicable, illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video, and media). **

Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains, or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses, or formal essays). **

Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction.

In addition, for units: Increasing Text Complexity: Focuses students on reading a progression of

complex texts drawn from the grade-‐level band. Provides text-‐centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded, and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the CCR level.

Balance of Texts: Includes a balance of informational and literary texts as stipulated in the CCSS [p.5] and indicated by instructional time (may be more applicable across a year).

Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provides opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-‐specific texts.

Balance of Writing: Includes a balance of on-‐demand and process writing (e.g. multiple drafts/revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.


The lesson receives a 3-rating because this is a very strong exemplar of how to support students in reading closely, using text-based evidence, and writing from sources – three critical “must have” criteria in this Dimension. The lesson also includes teacher prompts on how to address vocabulary - the use of the Frayer model is especially strong – but could be more explicit about how to teach academic vocabulary in the context of the text and its historical relevance. Suggestions for Improvement:

The “thought provoking” questions that lead up to the final writing assignment are centered on values. While this is appropriate for the text selection, there are other avenues that could be explored in getting students to do close reading of the piece, some of which might be more clearly connected to social studies content (history, geography, etc.) if the lesson is situated in that curricular context.

Rating: 3 2 1 0 Rating: 3 2 1 0

Rating Scale for Each Dimension: 3: Meets all “must have” criteria (**) in dimensions I, II and most of the criteria in dimensions III, IV. 2: Meets many of the “must have” criteria in dimensions I, II and many of the criteria in dimensions III, IV. 1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension. 0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension.

Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar Lesson/Unit -‐ meets all the “must have” criteria (**) and most of the other criteria in all four dimensions (mainly 3’s). E/I: Exemplar if Improved -‐ needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (mainly 3’s and 2’s). R: Needs Revision -‐ is a “work in progress” and requires significant revision in one or more dimensions (mainly 2’s and 1’s). N: Not Recommended -‐ does not meet the criteria in the dimensions (mainly 1’s and 0’s). N/R: Not ready to review – use rubric to revise and organize lesson/unit then resubmit for a quality review.

30

Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12) – Version 4.2 Grade: Literacy Lesson/Unit Title: Overall Rating: E/I: Exemplar if Improved

Quality Rubric created by the Tri-‐State Collaborative (Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island) – facilitated by Achieve 5/18/2012. No changes to this rubric will be considered by the Tri-‐State Collaborative until after September 3, 2012. A state may use this rubric as is. A state must attribute this work to the Tri-‐State Collaborative if it chooses to modify.

III. Instructional Supports III. Instructional Supports IV. Assessment IV. Assessment The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing, and speaking about

texts. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate

complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text.


Integrates appropriate supports for reading, writing, listening and speaking for students who are ELL, have disabilities, or read well below the grade level text band.


In addition, for units: Includes a progression of learning where concepts and skills advance and deepen over

time. Gradually removes supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent

capacities. Provides for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-‐directed inquiry,

analysis, evaluation, and/or reflection. Integrates targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing

strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3-‐5. Includes independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina,

confidence, and motivation; indicates how students are accountable for that reading. Uses technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts

as appropriate.


The lesson models many excellent instructional approaches and cues, but receives a 2-rating mostly because it does not fully consider ways to engage students in the content being studied. Moreover, while it references the realities of a multi-level middle school classroom, it could be more explicit about how to support students reading well below the text selections’ Lexile level, especially students who are ELL or have disabilities. However, the lesson is exemplary in its commitment to having all students experience complex text directly, and targets more difficult or critical sections of text well. It also includes an optional writing extension for more advanced students. Suggestions for Improvement:

Graphic organizers such as those in the Appendices could be used even more strategically within the instructional sequence to both assess and support students who may struggle with the reading. Conversely, the final writing exercise may be overly scaffolded – almost a recipe for an essay. As presented and scaffolded, this assignment is not currently set up to teach argument, though it is labeled as such.

The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-‐based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable

evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the major targeted grade level CCSS standards with appropriately complex text(s).



In addition, for units: Uses varied modes of

assessment, including a range of pre, formative, summative, and self-‐assessment measures.


The developer of the lesson has intentionally not focused on assessment in setting up activities. However, there are many opportunities for collecting assessment evidence within the lesson sequence. Specifically, it could more explicitly assess reading skills, using the graphic organizers in Appendices B, C, and F, which potentially provide evidence of students’ reading that is not dependent on their writing skills. The two writing assignments could also be more specifically evaluated as evidence of students’ abilities to write from sources and use text-based evidence; however, students would then need to complete them more independently, and a standards-based rubric would be needed. Suggestions for Improvement: The graphic organizer activities could be reviewed between days of the lesson sequence to assess students’ reading of the selection – allowing for further support if needed. The writing assignments could be used as assessments of CCSS skills if they had rubrics/scoring guidelines directly connected to the targeted standards.

Rating: 3 2 1 0 Rating: 3 2 1 0

Summary Comments: In terms of its alignment to the spirit and the letter of the CCSS and its focus on key CCSS shifts, this is an exemplary lesson. It is particularly strong in making text the focus of instruction through a sequence of close reading and discussion activities. With some additional thinking about instructional supports and, particularly, assessment, it would represent an exemplary multi-day CCSS lesson.

31

NYS Common Core ELA & Literacy Curriculum D R A F T Grade 11 • Module 4 • Unit 1 Overview

File: 11.4.1 Unit Overview Date: 10/31/14 Classroom Use: Starting 11/2014




11.4.1 Unit Overview

“You’re twenty-one years old, you’re scared, and there’s a hard squeezing pressure in your chest. What

would you do?”

Texts “On the Rainy River” from The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien; “The Red

Convertible” from The Red Convertible by Louise Erdrich

Number of Lessons

in Unit 16

Introduction

In the first unit of Module 11.4, students continue to refine the skills, practices, and routines of reading

closely, annotating text, and engaging in evidence-based discussion and writing introduced in Modules

11.1, 11.2, and 11.3.

This unit focuses upon two masterful examples of the short story genre: Tim O’Brien’s “On the Rainy

River” from The Things They Carried and Louise Erdrich’s “The Red Convertible” From The Red

Convertible. Throughout the unit, students trace the development and interaction of central ideas, and

consider how both authors develop and relate story elements, including character, setting, and plot.

Students analyze both authors’ structural choices, paying particular attention to the role that point of

view plays in each text. Additionally, students are introduced to and practice narrative writing

techniques outlined in W.11-12.3.a and W.11-12.3.b.

As students read, discuss, and write about each short story, they examine how O’Brien and Erdrich use

narrative techniques to craft their stories. Using the short stories as models, students learn and practice

text-based narrative writing techniques detailed in the standards W.11-12.3.a and W.11-12.3.b.

Students engage in the writing process several times throughout the unit, including pre-writing,

brainstorming, drafting, peer review, revision, and editing.

There are two formal assessments in this unit. In the Mid-Unit Assessment, students craft a written

response to a prompt that asks them to choose a specific part of “On the Rainy River” and analyze how

it contributes to the overall meaning and structure of the text. For Part 1 of the End-of-Unit Assessment,

students engage in a discussion that asks them to consider each author’s point of view in “On the Rainy

32







River” and “The Red Convertible,” and analyze key textual evidence in which what is stated directly

differs from what is really meant. Part 2 of the End-of-Unit Assessment asks students to engage in the

narrative writing process to craft a text-based response to the following prompt: Consider another

character’s point of view in either “On the Rainy River” or “The Red Convertible” and retell a key scene

from either text through that character’s point of view. Students use the narrative writing skills they

have developed throughout this unit to brainstorm, pre-write, draft, peer review, revise, and publish

their narrative writing pieces.

Literacy Skills and Habits

Read closely for textual details

Annotate texts to support comprehension and analysis

Engage in productive, evidence-based discussions about texts

Collect and organize evidence from texts to support analysis in writing

Collect and organize evidence from texts to support analysis in discussion

Use vocabulary strategies to define unknown words

Independently read a text in preparation for supported analysis

Paraphrase and quote relevant evidence from a text

Generate and respond to questions in scholarly discourse

Examine and analyze fiction texts for effective narrative writing technique

Practice narrative writing techniques and skills

Engage in the writing process of brainstorming, prewriting, drafting, peer review, revision, and

publication of narrative writing

Standards for This Unit

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading

None.

CCS Standards: Reading — Literature

RL.11-12.2 Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their

development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build on

one another to provide a complex account; provide an objective summary of the

text.

33







RL.11-12.3 Analyze the impact of the author's choices regarding how to develop and relate

elements of a story or drama (e.g., where a story is set, how the action is ordered,

how the characters are introduced and developed).

RL.11-12.5 Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a

text (e.g. the choice of where to begin or end a story, the choice to provide a

comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well

as its aesthetic impact.

RL.11-12.6 Analyze a case in which grasping a point of view requires distinguishing what is

directly stated in a text from what is really meant (e.g., satire, sarcasm, irony, or

understatement).

CCS Standards: Reading — Informational

None.

CCS Standards: Writing

W.11-12.2.a-f Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas,

concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection,

organization, and analysis of content.

a. Introduce a topic; organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that

each new element builds on that which precedes it to create a unified whole;

include formatting (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and

multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension.

b. Develop the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant and relevant

facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information

and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.

c. Use appropriate and varied transitions and syntax to link the major sections of

the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas

and concepts.

d. Use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as

metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic.

e. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the

norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.

f. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the

information or explanation presented (e.g., articulating implications or the

significance of the topic).

W.11-12.3.a, b Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences.

34







a. Engage and orient the reader by setting out a problem, situation, or

observation and its significance, establishing one or multiple point(s) of view,

and introducing a narrator and/or characters; create a smooth progression of

experiences or events.

b. Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, description, reflection, and

multiple plot lines, to develop experiences, events, and/or characters.

W.11-12.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and

style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

W.11-12.5 Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting,

or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a

specific purpose and audience.

W.11-12.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or

shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments

or information.

W.11-12.9.a Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection,

and research.

a. Apply grades 11–12 Reading standards to literature (e.g., “Demonstrate

knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational

works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same

period treat similar themes or topics”).

CCS Standards: Speaking & Listening

SL.11-12.1.a, c,

d

Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-

one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 11–12 topics,

texts, and issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and

persuasively.

a. Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under

study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts

and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-

reasoned exchange of ideas.

c. Propel conversations by posing and responding to questions that probe

reasoning and evidence; ensure a hearing for a full range of positions on a topic

or issue; clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions; and promote

divergent and creative perspectives.

d. Respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives; synthesize comments, claims, and

evidence made on all sides of an issue; resolve contradictions when possible; and

35







determine what additional information or research is required to deepen the

investigation or complete the task.

CCS Standards: Language

L.11-12.1 Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage

when writing or speaking.

L.11-12.2 Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization,

punctuation, and spelling when writing.

L.11-12.4.a Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and

phrases based on grades 11–12 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range

of strategies.

a. Use context (e.g., the overall meaning of a sentence, paragraph, or text; a word’s

position or function in a sentence) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase.

L.11-12.5 Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances

in word meanings.

Note: Bold text indicates targeted standards that will be assessed in the unit.

Unit Assessments

Ongoing Assessment

Standards

Assessed

RL.11-12.2, RL.11-12.3, RL.11-12.5, RL.11-12.6, W.11-12.4, W.11-12.5, SL.11-12.1.a, c

Description of

Assessment

Assessments for reading lessons vary but may include informal written responses or

evidence-based discussions in response to text-based questions and prompts.

Additionally, students plan, draft, and peer review responses to text-based narrative

writing prompts.

Mid-Unit Assessment

Standards

Assessed

RL.11-12.5, W.11-12.2.a-f

Description of

Assessment

Students write a multi-paragraph response to the following prompt: Choose a

specific part of the text and analyze how it contributes to the overall meaning and

structure of the text.

36







End-of-Unit Assessment

Standards

Assessed

RL.11-12.6, W.11-12.3.a, b, SL.11-12.1.a, c, L.11-12.1, L.11-12.2

Description of

Assessment

Part 1: Students engage in a formal, evidence-based discussion in response to the

following prompt: Consider the point of view in each text. Choose evidence from

both texts in which what is directly stated differs from what is really meant. Explain

what is really meant by the chosen text evidence.

Part 2: Students brainstorm, prewrite, draft, peer review, revise, edit and publish a

text-based narrative writing piece in response to the following prompt: Consider

another character’s point of view in either “On the Rainy River” or “The Red

Convertible” and retell a key scene from either text through that character’s point

of view.

Unit-at-a-Glance Calendar

Lesson Text Learning Outcomes/Goals

1 "On the Rainy River" from

The Things They Carried by

Tim O’Brien, pages 37–44

In this first lesson of the unit and module, students begin

analysis of “On the Rainy River,” a short story from The

Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien. Students analyze the

impact of the narrator’s first person point of view on the

developing story, taking into consideration how the narrator

positions himself in relation to the 20-year-old events he

recounts.

2 "On the Rainy River,” from



In this lesson, students continue to read and analyze “On the

Rainy River.” This excerpt introduces the Tip Top Lodge,

where the narrator goes to contemplate leaving the United

States to escape the draft. This excerpt also introduces

students to a pivotal character in the story, Elroy Berdahl,

the proprietor of the Tip Top Lodge. Students pay particular

attention to the way interrelated elements contribute to plot

development in this excerpt.

37








3 "On the Rainy River," from



In this lesson, students read and analyze pages 52–58 of “On

the Rainy River” in which the narrator confronts his decision

to flee the United States and the draft. Students discuss the

conclusion of the text, including the relationship between

the narrator and Elroy, and how point of view develops

central ideas, while completing an Evidence Collection Tool.

Students use the 11.4.1 Lesson 3 Evidence Collection Tool to

guide small group discussions about how the narrator’s point

of view develops central ideas in the text.

4 “On the Rainy River” from


Tim O’Brien

In this lesson, students prepare for the Mid-Unit Assessment

in the following lesson by engaging in an evidence-based

discussion analyzing Tim O’Brien’s “On the Rainy River.” This

lesson provides the first opportunity for students to discuss

the story in its entirety, specifically focusing on how certain

parts of the text contribute to the overall meaning and

structure of the text.



Tim O’Brien

In this lesson, the Mid-Unit Assessment, students use textual

evidence from Tim O’Brien’s “On the Rainy River” to craft a

formal, multi-paragraph response to the following prompt:

Choose a specific part of the text and analyze how it

contributes to the overall meaning and structure of the text.



Tim O’Brien

In this lesson, students are introduced to writing standard

W.11-12.3.a, which requires students to create an engaging

narrative introduction that orients the reader to a problem,

situation, or observation and its significance; establish point

of view; introduce characters or a narrator; and create a

smooth progression of experiences or events. This is the first

of several lessons in the module that include targeted writing

instruction on W.11-12.3.



Tim O’Brien

In this lesson, students engage in peer review and revision of

their text-based narrative writing pieces from the previous

lesson. The peer review is based on W.11-12.3.a. Students

revise their narrative writing pieces based on the peer review

process and the Peer Review Accountability Tool.

38








8 "The Red Convertible" from

The Red Convertible by

Louise Erdrich, pages 1–4

In this lesson, students begin reading and analyzing Louise

Erdrich’s “The Red Convertible” from The Red Convertible.

Students read pages 1–4, in which Marty introduces himself

and recounts a trip he took with his brother Stephan in a red

convertible. Analysis focuses on the development of the

narrator, Marty, and his brother, Stephan, and specifically on

how Marty’s point of view impacts the character

development of Stephan.

9 "The Red Convertible," from


Louise Erdrich, pages 4–10

In this lesson, students complete their reading and analysis

of "The Red Convertible.” Students read pages 4–10, in which

Stephan returns from the Vietnam War, and Marty describes

the events leading up to the final moments of Stephan’s life.

Analysis focuses on how elements in the text impact the

development of the relationship between two central

characters in this excerpt. Students consider the setting of

the river, the dialogue and interactions between the two

brothers, and how Erdrich uses the red convertible both

literally and symbolically to develop and refine the

relationship between the two brothers.

10 "The Red Convertible" from


Louise Erdrich

In this lesson, students apply their reading and analysis of

“The Red Convertible” by analyzing the aesthetic impact of

Erdrich’s choices in structuring the text. Students consider

how the decision to provide information about the ending of

the story in the first paragraph impacts the reader’s

understanding of the story as a whole. After briefly

responding in writing, students participate in a whole-class

discussion about their responses regarding the aesthetic

impact of the author’s structural choices in the text.

39








11 “The Things They Carried”

from The Things They Carried

by Tim O’Brien; “The Red

Convertible” from The Red

Convertible by Louise Erdrich

In this lesson, narrative writing instruction continues with the

introduction of a new substandard: W.11-12.3.b, which

requires students to incorporate narrative techniques into

their writing to develop events, experiences, and characters.

Students review the two texts in this unit, “On the Rainy

River” from The Things They Carried and “The Red

Convertible” from The Red Convertible, to identify and

analyze the authors’ use of narrative techniques.

12 “The Red Convertible” from


Louise Erdrich

In this lesson, students engage in peer review and revision of

their text-based narrative writing pieces from the previous

lesson. Students peer review and revise their writing for

components of W.11-12.3.b: effective use of narrative

writing techniques to develop experiences, events, and/or

characters.



Tim O’Brien; “The Red



In this lesson, students return to analyzing the 11.4.1 texts

for Part 1 of the End-of-Unit Assessment. Students

participate in small group discussions, analyzing both texts in

this unit: “On the Rainy River” and “The Red Convertible.”

Students review the texts and complete the 11.4.1 End-of-

Unit Evidence Collection Tool before engaging in a text-based

discussion. Student learning is assessed via discussion in

response to the following prompt: Consider the point of view

in each text. Choose evidence from both texts in which what

is directly stated differs from what is really meant. Explain

what is really meant by the chosen text evidence.

40













In this lesson, students begin Part 2 of the End-of-Unit

Assessment by planning their text-based narrative writing in

response to the following prompt: Consider another

character’s point of view in either “On the Rainy River” or

“The Red Convertible” and retell a key scene from either text

through that character’s point of view. Students choose a

character and a scene from one of the two unit texts, and

brainstorm and prewrite in preparation for drafting text-

based narrative writing pieces, using the skills outlined in

W.11-12.3.a,b.






In this lesson, students continue Part 2 of the End-of-Unit

Assessment by peer reviewing and revising their narrative

writing from the previous lesson. Students peer review and

revise for standards W.11-12.3.a and W.11-12.3.b, including

engaging introductions and effective use of narrative writing

techniques such as dialogue, pacing, description, or

reflection.

16 ““On the Rainy River” from





In this last lesson of the unit, students complete Part 2 of the

End-of-Unit Assessment. Students work in class to finalize

their narrative writing pieces by editing, polishing, and

rewriting as necessary. Students also publish their narrative

writing pieces on a class blog, which serves as a repository

for student writing throughout this module.

Preparation, Materials, and Resources

Preparation

Read and annotate “On the Rainy River” from The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien and “The Red

Convertible” from The Red Convertible by Louise Erdrich.

Review the Short Response Rubric and Checklist.

Review the 11.4 Speaking and Listening Rubric and Checklist.

Review the 11.4 Narrative Writing Rubric and Checklist.

Review the 11.4.1 Mid-Unit Assessment and End-of-Unit Text Analysis Rubrics and Checklists.

41







Review all unit standards and post in classroom.

Materials and Resources

Chart Paper

Copies of “On the Rainy River” from The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien and “The Red

Convertible” from The Red Convertible by Louise Erdrich

Writing utensils including pencils, pens, markers, and highlighters

Methods for collecting student work: student notebooks, folders, etc.

Access to technology (if possible): interactive whiteboard, document camera, LCD projector,

computers for individual students (for word processing and blogging narrative writing)

Self-stick notes for students

Copies of handouts and tools for each student: see materials list in individual lesson plans

Copies of the Short Response Rubric and Checklist

Copies of the 11.4 Speaking and Listening Rubric and Checklist

Copies of the 11.4 Narrative Writing Rubric and Checklist

Copies of 11.4 Common Core Learning Standards Tool

Copies of the 11.4.1 Mid-Unit and End-of-Unit Text Analysis Rubrics and Checklists

Copies of the Peer Review Accountability Tool

42


EQuIP Review Feedback

Lesson/Unit Name: “On the Rainy River” and “The Red Convertible” (Module 4, Unit 1) Content Area: English language arts Grade Level: 11

Dimension I – Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS

The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS:

Targets a set of grade-level CCSS ELA/Literacy standards.


Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose (e.g., presents vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-level exemplars in Appendices A & B).

A unit or longer lesson should: Integrate reading, writing, speaking and

listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills.

(Grades 3-5) Build students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading and writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts.

TARGETS A SET OF GRADE-LEVEL STANDARDS Pages 2-6 of the unit explicitly list the standards that are the focus of this unit of study, the standards that are addressed, and yearlong target standards which are embedded throughout the unit. Standards for reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language are included. Standards are explicitly tied to every lesson and activity in the unit. The developer introduces standards at the beginning of every lesson and deconstructs standards for students when needed. The inclusion of yearlong standards is valuable for students who may need extra practice, allowing interventions to be built into this unit to provide the extra support students need to experience academic success. CLEAR AND EXPLICIT PURPOSE FOR INSTRUCTION A clear and explicit purpose for instruction is evident and is clearly stated in Lesson 1 on page 5: "Students in this fourth module of the year read, discuss, and analyze contemporary and canonical American literature, focusing on how authors structure texts, establish point of view, and develop complex characters." Each lesson contributes to the students' successful completion of the final task. Adding language in the introductory material for each lesson that describes how it contributes to the student's knowledge and skills necessary to meet the overall purpose of the unit would provide tighter coherence between individual lessons and their common goal. The coherence BETWEEN lessons IS EXPLICIT as exemplified in the Introduction of Lesson 7 that states, "In this lesson, students engage, in peer review and revision of their text-based narrative writing pieces from the previous lesson" (Lesson 7, p 1). The refinement is only needed to establish a coherent focus on the final goal or outcome and could be accomplished via a verbal link at the beginning of each lesson that explains how this lesson contributes to the overall purpose or goal for the unit. TEXT COMPLEXITY The texts have multiple levels of meaning and serve multiple purposes throughout the unit. Taking into consideration quantitative, qualitative, and reader and task measures of text complexity, the texts are of appropriate complexity for Grade 11. The quantitative measures for "On the Rainy River," 940 and "The Red Convertible," 800 are at a 5th to 6th grade reading levels. However, the qualitative measures are much more complex regarding the manipulation of time during reflection of past events and the use of such components as 1st person narrator, figurative language, and unfamiliar vocabulary. The developer states that "Both stories have an end, but neither has a resolution for the narrator" (Submission Form, p 2). It is important to note that Grade 11 students should encounter texts that meet the quantitative measure of text complexity with greater frequency toward the end of the year as they prepare to independently comprehend workplace and college texts that extend considerably beyond the demands of Grades 5-6. This unit spends a

Overall Rating:

E Exemplar

43

little more than three full weeks of instruction on two texts, each that can easily be read in one sitting. The rigor of work that is done with the texts in the unit justifies this use of time and validates the selection of texts; however, it is recommended that consideration be given to addressing the full range of complexity in the body of texts that are provided to students over the course of the year. INTEGRATE READING, WRITING, SPEAKING AND LISTENING Standards for reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language are addressed in this unit of study. The standards are listed in the Unit Overview and repeated in each individual lesson as appropriate. In several lessons, students are expected to work in groups and are assessed using a rubric that is tied to a range of standards.

Rating: 3 – Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension

Dimension II – Key Shifts the CCSS

The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS:

Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence, and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction.

Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking, and text-dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video, and media).

Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains, or makes an argument in various written forms (e.g., notes, summaries, short responses, or formal essays).


A unit or longer lesson should: Increasing Text Complexity: Focus students on

reading a progression of complex texts drawn from the grade-level band. Provide text-centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the CCR level.

Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provide opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-specific texts.

Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade-level units a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5).

READING TEXT CLOSELY Close reading is central to this unit. Students read and analyze "On the Rainy River" for five lessons. Then students read and analyze "The Red Convertible" for three lessons. In addition, the writing assignments in the other eight lessons instruct students to draw evidence from the texts, which leads students to reread them closely multiple times. TEXT-BASED EVIDENCE The developer structures the unit so that it facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking, and text-dependent questions and activities. Text-based questions are included in each of the analysis lessons under the Reading and Discussion heading. WRITING FROM SOURCES Throughout the unit students are routinely expected to draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs or explains in various written formats, such as notes, short responses, and formal essays. The developer includes Quick Writes (Lesson 1, 3, 8, 9, and 10), a Mid-Unit assessment analysis writing prompt, and evidence collection tools (Lesson 3, p. 11; Lesson 4, p. 8; Lesson 7, p. 7; Lesson 10, p. 10; Lesson 13, P 8), all of which require students to gather, record, and organize evidence from the text(s). The End-of-Unit assessment is more creative in nature, requiring a text-based narrative in which students rewrite a section of the text that must fit appropriately in the original work. ACADEMIC VOCABULARY The developer addresses vocabulary in three ways: directly (which will not include extended instruction), vocabulary to teach (which may include direct word work and/or questions) and additional vocabulary to support English Language Learners (to provide directly). The developer directly provides vocabulary words from the texts and definitions in abundance; students are instructed to write the definitions on the text or in a journal and are encouraged to use vocabulary words in their written responses. For example, on page 12 of Lesson 1, students are asked to use the identified vocabulary for the lesson in their writing. In other instances, students are asked to identify unknown words in the text as they read, look them up, and write the definitions in their vocabulary journals, and they

44

Balance of Writing: Include a balance of on-demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

later discuss these words with a partner. Since vocabulary knowledge of students often ranges widely, self-identification of unfamiliar words is an effective way to differentiated vocabulary instruction. Directing students to read and discuss the sentence in the text where the unfamiliar vocabulary is used would provide context in addition to the dictionary definition to support vocabulary acquisition. Across 16 lessons, the unit provides two examples of direct vocabulary instruction, both using text-dependent questions: Lesson 2, p 8 the question asks about the word "reticence" and Lesson 8, p 7 the question asks about the pronoun "we." Including more vocabulary-focused, text-dependent questions is a way to increase students' opportunities to study unfamiliar vocabulary in context. The developer is to be commended for providing additional words and definitions for ELL students and for selecting vocabulary from the texts. Providing more words and activities for direct instruction would broaden the opportunity to use a range of strategies for acquiring new vocabulary. INCREASING TEXT COMPLEXITY This unit focuses on a set of two texts of similar text complexity. The first text, "On the Rainy River," measures 940L, 140 points higher than the second text studied, "The Red Convertible." The quantitative measures of the text are in the 5th-6th grade range for text complexity. The qualitative measures are also relatively equal, both measuring exceedingly complex on the Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures Rubric. These measures do not demonstrate increasing text complexity; however, the developer should be complemented for selecting texts on an engaging topic that provide significant challenges for comprehension regarding qualitative complexity measures. Including an additional text(s) with a higher quantitative measure would provide an increase in text complexity within this unit. BUILDING DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE The unit builds disciplinary knowledge throughout. Students build knowledge about the Vietnam War, a social studies topic, and about writing an effective narrative, an English Language Arts topic. The author uses two texts set during the same time period, and both protagonists struggle with the effects of the war. The developer provides background information to share with students to clarify questions and misconceptions about the time period. A suggestion for students to build additional disciplinary knowledge would be to give groups of students topics to research related to the Vietnam War and have students present their findings to the class. In addition to building knowledge about social studies, the lessons also address the body of skills needed to write a text-based narrative that meets the expectations of W.11-12.3.a, b. The evidence collection tools, annotations, Quick Writes, and discussions are components of learning that are used together to build the requisite knowledge for completing the Mid-Unit Assessment and later the End-of-Unit assessment. BALANCE OF TEXTS According to page 5 of the Introduction to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History, Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, it is appropriate for students to study literature and literary nonfiction in their English classes. The standards require that 30% of all texts studied throughout the day be literary. The study of such literary texts is almost exclusive to the English classroom. When considering texts that are taught throughout the school day, this

45

unit meets these expectations. The unit presents an unmet opportunity to complement the two literary texts with some informational reading. One suggestions is to include some informational articles to build background knowledge on the Vietnam War. The teacher might provide 4-5 articles, each addressing a different aspect of the war and allow each group to summarize one article and share it with the class. BALANCE OF WRITING A balance of writing, on demand and process, is found throughout the unit. Students practice writing on demand with Quick Writes and Exit Slips that lead to homework and independent tasks. Students complete a variety of evidence collection tools across multiple lessons. They produce a multi-paragraph literary analysis for the Mid-Unit Assessment. In addition, they produce an introduction for a text-based narrative Lesson 6 and create a more fully-developed narrative text in Lesson 11. Students use the writing process to create and revise their text-based narrative writing pieces in Lessons 14, 15, and 16.


Dimension III – Instructional Supports

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs:

Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing and speaking about texts.

Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use.

Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text.




A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where

concepts and skills advance and deepen over time (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Gradually remove supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation and/or reflection.

CULTIVATES STUDENT INTEREST AND ENGAGEMENT The unit does an excellent job of cultivating student interest and engagement in reading, writing, and speaking about texts. Students are given the opportunity to formulate their thoughts and gather evidence before discussing the texts in class (e.g., homework assignments, independent work in class before discussions). Both texts are about personal feelings of the narrators and have the potential to engage students who identify with personal struggle in relationships and moral choices. The variety of evidence collection tools helps provide focus and engagement for reading. The Common Core Learning Standards Tool provides purpose for the activities in the lessons. The Peer Review Accountability Tool provides an opportunity to share rationale for including or excluding feedback from peers, which develops autonomy and engagement through choice. The Narrative Writing Rubric and Checklist and the Speaking and Listening Rubric and Checklist provide specific criteria whereby students can set personal goals and meet expectations for excellence with confidence. ADDRESSES INSTRUCTIONAL EXPECTATIONS The unit thoroughly addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Each lesson within the unit employs the same headings. An explicit key is used consistently to delineate the learning sequence, using specific symbols and fonts to differentiate among information for teacher action, text-dependent questions, vocabulary words, student actions, possible student responses, and instructional notes. Sample student responses are supplied but not presented as the only correct responses. Percentages of total time are allocated to each component of the learning sequence. Vocabulary is identified and listed with definitions. The evidence collection tools, rubrics, checklists, and other tools are all included in the unit. The standards for the unit are listed and categorized as assessed or addressed standards. PROVIDES ALL STUDENTS WITH MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE WITH TEXT

46

Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3-5.

Indicate how students are accountable for independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

The unit provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity and includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text. An example of this is the requirement that students read the two texts several times. Students are instructed to read the texts independently for homework before any class discussions or activities. In class, students are paired and read the text together. Students are provided vocabulary and definitions to possible unknown words and instructed to record the definitions of these words. Recording the words directly onto the texts will allow students to repeatedly interact with the words because they continuously interact with the text throughout the unit. Students also interact with the texts when they answer text dependent questions, complete the evidence collection tool handouts, and complete the Mid-Unit and End-of-Unit assessments. Students are also redirected to the texts when creating their narratives. FOCUSES ON CHALLENGING SECTIONS OF TEXT(S) The unit focuses on challenging sections of texts and engages students in productive struggle through discussion questions and other supports, such as homework writing and quick writes. Each reading lesson directs students to a particular set of pages, and the lesson focuses on that excerpt. INTEGRATES APPROPRIATE SUPPORTS The unit integrates a variety of appropriate supports in reading and writing for ELL and struggling students. The following are just a few examples: Multiple exposures to the text first independently for homework, later in pairs (which can be strategically selected), small groups, and whole class provides support for struggling students. Additional vocabulary words are identified to scaffold struggling students in each lesson when students are reading a text. The developer provides opportunities for the teacher to select a different text for instruction to support struggling students. Additional, scaffolded text-dependent questions that break down more encompassing questions are provided for support. Many unfamiliar references such as "The Lone Ranger" in Lesson 1, page 7 are explained to students so they will comprehend the text. Writing prompts are read aloud and provided in print. Modeling is provided as a scaffold in Lesson 3, page 8. The developer thoroughly embeds appropriate instructional supports for students. PROVIDES EXTENSIONS There are several opportunities to extend the learning of achieving students. Lesson 1, pages 8 and 9 provide an additional question for advanced students: "What is the 'moral emergency' the narrator describes on page 37? Why is it a 'moral emergency?' “Lesson 1, p. 11 provides the following extension question, "Why was there 'no happy way out' (p. 41)?" Lesson 5, p. 6 suggests that the teacher "Consider encouraging students who finish early to reread and revise their responses." Lesson 6, p. 10 suggests that the teacher "Consider instructing students to briefly research public opinion about the Vietnam War to support them as they craft new introductions to 'On the Rainy River.' " Lesson 9, p 7 suggest that students might research the term 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder' to engage in an informed discussion about Stephan's actions." Lesson 9, p. 9 suggests the following extension question, "How does Marty's use of the direct address 'you' impact the meaning and tone of the final scene (p.9)?" The developer has included strong extensions in lessons 1, 5, 6, and 9. The developer might consider including extensions in other lessons to make this aspect of the unit even stronger. For example, adding informational texts pertaining

47

to the Vietnam War as a research project could be incorporated as an extension for advanced students. INCLUDE A PROGRESSION OF LEARNING The unit includes a progression of learning where concepts and skills advance and deepen over time. An example can be found in lessons 1-3 where the percentage of time dedicated to homework increases from 10% to 15% to 30% of class time. Another example can be found in the structure of the lessons. Students are given opportunities to work on assignments in class, consult with peers, further develop tasks at home, address assignments again in class, and again through the class blog. Students read independently and take notes, they discuss with pairs and share with small groups and sometimes with the whole class. The annotations, completed evidence collection tools, and notes are used to create writing products. The culminating Mid-Unit Assessment and later the End-Of-Unit Assessment require that students use the knowledge, collection of textual evidence, and skills they have gained to complete the required task. Each lesson is a step in the progression of learning. GRADUALLY REMOVE SUPPORTS The developer structures the unit so that supports are gradually removed, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities. Students assume responsibility for peer review and for whether or not they incorporate feedback from peers into their writing products. In addition, students are required to write their rationale for including or not including specific feedback, which requires them to make criteria-based decisions about their own writing and leads them to be independent. In Lesson 3, p. 9 students enter evidence-based discussions where they pose and respond to text-based questions. By creating their own questions, students are taking on more responsibility for comprehending the text and gathering relevant evidence from it. Lesson 9, p. 7 explains release of responsibility to students as follows: "This discussion is structured with four main discussion prompts. In small groups, students discuss each question in-depth, presenting a variety of text evidence and analysis. The structure of this lesson is meant to increase student independence in text analysis by scaffolding their understanding through collaborative discussion." Lesson 9 provides opportunities for students to discuss the text within student-led groups, and the teacher intervenes only as needed. By combining the student-led groups with student-created questions in subsequent lessons, the unit would demonstrate even more consistency in gradual release of responsibility to students. In the first lessons, vocabulary is provided for the students, and students copy the definitions, provided by the teacher, in their vocabulary journals. Later, students are told to identify unfamiliar words as they read, define them, and record them in their vocabulary journals, which demonstrates movement toward independence. PROVIDE FOR AUTHENTIC LEARNING The unit provides for authentic learning through the two narratives that students are to complete, using the texts as exemplars. Professional authors use a writing process as they write a text. Authors receive feedback from editors, revise their work, and repeat the process until the completed text is ready to be published. Students engage in the writing process in this unit. In Lesson 7, students engage in peer review and revision of their text-based narrative writing pieces. They independently use the Peer Review Accountability Tool to record their reflection and evaluation of peer feedback and record their rationale for why they did or did not apply it. The criteria for peer feedback is found in the Narrative

48

Writing Rubric and Checklist and is used by students when writing. Peers are to provide criteria-based feedback about the writing based on the focus standard. Students apply the writing skills outlined in W.11-12.3.a as they create this first narrative of the unit in Lessons 6 and 7. In Lessons 11 and 12, students incorporate narrative techniques and receive peer feedback focused on W.11-12.3.b. Students lead small group discussions, using the Speaking and Listening Rubric and Checklist for the first time in Lesson 4. In subsequent lessons, students use appropriate sections of the rubric as they analyze the text(s) during small group discussions. In Lessons 14, 15, and 16, students rewrite a scene from one of the texts applying all the narrative techniques they have learned during the unit, taking on the authentic role of an author. INDICATE HOW STUDENTS ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR INDEPENDENT READING Throughout the unit of study, homework includes Accountable Independent Reading (AIR). In Lessons 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, & 13 students are allowed to choose a focus standard and "prepare for a 3-5 minute discussion of your text based on that standard." In Lessons 6, 10, 13, & 14 "Students (or student pairs) discuss and share how they applied a focus standard to their AIR texts from the previous lesson's homework." Discussing texts with peers can both motivate and increase the confidence of students. The homework assignment does not address the amount of reading that is required for AIR, which, if added, would emphasize the expectation that students should build their reading stamina as they move toward college and career readiness. The developer is to be commended for including AIR as an ongoing expectation. USE TECHNOLOGY AND MEDIA TO DEEPEN LEARNING AND DRAW ATTENTION TO EVIDENCE The developer suggests using technology, as available, during the writing and peer review processes. The mark up function of a word processor works well for showing changes in multiple drafts by the writer. It can also be used by peer reviewers to provide feedback about the writing. When student writing is completed, it is published on a class blog, which is used as a portfolio to show student growth in writing over time. The use of technology could be expanded to other aspects of the unit beyond peer review and blogging. One place technology could be integrated would be to have students complete an informal, mini-research project on a specific aspect of the Vietnam War. This could be done in groups, and groups could present their findings through a multimedia presentation to the class. Completing this assignment would allow students to build disciplinary knowledge and presentation skills. Increasing the use of technology in this unit would make this exemplar even stronger.


Dimension IV – Assessment

The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills:

Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the major targeted grade-level CCSS standards with appropriately complex text(s).

ELICITS DIRECT, OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE Each lesson has an assessed standard, via quick write, discussion, accountable homework and many opportunities for formative assessment by the teacher during class. Students use a variety of evidence collection tools, a Peer Review Accountability Tool, and a Lesson Structure Tool that provide direct observable evidence of learning. Also, students engage in a variety of discussions in pairs, small groups, and whole class that provide observable evidence of learning. Students annotate texts, take notes, write

49



A unit or longer lesson should:

Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures.

literary analyses, and write two narratives that are published on the class blog. ASSESSES STUDENT PROFICIENCY Because there are so many supports built into this unit, such as the amount of pair and small group work, graphic organizers, and close reading of the text in small chunks, this unit assesses student proficiency through methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students. For example, complex questions are scaffolded by breaking them into several sub-questions that build to the complex questions. Students have multiple opportunities to gather and record textual evidence independently, in pairs, small groups, and whole class. Students can demonstrate their learning through discussions in a variety of groupings and through a variety of writing opportunities such as annotating texts, completing evidence collection tools, Quick Writes, giving and receiving peer feedback, and writing narrative texts. INCLUDES ALIGNED RUBRICS OR ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES Exemplars are included for the student prompts and the following rubrics are provided: Short Response Rubric and Checklist, Speaking and Listening Rubric and Checklist, Mid-Unit Text Analysis Rubric and Checklist, Narrative Writing Rubric and Checklist, and an End-of-Unit Text Analysis Rubric and Checklist. All of these criteria-based rubrics and checklists are aligned to the standards. USE VARIED MODES OF ASSESSMENT Quick Writes, Peer Assessment of Small-Group Discussion, Exit Slips, Peer Review Accountability Tool and Incorporation of Feedback, and Narrative Writing are assessments in this unit of study. The teacher engages in the formative assessment process while students are writing and during peer review of the writing. The Mid-Unit and End-of-Unit assessments are summative in nature, one at the mid point of the unit where student learning from the first part of this unit is assessed and one at the end of the unit that assesses all of the learning through a formal, multi-paragraph narrative writing piece. The assessments are based on rubrics with criteria that is developed from the standards. All types of assessment were evident with the exception of a pre-assessment. By adding a pre-assessment, the full range of assessment types would be included. It would be beneficial to other educators if the developer shared strategies to address students who struggle with concepts or skills leading to the mid-unit and summative assessments. Throughout the unit, students work in groups, but are the groups chosen randomly by the students or arranged by the teacher? Does the teacher work with small groups of students that have been identified as struggling with specific content? More information/guidelines on teacher actions during the work period might help others as they plan to teach the unit.


Summary Comments

This unit thoroughly addresses all four dimensions of the rubric and meets the expectations of an exemplar. Even with exemplars, there are opportunities for improvement. The following summary includes some suggestions for the developer to consider for fine tuning this already excellent work. The unit focuses on a set of grade-level standards that build knowledge across the lessons. By adding some explanation of how each lesson contributes to the ultimate goal, the role of each lesson as it relates to the main focus, a tighter coherence would be more evident. The qualitative measures of the text along with reader and task considerations outweigh the lower quantitative measures, making the texts appropriate for Grade 11. Reading, writing, speaking and listening

50

are emphasized and some language standards are also addressed. The strong focus on close reading, text-based evidence, and writing from sources can be complemented by including several more text-dependent questions that focus on vocabulary acquisition in context. Disciplinary knowledge about narrative writing builds across the lessons and is demonstrated through a balance of writing. The texts and lessons engage all students, providing them with multiple opportunities to reread and discuss challenging excerpts. The progression toward independent reading comprehension could be further strengthened if students were systematically transitioned toward creating more of their own text-dependent questions when analyzing texts. Students independently use writing rubrics, checklists, and peer feedback during the writing process to focus and refine their work. Assessments of different types provide students with a variety of modes to demonstrate their learning. Incorporating a pre-assessment into the assessment system would provide additional information about student learning. It is exemplary teaching practice to identify what standards are assessed in each lesson and what standards are simply addressed. This unit also makes it clear to the students what is being assessed by reviewing the agenda at the beginning of each lesson. The presentation of information in the unit is thorough, and the document is well organized and easy to navigate. The developer is to be commended for creating a rigorous and engaging learning experience that is consistently aligned to college and career ready standards.

Rating Scales Rating Scale for Dimensions I, II, III, IV: 3: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension 2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension


Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar – Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in dimensions II, III, IV (total 11 – 12) E/I: Exemplar if Improved – Aligned and needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (total 8 – 10)

R: Revision Needed – Aligned partially and needs significant revision in one or more dimensions (total 3 – 7) N: Not Ready to Review – Not aligned and does not meet criteria (total 0 – 2)

Rating Descriptors Descriptors for Dimensions I, II, III, IV: 3: Exemplifies CCSS Quality - meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion-based observations. 2: Approaching CCSS Quality - meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations.

1: Developing toward CCSS Quality - needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion-based observations. 0: Not representing CCSS Quality - does not address the criteria in the dimension. Descriptor for Overall Ratings: E: Exemplifies CCSS Quality – Aligned and exemplifies the quality standard and exemplifies most of the criteria across Dimensions II, III, IV of the rubric. E/I: Approaching CCSS Quality – Aligned and exemplifies the quality standard in some dimensions but will benefit from some revision in others.

R: Developing toward CCSS Quality – Aligned partially and approaches the quality standard in some dimensions and needs significant revision in others. N: Not representing CCSS Quality – Not aligned and does not address criteria.

51

EQuIP Quality Review Process

EQuIP Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12)

Reviewer Name or ID:

Grade: ELA/Literacy Lesson/Unit Title:

The EQuIP rubric is derived from the Tri-State Rubric and the collaborative development process led by Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island and facilitated by Achieve. This version of the EQuIP rubric is current as of 06-2п-13. View Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Educators may use or adapt. If modified, please attribute EQuIP and re-title.

1

I. Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS

The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS:

Targets a set of grade-level CCSS ELA/Literacy standards.


Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose (i.e., presents vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-level exemplars in Appendices A & B).


Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills. (Grades 3-5) Build students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading and writing in social studies, the

arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts.

Summary of Observations and Suggestions for Improvement:

Rating for Dimension I: Alignment is non-negotiable and requires a rating of 2 or 3. If rating is 0 or 1 then the review does not continue.

Rating: 3 2 1 0



52

II. Key Shifts in the CCSS


Rating: 3 2 1 0

The EQuIP rubric is derived from the Tri-State Rubric and the collaborative development process led by Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island and facilitated by Achieve. This version of the EQuIP Rubric is current as of 02-25-13. View Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Educators may use or adapt. If modified, please attribute EQuIP and re-title.

1

The EQuIP rubric is derived from the Tri-State Rubric and the collaborative development process led by Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island and facilitated by Achieve. This version of the EQuIP Rubric is current as of 06-2п-13. View Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Educators may use or adapt. If modified, please attribute EQuIP and re-title.

2







The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS:

Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence, and discerning deep meaning acentral focus of instruction.

Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing about common texts

through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking, and text-dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video, and media).

Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains, or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses, or formal essays).



Increasing Text Complexity: Focus students on reading a progression of complex texts drawn from the gradeband. Provide text-centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded, and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the CCR level.

Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provide opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-specific texts.

Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade level units, a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5).

Balance of Writing: Include a balance of on-demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

53

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

EQuIP Quality Review Process Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12)



The EQuIP rubric is derived from the Tri-State Rubric and the collaborative development process led by Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island and facilitated by Achieve. This version of the EQuIP rubric is current as of 06-2п-13. View Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Educators may use or adapt. If modified, please attribute EQuIP and re-title.

3

III. Instructional Supports

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs:

Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing, and speaking about texts.

Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use.

Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text.





Include a progression of learning where concepts and skills advance and deepen over time (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Gradually remove supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation, and/or reflection.

Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3-5.

Indicate how students are accountable for independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.


Rating: 3 2 1 0



54

IV. Assessment

The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills:

Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the major targeted grade level CCSS standards with appropriately complex text(s).



Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures.


Rating: 3 2 1 0


4








55

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Overall Rating:

Summary Comments

Rating for Dimension I: Alignment is non-negotiable and requires a rating of 2 or 3. If rating is 0 or 1 then the review does not continue.


5

Rating Scales

Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar – Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in dimensions II, III, IV (total 11 – 12) E/I: Exemplar if Improved – Aligned and needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (total 8 – 10)

R: Revision Needed – Aligned partially and needs significant revision in one or more dimensions (total 3 – 7)N: Not Ready to Review – Not aligned and does not meet criteria (total 0 – 2)

Rating Descriptors

Descriptors for Dimensions I, II, III, IV: 3: Exemplifies CCSS Quality – meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion observations. 2: Approaching CCSS Quality – meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion observations.

1: Developing toward CCSS Quality – needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion-based observations. 0: Not representing CCSS Quality – does not address the criteria in the dimension.

Descriptors for Overall Rating: E: Exemplifies CCSS Quality – Aligned and exemplifies the quality standard and exemplifies most of the criteria across Dimensions II, III, IV of the rubric. E/I: Approaching CCSS Quality – Aligned and exemplifies the quality standard in some dimensions but will benefit from some revision in others.

R: Developing toward CCSS Quality – Aligned partially and approaches the quality standard in some dimensions and needs significant revision in others. N: Not representing CCSS Quality – Not aligned and does not address criteria.







56

Analyzing Outcomes from EQuIP Rubric Complete the table below by providing your observations from reviewing your school/district lesson or unit and the feedback you received from your peers on the same lesson or unit.

Dimension Strengths Areas of Concern Steps for Improvement Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS

Key Shifts in the CCSS

Instructional Supports

Assessment

March 2015


57

ela network team institute: principals’ sessions · deviate from the conventions of common genres...

Documents