Shakespearean Language and Sonnets

Laura Daill North Central College Student Teaching: Impact Study Fall 2012

Daill

Table of Contents
UNIT OBJECTIVES PRE-ASSESSMENT PRETEST RESULTS STUDENT-BY-STUDENT, CLASS AVERAGE OBJECTIVE-BY-OBJECTIVE DATA ANAYLSIS POSSIBLE ALTERATIONS UNIT PLAN MATERIALS POST-ASSESSMENT POST-ASSESSMENT RESULTS STUDENT-BY-STUDENT, CLASS AVERAGE OBJECTIVE-BY-OBJECTIVE DATA ANAYLSIS REPORT OF STUDENT LEARNING RESULTS STUDENT-BY-STUDENT, CLASS AVERAGE OBJECTIVE-BY-OBJECTIVE REPORT STUDENT FULFILLMENT OF EXPECTATIONS OVERAL & SPECIFIC GROWTH SPECIFIC GROWTH CONCLUSIONS REFLECTION APPENDIX A STUDENT SAMPLES: PRE-TEST APPENDIX B MATERIALS: POWER POINTS, PERFORMANCE SHEETS APPENDIX C STUDENT SAMPLES: POST-TEST 1 1 1 4 4 5 7 7 8 10 24 24 27 27 29 31 32 32 32 33 35 35 35 35 35 37 43

Daill

I. Unit Objectives TLWBAT: 1. Given a list of terms and definitions, define rhyming couplet. 2. Given a list of terms and definitions, define stanza. 3. Given a list of terms and definitions, define sonnet. 4. Given a list of terms and definitions, define iambic pentameter. 5. Given a list of terms and definitions, define quatrain. 6. Translate a sample of Shakespearean language into modern language. 7. Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the rhyme scheme of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 8. Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the meter of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 9. Provide a minimum of three pieces of background information on Shakespeare and/or Elizabethan England. Outcome 1: Know how to identify the structure of the Shakespearean sonnet (Q# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8) Outcome 2: Know how to interpret Shakespearean language (Q# 6) Outcome 3: Have a basic understanding of Shakespeares historical and personal background (Q# 9) II. Pre-assessment a. Pretest: The pretest is a four-part pre-lesson survey/ungraded quiz consisting of both knowledge and performance based questions. The four parts are broken down as a tenpoint matching portion, a five-point performance-based translation portion, a twelvepoint labeling portion, and a three-point recall portion. Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are assessed through a matching section wherein each objective is matched a single time. Each question/match constituted two points. Objective 6 is assessed in the second section of the quiz, and is worth five points, as there are five key points that the quiz-taker must interpret. Objectives 7 and 8 are measured in the third section of the quiz. They were worth 7 points and 5 points, respectively, and ask the quiz-taker to accurately label the rhyme and meter of a given sonnet. Objective 9 is assessed in the final, three-point section, which asks the quiz-taker to list three pieces of information about Shakespeare and/or his era. The quiz is marked out of thirty points. The objectives assessed in the quiz will be taught over a four-day period.

Daill

Daill

Daill

b. Results:

Student-by-Student and Whole Class Average

Class Grade Average My Expectation: 10/30 = 33.33% Reality: 8.6/30 = 28.67%

Pre-Test: Student-by-Student and Whole Class Average (out of 30)

Class Average 20

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average

Pretest Scores (Out of 30) 9 6 5 6.5 7 8 10 14 4 19.5 8 8 8 13.5 6 8 6 13 4 ------8.6

19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Student 1 0 10 20 30 Student Score

Daill

Objective-by-Objective

Objective 1 Given a list of terms and definitions, define rhyming couplet 2 Given a list of terms and definitions, define stanza. 3 Given a list of terms and definitions, define sonnet. 4 Given a list of terms and definitions, define iambic pentameter. 5 Given a list of terms and definitions, define quatrain. 6 Translate a sample of Shakespearean language into modern language. 7 Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the rhyme scheme of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 8 Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the meter of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 9 Provide a minimum of three pieces of background information on Shakespeare and/or Elizabethan England.

Student Accuracy 80% / 16 students 80% / 16 students 30% / 5 students 40% / 8 students 60% / 11 students 20% / approx. 4 students 5% / approx. 1 student

6% / approx. 1 student 42% / approx. 8 students

Daill

Percentage of Students Answering Objective Correctly in Pretest 19 Completers in Class of 20

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% Percentage of Students Answering Correctly 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Daill

c. Samples see Appendix A d. Data Analysis According the pretest data, the class average was 8.6 out of a total of thirty points. The lowest student scores were fouras seen in Student 19s sampleand the highest score was a 19.5as seen in Student 10s sample. This high score was nearly an outlier, with the majority of the pretest scores fairly evenly distributed along the bottom range: two students received a four, six students fell into the score range of five-to-seven, five students received the near average score of eight points [as is illustrated in Student 16s sample], one student received a nine, one student received a ten, and one student received a thirteen, and one student received a thirteen and a half. One student was absent: out of a class of twenty, only nineteen students took the pretest. On average, students scored highest on Objectives 1 and 2 (Q#1 and 2), with sixteen out of nineteen students correctly identifying the accurate definitions. Objective 5 (Q#5) was the third most accurately completed question, with a total of eleven students answering accurately. Objective 9 (Q#9) was the fourth most understood concept, with 42% or approximately eight students answering to satisfaction. This objective/question was divided into three parts, worth three points in total, so it was possible for a student to only partially meet this objective, which many did. Eight students met Objective 4, five students met Objective 3, and approximately four students met Objective 6. Objectives 7 and 8 showed the least amount of student understanding, with an approximate average of 1 student answering them correctly. Prior to the unit, I expected students to have a class average of 10 out of 30/33.33%. This expectation was set because it was assumed that students academic career exposed them to some of the history of Shakespeare and his poetic form. In reality, students performed only slightly below this expectation, with a class average of 8.6/30, or 28.67%. Students performance on Objective 1 was unexpectedly high, with 16 students already correctly identifying the definition of rhyming couplet. Student performance of Objective 7the ability to label the rhyme schemewas surprisingly low. Student performance on Objective 9 was lower than expected, as it had been assumed that all students would be able to identify a minimum of two facts about Shakespeare and/or his historical time frame. e. Alterations to initial lesson plan In light of the data, the following alterations were made to the unit lessons: - More focus was placed on teaching rhyme scheme (abab cdcd efef gg); for example, students now analyze their classmates sonnets to see if the scheme is followed - During the previously planned group interpretation activity of sonnets (Lesson 3), students are also asked to identify the part of their particular sonnet. - An activity is added which spends time allowing students to further interact with Shakespeares language, and asks them to consider how personality can affect interpretation (Occupation Romeo). - Facts about Shakespeare were further integrated into the lessons, instead of only focusing on this information during the introductory Lesson 1. Daill

III. Lesson Plan

Objective(s) Instructional Strategies & Concepts/Topics Lesson 1 Obj. 9 Shakespeares personal history and career/Elizabethan England - Students work alone or in pairs on a guided discovery activity, searching through the Eyewitness Shakespeare book to find new and interesting information about the Bard and his time - Students write their 3 favorite finds on post-it notes and attach them to a class poster board The form, rhyme, and meter of Shakespearean Sonnets - Review the Top 10 facts about Shakespeare (via student input) - Lecture: introduction to the Shakespearean Sonnet, its form, rhyme, meter, and role in society - Living Iambic Pentameter (10 student volunteers act out through vocalization and stomping, the beat of I.P.) Interpretation of Shakespearean language into more modern English - Lecture: begin by discussing the different ways a reader might decode a poem, using the original and pre-translated Sonnet 130 - As a class, we then work through and translate The Prologue to Romeo and Juliet - In small groups, students are tasked with the interpretation and labeling of a single sonnet, which they then share at the end of the period - Synthesizing the information they have learned about Shakespearean Sonnets, students begin writing their own sonnet Formative Assessment(s) - Sufficient completion of Eyewitness Shakespeare packet - Posting of most interesting fact onto a group poster - Observation of student movement during Living Iamb activity - Exit slip of 1+ thing learned in class today Adaptations/ Accommodations Students are permitted to work in partners or individually - The text used is highly visual, and includes information potentially interesting to all multiple intelligences - Students provided a graphic organizer to guide their discovery of Shakespeare - Activities planned are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic - Lecture and notes are provided both on the overhead and in student packets

Lesson 2

Objs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

Lesson 3

Objs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

- Students written translation of their assigned sonnet - Beginning pieces of individual writing

- Instruction takes multiple forms: whole class, small group, and individual work - Directions are given in multiple modalities - In writing their own sonnet, students are asked to do what they have been instructed in. Those with a more performancebased/creative learning style will especially benefit from this activity - The lesson is structured so that those who work ahead are able to begin a new activity (writing their own sonnet) - Students are grouped so that skill levels are Daill

Lesson 4

Objs. 6, 7, 9

Lesson 5

Objs. 1-9

Review of the Units three outcomes, and a peek into how performance affects interpretation - The class begins with volunteer students sharing their sonnets - Occupation Romeo: we then move on to reading passages of Romeo and Juliet within the voices of different personalities - Sonnets and Shakespeare Academic Review Game/Jeopardy: students are divided into teams of 4-5 students, and, with the assistance of dry erase boards, have the chance to answer each question - Summative Assessment: Shakespeare & Sonnets Quiz

- Student scholarly critique of their peers sonnet (did it fit the style?) - Answers given during Review Game

evenly distributed within the groups - The activities are built to encourage student engagement and social interaction. Students will be verbalizing the concepts and seeing real life examples of sonnets and their form. - In the Review Game, students are given the questions visually and orally. The drive of friendly competition will further influence student engagement - Instructions are clearly outlined on quiz, and are read aloud in class - If needed, students are to be provided additional testing time

Illinois Learning Standards to which Lesson Objectives are Aligned: Standard 1 Reading 1. Read with comprehension and fluency using a variety of reading strategies 1.1. Relate reading to prior knowledge and establish purpose for reading 2. Understand and appreciate classical and contemporary literature representing various genres, cultures, and ideas 2.1 Analyze the defining characteristics and structures of complex literary genres such as novel, drama, poem, short story, and non-fiction and describe how the genre affects the meaning and function of the texts 2.1.2 Read non-fiction and learn how to organize and classify information 2.1.3 Read poetry and understand poetry elements 2.4.2 Research information about authors including other titles, relevant biographical information and writing style

Daill

IV. Materials Shakespeare Packet: The provided pages are part of a larger Shakespeare/Romeo & Juliet Unit packet; students will use these pages as a guide throughout their unit. Its pages are the ones referenced within the Power Point notes. The packet is required for every Freshman Prep (1-P) classroom.

Daill

Daill

Daill

Daill

Daill

Daill

Daill

Daill

Eyewitness Shakespeare Packet: This packet acts as a guide during Lesson 1s discovery activity, as students are asked to dive into a visually rich account of the life and times of William Shakespeare. It serves to give students a working background of the Elizabethan Era, and is required in every 1-P classroom.

Daill

Daill

Daill

Daill

Eyewitness Shakespeare Book: The text used during the described Eyewitness Shakespeare exercise. Chrisp, Peter. Shakespeare: Discovering the Fascinating Life and times of One History's Greatest Playwrights. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2002. Print.

Daill

Shakespeare and Sonnet Power Point: This Power Point serves as the in-class guide for the unit, and also contains management and lecture notes. see Appendix B Shakespeare and the Sonnet Review Game: This Power Point/Jeopardy Game is used as a reviewing tool on the fourth lesson day. see Appendix B Living Iambic Pentameter Performance Sheets: ten student volunteers use these sheets to illustrate, kinesthetically and audibly, the meter of iambic pentameter. see Appendix B Dry Erase Boards: The teams use these boards as they race to earn the most points during the Academic Review Game. Departing from the traditional Jeopardy style, each team has the opportunity to answer each question.

Daill

V. PostAssessment Tool a. Description: The post-assessment is a four-part graded quiz consisting of both knowledge and performance based questions. The four parts are broken down as a ten-point matching portion, a five-point performance-based translation portion, a twelve-point labeling portion, and a three-point recall portion. Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are assessed through a matching section wherein each objective is matched a single time. Each question/match constituted two points. Objective 6 is assessed in the second section of the quiz, and is worth five points, as there are five key points that the quiz-taker must interpret. Objectives 7 and 8 are measured in the third section of the quiz. They were worth 7 points and 5 points, respectively, and ask the quiz-taker to accurately label the rhyme and meter of a given sonnet. Objective 9 is assessed in the final, three-point section, which asks the quiz-taker to list three pieces of information about Shakespeare and/or his era. The quiz is marked out of thirty points. The objectives assessed in the quiz were taught over a four-day period.

Daill

Daill

Daill

b. Data

Student-by-Student and Whole Class Average

Post-Test: Student-by-Student and Whole Class Average (out of 30)

Class Average 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Student 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Student Score

Daill

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average

Post-Test Score (out of 30) 24.5 29 28.5 25.5 27 22.5 20.5 28 28 30 27.5 12 26 28.5 27 24 26.5 27.5 23 25 25.525

Class Grade Average Unit Target: 26/30 = 86.67% Reality: 25.535/30 = 85.12% LTHS Minimum Expectation: 18/30 = 60%

Daill

Objective-by-Objective

Objective Student Accuracy 1 Given a list of terms and definitions, define rhyming 95% / 19 students couplet. 2 Given a list of terms and definitions, define stanza. 3 Given a list of terms and definitions, define sonnet. 4 Given a list of terms and definitions, define iambic pentameter. 5 Given a list of terms and definitions, define quatrain. 6 Translate a sample of Shakespearean language into modern language. 7 Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the rhyme scheme of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 8 Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the meter of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 9 Provide a minimum of three pieces of background information on Shakespeare and/or Elizabethan England. 90% / 18 students 90% / 18 students 90% / 18 students 90% / 18 students 60% / approx. 12 students 95% / approx. 19 students 80% / approx. 16 students 93% / approx. 18.6 students

Daill

Percentage of Students Answering Objective Correctly

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% Percentage of Students Answering Correctly 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Daill

c. Samples See Appendix C d. Data Analysis According the post-test data, the class average was 25.525 out of a total of thirty points. The lowest score was a twelve, and it seems to be an anomaly. As can be viewed in Student 12s sample, the student appears to have misunderstood the directions, and will be given an opportunity to retake this portion of the quiz. Besides this outlier, the scores of the class fell between twenty to a perfect thirty points. Seven students achieved a score of twenty to twentyfive pointsas is illustrated in Student 16 and 19s samplesand twelve students scored from 25.1 to 29.9 points. There was one perfect score of thirty, achieved by Student 10 (see sample). All twenty students took the post-test. On average, students scored highest on Objectives 1 and 7 (Q#1 and 7). Nineteen students correctly identified the accurate definition for Objective 1, and nineteen students correctly labeled the rhyme scheme of a Shakespearean sonnet for Objective 7. Objective 9 (Q#9) was the third most achieved objective, with 93%, or approximately 18.6 students recalling accurate historical facts. This objective/question was divided into three parts, worth three points in total, so it was possible for a student to only partially meet this objective. Objectives 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Q#s 2-5) all tied for the fourth most achieved objectiveeach had eighteen students correctly identify the accurate definition. Sixteen students met Objective 8 (Q#8) and twelve students met Objective 6 (Q#6). At this point in their studies, I expected students to have a class average of 26 out of 30, or 86.67%. This expectation was set because, though students should have mastered the literary terms, sonnet style, and background information about Shakespeare, it was assumed that they would still need some time to acclimate to decoding Shakespearean language. In reality, students performed just under this expectation. The class post-test average was 25.525 out of 30, or 85.12%. As expected, Objective 6 did weigh down the class average, with only 12 students effectively translating a passage of Shakespearean language. More surprising was the mere 80% achievement level of Objective 8, which asked students to label the meter (i.e. iambic pentameter) of a line in a sonnet. Though one of the more difficult tasks on the post-test, it was thought through summative assessments and the amount of class time spent on this activity that student achievement scores would be higher.

Daill

VI. Report of Student Learning Data

Student-by-Student and Whole Class Average

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Class Average

Points of Growth

Pre-Test to Post-Test Growth: Student-to-Student and Class Average

+15.5 +23.5 20 +19 19 + 20 18 + 14.5 17 +10.5 +16 14 +15 24 + 10.5 14 +19.5 13 +4 12 +18 +15 11 +21 10 +16 9 +20.5 8 +14.5 7 + 19 --6 5 +16.95 4 3 2

Class Average + 23 Points of Growth

verage is e results nts in a f 20. In was one t those m

Student 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

growth.

Daill

Objective-by-Objective

Objective 1 Given a list of terms and definitions, define rhyming couplet. 2 Given a list of terms and definitions, define stanza. 3 Given a list of terms and definitions, define sonnet. 4 Given a list of terms and definitions, define iambic pentameter. 5 Given a list of terms and definitions, define quatrain. 6 Translate a sample of Shakespearean language into modern language. 7 Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the rhyme scheme of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 8 Given a Shakespearean sonnet, label the meter of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter. 9 Provide a minimum of 3 pieces of background information on Shakespeare and/or Elizabethan England.

Points of Growth +3 +2 + 13 + 10 +7 + 8.2 + 18 + 14.8 + 10.6

Daill

20

18

Pretest to Post-test Points of Growth: Objective-byObjective

Includes data from all completed test assessments (19 pretests, 20 post-tests)

16

14

12

10

# of Correct Student Answers on Pretest # of Correct Student Answers on Post-Test

0 Obj 1 Obj 2 Obj 3 Obj 4 Obj 5 Obj 6 Obj 7 Obj 8 Obj 9

Daill

a. Student Fulfillment of Expectations Out of the twenty students assessed in the post-test, thirteen did meet my target of 86.67% and seven did not meet my target. Only one student did meet the eventual target of 100%, and nineteen did not yet meet that target. Nineteen out of twenty students did meet Lyons Township High Schools passing target of 60%. The class average of 25.525 out of 30 did meet LTHSs minimum target, but just failed to meet my target of 26 out of 30. b. Overall & Specific Growth More students took the post-test than the pretest. In total, one student failed to complete the pre-test, but did take the post-test (Student 20). This student has been removed from the Student-by-Student and Class Average Growth Chart, as the lack of data disqualified them from exhibiting growth. The class average is therefore based on results of the nineteen students in a classroom of twenty. Every individual responses are included in the Objective-by-Objective data, as the single absent student was only absent on the day of the pre-test. Overall, students exhibited a growth of +16.95 points (in an average of 19 students in a classroom of 20). In a student-by-student analysis, this growth ranges from an improvement of just 4 points of growth (see Student 12s Samples) to the highest growth of 24 points. Seven students fell within the class average range of growth, ranging from a growth of fourteen to eighteen points. Eight students were above the class growth average, scoring 19 to 23.5 points higher on the post-test. Only two students exhibited a below average amount of growth, scoring 10.5 points higher on the post-test (see Student 10s Samples). c. Specific Growth In an objective-by-objective analysis, Objective/Question 7 had a drastic point growth of +18. Objectives/Questions 3 and 8 exhibited a point growth of +14.8 and +13, respectively. Shortly behind these, Objectives/Questions 4 and 9 grew at +10.6 and 10 points, respectively. Objective/Question 6 grew +8.2 points, and Objective/Question 5 was not far behind with +7 points. Finally, Objectives/Questions 1 and 2 exhibited the least amount of growth, with a point increase of three and two, respectively. d. Conclusions Overall, students grew in their understanding of Shakespearean Sonnets and language, showing an increased ability to identify relevant literary terms, correctly label the rhyme and meter of a sonnet, and recall pertinent information about William Shakespeare. This was seen in their unilateral improvement in test scores between the pre and post-tests. For Objectives 1 through 5, students were better able to match the literary terms rhyming couplet, stanza, sonnet, iambic pentameter, and quatrain with the appropriate definition. Understanding of Objective 6 was also apparent. Many students were able to translate at least three of the five key portions from a passage of Shakespearean language (visible in Students 12 and 16s Samples), and some were able to Daill

translate all five with accuracy (as seen in Students 10 and 19s Samples). These were sharp improvements from the given sample students scores, which ranged from zero to four in the pre-test, but jumped from three to five in the post-test assessment. Students improved ability to label the rhyme scheme and meter of Shakespearean Sonnets was displayed in their drastic increase in scores for Objectives 7 and 8. Objective 9, which asked students to identify facts about Shakespeare and his time period also experienced a sharp increase. As is apparent in every one of the student samples, not only did students exhibit increased knowledge of The Bard and Elizabethan England, but their recalled facts became more specific (unfortunately, this was not formulated into the data measurements, but it is certainly worth noting).

Daill

VII. Reflection on the Impact on Student Learning Study INTRODUCTION The studied classroom was a ninth grade English Prep course. Students had just finished a unit that focused on short stories and plot structure. The unit studied in the Impact Study was on Shakespearean sonnets and Shakespearean language. Its purpose was to familiarize students with the form and flow of Shakespeares text before launching into a larger unit on Romeo and Juliet. The unit opened with a discovery lesson on Shakespeares personal history, career, and society. With the assistance of the visually rich text Eyewitness Shakespeare, students found at least three important or interesting facts about different aspects about Shakespeares background. At the end of class, students wrote their three favorite or most pertinent facts on a post-it and added it to a class poster that was kept displayed in the classroom throughout the Shakespeare unit. The second lesson included a brief lecture on the Shakespearean format, focusing on its form, rhyme, meter, and role in society. Students then participated in a Living Iambic Pentameter, wherein they acted out the forms meter. The third lesson intended to further expose students to Shakespearean language forms. We held a discussion on the different ways a reader might decode a poem, and an example was given of Sonnet 130 in its original and modern translation form. In small groups students were tasked with the interpretation and labeling of a single sonnet. The fourth (and final) lesson before the post-assessment began with students sharing the sonnets they were tasked with writing as homework the previous night. Students were asked to act as critics for the sonnets, critiquing whether or not it fit the form of a Shakespearean sonnet. The remainder of the class was spent playing a review game, wherein students worked in competitive groups. Three major outcomes drove the lessons of the unit. Outcome 1 asks students to know how to identify the structure of a Shakespearean sonnet. Outcome 2 is for students to know how to interpret Shakespearean language. Outcome 3 requires students to have a basic understanding of Shakespeares historical and personal background history. These outcomes were further delineated into nine stated learning objectives for this unit. A list of terms and definitions was given for Objectives 1 through 5. The goals of these first five objectives were as follows: Objective 1 asks students to define rhyming couplet, Objective 2 requires students to define stanza, Objective 3 requires students to define sonnet, Objective 4 asks students to define iambic pentameter, and Objective 5 requires them to define quatrain. Objective 6 asks the student to be able to translate a sample of given excerpt of Shakespearean language into modern English. Objective 7 asks students to label the rhyme scheme of a sonnet written in iambic pentameter, given a Shakespearean sonnet. Objective 8 requires students to label the meter of a given Shakespearean sonnet. Finally, Objective 9 asks students to provide a minimum of three pieces of background information on Shakespeare and/or Elizabethan England. Students took the pre-test a week prior to the start of the unit. The unit took place over the course of one week. Lesson 1 was conducted on a Friday, and the post-test was administered the following Friday. Students did not receive instruction the Monday following Lesson 1, as they Daill

were scheduled to meet with counselors. Not counting this Monday break, unit instruction spanned over four days, with a weekend in between the start of the unit and the postassessment. Students took the post-test at the start of the period on Friday. The pre and post-tests were very similar in format. Both assessments contained knowledge and performance based questions. The structure of both tests had Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 assessed through a matching section wherein each objective is matched a single time. Each question/match constituted two points. Objective 6 was assessed in the second section of the quiz, and was worth five points, as there are five key points that the quiz-taker had to interpret. Objectives 7 and 8 were measured in the third section of the quiz. They were worth 7 points and 5 points, respectively, and ask the quiz-taker to accurately label the rhyme and meter of a given sonnet. Objective 9 was assessed in the final, three-point section, which asked the quiz-taker to list three pieces of information about Shakespeare and/or his era. Both quizzes were marked out of thirty points, though only the post-test was applied to students scores. After evaluating potential confusion exhibited by the students on the pre-test, some minor changes were made to the direction formatting and wording on the post-test. Objectives 7 and 8 were assessed off of the same Shakespearean sonnet, and it is possible that some students misunderstood the tasks asked of them. Therefore, in the post-test, these verbs of these directions were bolded, separated as numbered steps, and further separated on the page by the notation THEN. INSTRUCTION: Findings Student test scores, and therefore demonstration of knowledge, increased for every objective. In addition, each individual student experienced growth, though to varying degrees. Based on the data of nineteen students in a classroom of twenty, the class growth average was +16.95 points on a thirty-point assessment. Seven students fell within the class average range of growth, ranging from a growth of fourteen to eighteen points. Eight students were above the class growth average, scoring 19 to 23.5 points higher on the post-test. Only two students exhibited a below average amount of growth, scoring 10.5 points higher on the post-test. One student scored well below the average, gaining only +4 points of growth. From this data, it can be concluded that there was a wide berth between the highest and lowest achieving students, and that the class average would have been higher if the outlining lowest score was not taken into consideration. In an objective-by-objective analysis, Objective 7 exhibited the highest amount of growth. The point growth for this objective was +18, moving from a pre-test average student score of one to a post-test score average of nineteen. Objectives 3 and 8 also show an acceptable amount of growth, gaining +14.8 and +13 points respectively between the pre and post-test assessments. Less acceptable was the growth shown on Objective 6. There was a +8.2 point of growth, but the initial pre-test scores for this Objective were relatively low (with an average of 3.8 accurate student responses) and only twelve student, or 80% of the class, sufficiently exhibited their knowledge of this Objective. Objectives 1 and 2 exhibited the least amount of growth, with +3 and +2 points of growth respectively. This growth is understandable though, as sixteen students were assessed as understanding the Objectives prior to instruction. Daill

A variety of instructional methods and mediums were used to teach these objectives. If I have the opportunity to teach this unit in the future, there are adjustments I would make to each of the instructional methods, but overall there are methods that proved more successful and less successful. Objective 8 was successfully covered through many methods, including small group instruction, the physical acting out of iambic pentameter, and student-written sonnets. The student-composed sonnets also helped instruct Objective 7. Less successful was the small group activity that asked students to work together to translate passages of Shakespearean sonnets. INSTRUCTION: Analysis Instruction took a variety of forms intended to engage students of all learning styles. The classroom contains students with a wide variety of abilities, motivation, and achievement levels. Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modes were addressed, to varying degrees of success. Planned instructional modes included: small group activities, individual exercises, whole class brief lectures, close readings, writing, video viewing, acting, academic games, and structured paper assessment. Students were divided into small groups and tasked with translating a Shakespearean sonnet into language more similar to present day English, which they were to write in the space next to the sonnet. Reflecting purely on the data, this instructional tool was fairly successfulit addressed Objective 6, which had a point growth of +8.2. Yet this growth could have been higher, and I think that significant improvements could be made to the activity to improve its success. During the lesson, I felt constrained by time and did not spend as much time as would have been beneficial modeling the process a reader goes through to translate esoteric language into modern day script, and to lay it out in a step-by-step, numbered format. From visual observation during this activity, and from speaking with students, it can be inferred that the process of translation on top of the intended task of decoding Shakespearean language overwhelmed some students. Given the opportunity, I would spend more time as a whole class talking through the process of translating and understanding poems, perhaps even starting with one that is not Shakespearean so that students could gain confidence before encountering the more difficult content. I believe that the format of the actual activity was successful, as it required further students to engage with the language and to feel more comfortable to ask questions both from their peers and the instructor. Furthermore, it gave me time to check in with each student to see how well he or she understood the rhyme and meter of the sonnet up to that point in the unit. Students were tasked with the writing of their own sonnets that fit the rhyme and meter constraints of Shakespeares style. The data reflects that this activity may have contributed to student growth and been successful, as Objectives 7 and 8 show a high point of growth. In theory, I think that this instructional method is fantastic; it asks students to produce their own sonnet, requiring them to first know and then gain hands-on practice with the structure. Once again, my pacing of the unit made this activity not as beneficial as it may have been. Students were meant to have a significant time in class to write, but other activities planned for the day went longer than planned, and this writing activity turned into a purely homework assignment. This reduced the emphasis and instructional time that this activity required to be more successful.

Daill

Objective 8, which requires a working knowledge of iambic pentameter, was further addressed through the highly kinesthetic means of Living Iambic Pentameter. In this activity, ten students stood in the front of the classroom and acted out the meter of iambic pentameter. Each was given a sheet of paper that had either ta or TUM printed on the front, and a word from a line of the sonnet on the backside. They either softly said ta or loudly said TUM and stomped their foot. We ran through the meter a few times, with those in the audience following along and stomping their feet. Then those who were performing used the same meter principles to read the lines from the sonnet. This instruction mode was successfulit required every student to physically engage with content that can be difficult to process. My one criticism of the activity is that our classroom and class size may not have been completely conducive to the activity. In a classroom of twenty, half of them were performed and half watched. The classrooms are not very wide, and the students had to stand close together to form a line. The process of having ten freshman move around a classroom and squish together caused a bit of confusion and social awkwardness, so in the future I would try and adapt this. Perhaps I would have only five students in front of the class, and they would have to say both ta and TUM. This would also emphasize the connection between the stressed and unstressed components of an iamb foot. ASSESSMENT: Analysis The previously discussed pre-test served as the diagnostic assessment for the unit. As was described in the introduction of the reflection, this assessment was effective overall in providing pertinent information. The tasked asked of students, such as accurately matching literary terms to their definition or translating a passage of a sonnet, directly aligned with the stated unit objectives. The directions of the section that assessed Objectives 7 and 8 could have been clearer, and this adjustment was made in the summative post-test assessment. In the future, I would further clarify the directions by dividing the assessment of these two objectives into two completely different sections. This would involve using two sonnets to assess the students instead of one, and asking them to perform a different task on each of them. There were also a variety of summative assessments used throughout the unit. One such assessment was an exit slip collected after the second lesson. Students were asked to write at least one specific fact they learned from the days lesson on Shakespearean forms. I think that it was effective because it required students to reflect on their time in class, and was a tangible assessment that I could use to alter my lessons for the following days if need be. In the future, and if time allowed, I would also have students vocalize their learning so that they could hear what was learned by their peers and receive a more extensive review of the days contents. IMPROVING INSTRUCTION Though growth in student learning was evident, I am more aware of the multitude of ways that I still need and want to improve my instruction, especially in the areas of pacing, instructional techniques, and production of assessment tools. As has already been referenced, there are many points of the lesson where I think students would have benefitted from a better pacing of the lesson. I know that I still struggle with the idea that its okay to deviate from your original lesson, pushing something to the next day or eliminating it altogether to ensure students are mastering the task at hand. Specific to this unit, I Daill

would expand the time spent on discussing Shakespearean language to help students feel more exposed with the rhythm of it before trying to understand it on their own. Furthermore, I would have slowed down the lessons and allowed more time to be spent on students writing of their own sonnets. I also want to improve my comfort and familiarity with the content, as this would greatly increase my ability to explain it to students. Going into this unit, I was not completely comfortable with Shakespearean language, specifically iambic pentameter. Certainly I understood it and performed further research before instruction, but there is certainly a difference between knowing information and teaching it! Through the experience of teaching iambic pentameter, I discovered different ways to explain the concept in terms that high school prep-level freshman understand. Though it was not how I initially presented it, I would explain iambic pentameter as math for English, going into the relevance of iamb and penta. I would also plan specific time to be spent instructing students individually to be sure they could explain the concept. To improve my assessments, I must continue to practice creating my own formal and informal assessments. To ensure that the instructions are clear, I will ask a peer (preferably a teacher who is not in my content area) take the assessment and look for potential areas of confusion. CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT To continue my professional development, I plan on attending upcoming workshops as well as further investigating differentiation techniques that can be employed in my classroom. The Chicago Shakespeare Theater (CST) hosts teacher workshops that, combine the latest in scholarship with practical and fun pedagogical approaches, plus production-based input from the Theater's artistic staff.1 They will host a Romeo and Juliet workshop on February 2, 2013 that I intend on attending to improve my familiarity and comfort with the content, as well as to learn new interactive techniques that could be used in the classroom. Another workshop that I will be attending is Picturing PoetryPicture Books Inspired by Poems, held by the Art Institute of Chicago. The workshop is described as, making connections to the Common Core Reading Standards emphasis on analyzing the structure of texts, identifying point of view, and evaluating comprehension.2 Also held in February, this workshop will hopefully provided in different perspective how to approach poetry as an instructor; and useful, visual ways that students can engage with the text. I also intend to enhance my teaching abilities by researching and applying differentiation techniques. To help me in this effort, I will be utilizing the articles and resources made available by my membership in NCTE. I am confident that these readings will come in many forms as I
1

"Chicago Shakespeare Theater - Teacher Workshops." Chicago Shakespeare Theater - Teacher Workshops. Chicago Shakespeare Theater, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. <http://www.chicagoshakes.com>.
2

"Teacher Workshop: Picturing Poetry-Picture Books Inspired by Poems." The Art Institute of Chicago. Art Institute of Chicaog, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www.artic.edu/event/teacher-workshop-picturing-poetry-picture-books-inspiredpoems>

Daill

continue to delve into the field. One article that I plan start with is Charlotte K. Brooks What Beginning English Teachers Need to Know About Motivating the Unmotivated: These Learners Do Have Potential.3 Though dated, the article contains valuable information about engaging students through visual and tactile means, which will lead me to further pursing other worthwhile articles.

Brooks, Charlotte K. "What Beginning English Teachers Need to Know About Motivating the Unmotivated: These Learners Do Have Potentia." English Education 10.4 (1979): Print.
3

Daill