Artifact 1: Narrative Worksheet

The Narrative Worksheet from my lesson on recognizing "Narrative Voice," works in tandem with Edgar Allen Poe's "Tell-Tale Heart" to teach and implement academic language by its explicit integration of academic vocabulary, structured analysis and scaffolded activities that promote the comprehension and application of the language concepts. The Worksheet introduces key academic terms from the lesson, such as "reliable narrator," "omniscient," and "subjective narration," which align with the academic language demands outlined in the lesson plan. This lesson emphasizes many examples of discipline-specific vocabulary in the analysis of narrative voice. And teaching that vocabulary first, before engaging with the text, is critical for student comprehension. I provided clear definitions and opportunities to apply these terms in the context of Poe's story, and the worksheet helps scaffold the development of students' language skill before attempting any deeper literary analysis. The lesson plan includes group discussions, which the Worksheet complements with guiding questions that encourage students to use this academic language in their own responses. And it well supported the lesson plan's focus on language functions by requiring written short paragraphs analyzing the narrator's voice and effect on the story. 

The Narrative Worksheet produced a significant positive effect on each table group's individual and collective learning. It scaffolded critical thinking about the language used in Poe's story and also in the subsequent short story. It helped students practice writing and speaking in academic language in order to think about and discuss the narrator's role in shaping the story, helping cement understanding about how authors use different narrative techniques to engage readers and gesture at deeper meanings in the text. By breaking down literary concepts into bite-size chunks the worksheet helps students build a clearer understanding of how these elements function in literature. And employing these concepts to write their short paragraph helps them rearticulate personal ideas more coherently in a familiarized context they understand ― an essential skill to learn in order to succeed in their future academic writing and standardized assessments. My modeling with this scaffold, combined with the table group's collaborative activities in the lesson plan, was successful in creating a supportive learning environment that saw students building confidence in their analytical abilities.

The worksheet was effective in guiding questions and helping students learn the key terminology, but if I were to modify it for future instruction I might be more mindful of EL learners in the class who may have needed additional scaffolding to fully grasp the sometimes esoteric academic language. I would add sentence starters to the worksheet to help further frame the questions and produce more effectively structured responses. Additionally, I might add in a short table group discussion before giving students time to answer the individual response. This could tease out some of the contextual nuances of the academic language. The sole reliance on written responses, too, might not mesh with every learning style, so I may consider adding more visual tools that could be useful with comparing and contrasting related terms.

Artifact 2: Three Lexile Versions of an Excerpt from Samuel Becket's "Malone Dies"

Having for some time noticed the discrepancies in reading abilities throughout the class, I decided to assemble a set of differentiated texts for whole-class reading and analysis of an excerpted "Malone Dies" by Samuel Beckett (1956). From the original source I created two additional versions with progressively lowered Lexile levels. The second version was set at a slightly lower Lexile level ― 700L-800L, compared to Beckett's 900L-1000L ― and was simplified further for struggling readers who need more support (500L–600L).

By carefully adjusting some of Beckett's complex vocabulary, sentence structures and abstract language, I attempted to appropriately scaffold this reading so that all students could meaningfully engage at their respective developmental reading levels. Some examples of the more complex words I removed or reworded were his "unblinkingly," "tempestuous," "pettiness," and "catalepsies." What was originally 574 words became 535 in the second version and a much abridged 344 in the third (I've included a visualization of all changes with the artifact). It was my intention that this differentiation would allow struggling readers to access Beckett comprehensibly and be able to participate in class discussions with greater confidence. And it did have a positive impact – although, inevitably, some students momentarily increased their volumes upon discovering the discrepancies. Overall, though, I sensed a general uptick in engagement in the class, and, thankfully, from some of the students I was most curious to see participate more. These differentiated texts seemed to facilitate a more distributed access to the classroom discussion, as all of us could contribute insights and interpretations when called upon.

In the future, however, I would make several modifications to this lesson that were not apparent until its implementation. Firstly, I would not butcher Beckett as badly as I did in version 3 – and not because of any editorial excess, but simply because the printed copies of the text looked so plainly different from the others that all the discretion I took in handing out the right versions to the right students came mostly to nought. Secondly, I would supply the margins or footnotes with some targeted vocabulary support on every version. This would help students at all reading levels build their vocabulary. And, along these same lines, I would also include guiding questions tailored to each Lexile level with the intention of further scaffolding students' analytical instincts and general comprehension levels. These questions would encourage deeper engagement with texts and support students in making connections between them and the broader literary themes.

Artifact 3: Tracked Change Draft-and-Final Combo Assessment

The local neighborhood transnational corporation has bestowed this school with laptops that included proprietary limitations on pedagogical technology. This meant Microsoft™ accounts only, which deprived the Language Arts faculty of one of the most useful tools of formative assessment they have access to: the Version History feature of a Google Doc. It provides time-stamped records of every editorial change made within a document, affording teachers unique formative data about a student's thinking and drafting process. All copy-pasted content, each keystroke and every inter-draft improvement is easily discernible, making it a first, second and final draft, documenting a student's complete drafting evolution, down to the second. Deprived of this option, my despair took the form of an indignantly persistent troubleshooting session until finally discovering a way to fashion a makeshift Microsoft workaround, commandeering a similar but inferior feature to accomplish the same goal. The result is my artifact, an alternative combined formative-summative assessment that provides a plagiarism-detecting, password-protected repository for documenting rough drafts and final drafts all in one place, down to the time-stamped keystroke. 

Once word of this stopgap alternative assessment spread, other enthusiastic English teachers came asking for the template. What pleased me most, however, was a counter-intuitive development: the students' initial drafts, and progress in general, were often not even of a quality one might expect of first drafts. This was because the document's introduction had very evidently produced two immediate effects. First, the lure of casual plagiarism had been quelled by its increased cost: a pasted chunk of uncited text now appeared just as suspicious as one that was hastily reworded to obscure its origins. They would both appear the same on the document's timeline: instantaneously appearing ideas, fully-formed and disconnected from the sustained drafting process. Second: as students were now deprived of all diversion – the GoGuardian was online and I was stricter about enforcing the phone policy than my mentor – students were confronted with the undeniable necessity to think about how to construct their sentences, conduct their research and compose their thoughts without the sedating assurance of intermittent distractions. The students were thinking without crutches. 

With this artifact I incentivized fidelity to the drafting process and was afforded granularly detailed formative data about a student's writing process with the timelines of editorial changes. This allowed me, every day, to monitor progress in real-time, while witnessing the steadily rising positive effects this had on sustaining and engaging student learning. It was a boon to student accountability, as everyone was aware that their progress — whether in reformatting, with a new addition, or a deletion — was transparent. Most usefully, this artifact enabled me to provide targeted, individualized feedback at whatever stage the student was in their learning process. And this re-emphasis on daily progress, rather than end result, exemplifies the practice of being present to the task at hand that I aim to cultivate in my classroom. 

One future modification I would make to this artifact would be to include more opportunities for collaboration during the drafting process. The "Comments" feature in the document could effectively enable peer review from home as well as during class time, which could increase student learning capacity by extending and deepening the evaluation process. Based on several instances of feedback I received after the conclusion of the unit, I would also include the final draft rubric in the initial form of the document itself for fuller transparency of process. 

Artifact 4: Communication with a Concerned Parent Regarding Student Progress

Before this email exchange with Parent (P) I had shared many positive interactions with her at the boy's junior varsity basketball games, where she operated the scoreboard and I regularly attended to finish up student teaching work and cheer with other community stakeholders in support of the school and for two of my students who are on the team. One of those students was P's son, Student (S). This written exchange, as with all our personal exchanges, exemplifies the kind of professional communication I maintain with parents at all times, in all settings, and both in school and out. The email's tone is respectful, clear and openly mindful of her concerns, and I am as quick to emphasize S's strengths as to include his areas for improvement. I provide her very specific details about S's performance in class by including a custom snapshot of his most up-to-date grades from my teacher-created class records, so that everything I know about his performance she now knew as well. I decided to show and explain my grading process to her with a bit more of the clarity I sensed she needed, knowing that when parents lack knowledge about their child's progress it can only increase negative emotion. By providing details and a subsequent action plan about S for P I hoped to impart as much clarity, goodwill and mutually collaborative solidarity as one can. 

Ultimately the exchange proved quite significant for S's learning. He subsequently succeeded in getting his academic act together, and quickly. I witnessed a tangible seriousness emerge in his demeanor and a hastened, sustained demonstration of effort in the classroom. He started completing his assignments more consistently, on time, and ultimately succeeded in turning the D his mother was concerned about into a B by the end of the quarter. This, I think, is suggestive of the collaborative impact this exchange had in creating the supportive and firmly reassuring environment S needed to take more agency and urgency about his learning.

However, while I am confident this exchange played a positive role in improving S’s performance, if this were my classroom I would have implemented several modifications aimed at preventing the emergence of this kind of exchange, however positive and productive in retrospect it was. My modification to this artifact would be the systematic modification of all future artifacts like it, in hopes that the kind of anxieties that arose in P could be headed off in advance by being supplied with information that encourage earlier intervention. For example, one structural modification I would make in regards to exchanges like this would be to establish a regular bi-monthly update to parents regarding their child's progress. I will be digitizing my records as much as possible, so incorporating a streamlined workflow that exports key subsections of formative data relevant to parents would be a good standard practice, as it also encourages parental involvement in the student's academic progress on a more regular basis. Another modification I would add is the inclusion of any possible positive statements about the student with such grade updates, a practice of positive reinforcement that would go a long way in motivating students in the classroom and cultivating collaborative solidarity with the parents. Collectively, these modifications would strengthen communication and solidarity with families, ensuring that students like S receive more timely support.

References

 Beckett, S. (1956). Malone dies. Grove Press.