STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS by Matthew Wahlquist A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 10, 2020 ______________________________ Peggy J. Saunders, Ph.D. ______________________________ Caitlin Byrne, Ph.D. _____________________________ Weston Taylor, M.Ed.STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 2 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 5 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 7 The Social Nature of Learning ................................................................... 7 Positive Classroom Environments .............................................................. 9 Dialogic Learning as Social Learning ....................................................... 11 Commercial Curriculum Fails to Build Relationships ............................... 14 Narrowing of Curriculum ......................................................................... 16 Commercial Curriculum’s Effects on Teacher Credibility ........................ 17 The Standardization of Teaching .............................................................. 18 Teacher Generated Curriculum ................................................................ 21 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 21 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 23 METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 25 Expert Evaluators .............................................................................................. 25 Instrument ......................................................................................................... 26 Design of Curriculum ........................................................................................ 26 Philosophical Underpinnings.................................................................... 28 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 28 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 29 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 29 Evaluator Findings............................................................................................. 30 Instrument ......................................................................................................... 35 STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 3 Reflections ........................................................................................................ 35 Implementation ........................................................................................ 36 Improvements to the Curriculum .............................................................. 41 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 42 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 42 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 43 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 46 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 50 STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 4 Abstract There is a lack of quality classroom discussion in many classrooms today, as teachers face pressure to standardize their teaching through the use of commercial curriculum. The purpose of this project was to investigate the effect teacher-generated curriculum had on classroom discussion. The benefits of classroom discussion are well established in educational research. Teacher-generated curriculum was created around a unit of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which focused on using class discussion as the medium of instruction. Curriculum was taught to a group of high school juniors. Expert evaluators observed and evaluated the efficacy of the curriculum. The teacher also used a reflective journal to measure the effectiveness of each lesson. Both the teacher and evaluators used a research based observational tool to calibrate their observations. The results of this project showed teacher-generated curriculum was effective in creating sustained collaborative discussions among students. Sustained discussions were a direct result of students feeling safe within the classroom and having strong rapport with their teacher. The observed lessons for this project demonstrated teacher-generated curriculum was effective in building teacher student relationships. Discussions allowed students to be active producers of their own learning, resulting in high student engagement. Based on the findings of this project, teachers should seek to create their own curriculum in order to foster class discussion as a primary learning modality in their classrooms. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 5 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Personal relationships are necessary for effective teaching. Learning itself is dependent on social interaction and relationships. Vygotsky (as cited in Jaramillo, 1996) theorized, in his social learning theory, that thought itself is modeled on observed speech. Bandura (1989) observed that, while we learn socially and are impacted by our environment, the relationship is dynamically reciprocal: Individuals affect their social environment even as they are affected by it. The dynamic give and take between learner and environment show the joint necessity of both positive relationships and positive environments. Both are interlinked. Because of these foundational theories of learning, research based best practices in education have historically valued student centered pedagogies which create positive class environments (Kohl, 2006). These environments allow for increased student learning. Neurobiological studies have shown that learning is linked to emotion (Sousa, 2016). Positive relationships between students and teachers create positive emotions, which facilitate learning. These positive emotions also result in reduced student stress further facilitating learning (Sousa, 2016). Environments which allow for strong personal relationships are also necessary for effective discussion based learning which is a crucial element in teaching English (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016). Commercially-created curriculum fails to build student teacher relationships. While commercial curricula, in general, attempt to incorporate activities, which would build student teacher relationships, their prescriptive nature does not allow for the fully functioning dialogue necessary to foster strong teacher student relationships (Au, 2011). Commercial curriculum for English is often fully scripted, which allows for no natural building of a social environment in which positive relationships form. Even when commercial curricula are not fully scripted, they are rigid often aiming for a specific answer to a question and providing a specific preplanned STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 6 teacher insight. This lack of flexibility creates a teacher or curriculum centered class environment, which is detrimental to positive student teacher relationships (Au, 2011). In contrast, a meta-analysis of effective pedagogy shows that constructivist, student centered approaches to English lead to the best learning outcomes for students (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie 2017). It was never the intent of either the standards movement or the outcome based teaching movements for the creation of curriculum to be taken out of teachers’ hands and handed off to commercial companies (Kohl, 2006). The result of this transfer of responsibility has caused a lack of teacher credibility and creativity which has negatively impacted both teachers and students (Won, Lee, & Bong, 2017). Therefore, the best curriculum to use in the ELA classroom is teacher created and aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (Kohl, 2006). Teacher created curriculum will be flexible enough to align with students’ personal interests, which will increase student engagement. Flexibility will also allow for genuine discussion which will teach critical thinking skills (Fisher et al., 2016). Genuine discussion will also allow for humor which will enrich the class and further teacher student relationships (McLaughlin, 2015). Teacher generated curriculum will allow both student-led and teacher-led dialogic discussions to become core learning modalities in the classroom. An increase in communication will also result in a positive classroom environment in which students will experience more trust in their teacher. A result of increased teacher trust is a decrease in student stress (Au, 2011). Better cognitive function from students coupled with more effective curriculum will allow for better learning outcomes for students than those achievable with commercial curriculum. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 7 Literature Review A review of the literature shows that psychologists and educational researchers have long understood that learning is dependent on relationships and connected to the environment in which it takes place (Bandura, 1989; Jaramillo, 1996). In order to maximize learning relationships must be present in order to create a positive environment which will maximize learning outcomes for students (Jaramillo, 1996). Commercial curriculum ignores the critical role teacher student relationships play in student learning (Au, 2011). Teachers who are required to teach commercial curriculum experience a loss of autonomy which negatively impacts teacher student relationships. Aside from effecting relationships commercial curriculum also decreases teacher engagement in the classroom (Rooney, 2015). The intent of the Common Core State Standards was always for students to be the focus of engaging lessons created by trusted, professional teachers (Kohl, 2006). Unfortunately, teachers are facing increased pressure to teach scripted lessons handed to them from commercial curriculum companies (Au, 2011). Teacher generated curriculum geared towards student centered teaching strategies needs to be created in order to best educate students. Research shows teacher generated curriculum will best capitalize on relationships and the social ways in which students learn. The Social Nature of Learning The idea that learning is social in nature is a foundational belief in the modern education system. Vygotsky articulated his social learning theory in the 1930s (Jaramillo, 1996). His theories, as well as the constructivist movement that followed, have been hugely influential on modern curriculum development. Vygotsky recognized the necessity of personal relationships for learning with his development of social learning theory. Vygotsky argued that learning takes place within social interaction. Furthermore, an individual’s thinking cannot be separated from STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 8 the social context in which it takes place. In order for students to reach their potential, they must enter a zone of proximal development, which is dependent on both social interactions from peers and adult guidance. For Vygotsky inner-speech thought itself depended on observed social dialogue and interaction. This idea was a departure from both the sensationalists and the behaviorists who believed in a sharp distinction between body, mind, and environment. Vygotsky viewed the student and the environment as interconnected (Jaramillo, 1996). The implication of this constructivist view on teaching is that the social interaction between student and teacher is the very foundation upon which effective teaching is built. Social interaction and the influence of relationships on learning outcomes became the subject of Bandura’s (1989) seminal work, Social Cognitive Theory. Bandura argued that not only is learning social, in that the environment effects the learner, but these effects are reciprocated as the learners also affect their environment. Bandura called this reciprocal causation. Bandura identified three factors which bidirectionally influence each other: behavior, cognition, and environment. Environment is not a closed or static system. Rather, it is dynamic both influencing the student and being influenced by that student’s own behavior and thinking. Bandura pointed out that even a positive learning environment does not have tyrannical power to positively influence students. Students must choose to activate environmental factors through intentional behavior. There may be a hot stovetop in the kitchen but unless a person acts to touch it, they will remain unaffected. Bandura further explained, “Because of the bidirectionality of influence between behavior and environmental circumstances, people are both products and producers of their environment” (Bandura, 1989, p. 4). The student and the teacher both have the ability to create socially constructive environments to facilitate learning, or students and teachers STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 9 may create stressful, tense environments which stifle social interaction and inhibit cognition. Positive relationships result in positive classroom environments which facilitate learning. Positive classroom environments. The relationship between teacher and student is one of the largest influences in determining classroom environment (Farmer, 2018). Research consistently pointed to student teacher relationships as central to determining class environment. (MacSuga-Gage, Simonsen, & Briere, 2012). Building positive relationships between students and teachers often requires two-way communication. A positive relationship built on communication between students and teachers has the power to change curriculum. A teacher may discover students’ interests then deliver instruction within the context of those interests. Teachers may also use this communication to better understand students’ culture; this understanding allows teachers to increase the relevance of their curriculum and instruction (MacSuga-Gage et al., 2012). Effective communication also leads to decreased student stress and increased mental well-being (MacSuga-Gage et al., 2012). Cultivating a positive classroom environment is especially crucial for students who carry emotional disturbances into the classroom. For those students, studies pointed to a positive relationship with the teacher along with participation in class discussion as the most effective methods for positively effecting students learning and emotional state (Lacor, Mcglown, & Dees, 2016). A positive classroom environment built on strong personal connection correlates directly with positive student emotion and increased student learning (Sparks, 2019). This correlation is because the areas of the brain tasked with determining whether to move new information into memory are in the limbic area (Sousa, 2016). The two areas of the brain where memory is encoded are the amygdala, which encodes emotional memories, and the hippocampus, which STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 10 encodes cognitive memories. Both are part of the limbic system. The emotional center of the brain is where memory is transferred. Memory is biologically linked to emotion. Studies have shown that students’ emotions toward new information are the strongest determining factor in memory and retention (Sousa, 2016). Additionally, far more synapses leading from the limbic area to the frontal lobe exist than synapses moving the other way. This movement means that emotional states are the pathways to cognitive function. If students are in a negative emotional state, they will not have full access to their executive cognitive functions and will not be able to learn effectively (Sousa, 2016). Positive classroom environments have also been shown to reduce student stress and anxiety (Sousa, 2016). Students’ feelings directly influence their thinking. If students feel a negative emotion like anxiety while working on English, their anxiety will be coded into memory. The next time they work on English, this negative emotion will surface and inhibit access to the frontal lobe, limiting cognitive function (Sousa, 2016). This result clearly demonstrates the necessity of a positive class environment curated by the teacher and built on strong relationships between teacher and student. These positive class relationships can also foster a culture of humor. Studies have shown humor is effective in improving student performance (McLaughlin, 2015). This increase in performance is attributed primarily to three factors: stress reduction, strengthened relationships between teacher and student, and increased student attention. Humor reduces the stress involved in learning new things. Teachers who do not take themselves too seriously and joke with their students are generally more effective (Hattie & Zierer, 2018). Joking with students serves to strengthen relationships between students and teachers (McLaughlin, 2015). STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 11 Strengthening relationships between students and teachers leads to increased student attention. Once the human brain orients toward a stimulus in the course of seconds, it determines whether to give said stimulus attention (Sousa, 2016). An effective cognitive strategy to increase student attention is to introduce novelty. Humor is a great way for teachers to introduce novelty into their classrooms (Smith & Wortley, 2017). Laughter also releases endorphins, chemicals which reduce stress in the brain. It may explain why humor has been shown to improve student performance by up to 40 percentile points (Sousa, 2016). Humor has been shown to allow students to learn language more easily because it causes the class environment to be relaxed and positive (Sousa, 2016). The reduction in stress caused by strong relationships within the classroom allows the teacher to faithfully implement effective student centered pedagogies. Dialogic learning as social learning. Class discussion, or learning through dialog, is not only a hallmark of positive class environments, it is also one of the most effective methods of instruction. Class discussion has been shown to have an effect size of .82 (Fisher et al., 2016). Faithfully implemented class discussion differs from other methodologies such as IRE (interrogate, respond, evaluate) because students are not simply reciting information to be evaluated (Fisher et al., 2016). Discussion moves beyond surface learning to deep thinking. Discussion allows students to think critically as well as present their ideas to be evaluated by their teacher and peers. An important quality of discussion is that it allows for several levels of critical thinking. Students participate in analysis, evaluation, inferential thinking, and synthesis of information. However, unlike most modes of deep thinking, a discussion allows for immediate feedback, which has a positive impact on student learning, as feedback itself has a positive effect size of .42 (Fisher et al., 2017). Class discussion is shown to have the strongest effect on those students struggling with independent text comprehension (Fisher et al., 2017). STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 12 While the positive effects of class discussion are widely accepted its implementation has been shown to be lacking. Nystrand’s (2006) meta-analysis shows educational researchers have been noting the confusion between discussion and scripted recall since 1860. Scripted recall is often used because it yields immediate, observable results. Teachers can see students get the right answer, and prove that recall has taken place (Berliner, 2011). Classes which focus on dialogic discussion operate with a different modality in which the class is not the place to demonstrate surface knowledge, but rather a venue to practice critical thinking. A place to debate and discuss ideas and implications of what has been read (Nystrand, 2006). While 95% of teachers value discussion only 33% of those surveyed actually make use of it. In 58 observed secondary classrooms student led, open-ended discussion averaged 15 seconds a day (Nystrand, 2006). One possible explanation for this disparity is that open ended dialogic discussion often has benefits which are not immediately measurable. Rather, it should be viewed as a medium in which instruction takes place: a medium which yields positive results often in ways that are indirect, and not immediately observable (Nystrand, 2006). Though results are not always immediate, students who participated in whole class and small group dialogic discussions increased their reading comprehension. These gains from discussion were even greater for students who struggled with reading comprehension (Nystrand, 2006). Class discussion can be separated into two broad categories: teacher to student, which requires positive teacher student relationships and student to student, which requires positive student relationships within the classroom. Students need to know the rules of discussion and have modeling as well as many chances at practice in order to become proficient collaborators in discussion. Equally important in this equation is the teacher who serves as guide though the effective use of questions. Questions are used to focus, funnel, and transition the class STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 13 conversation. The teacher can also guide the students towards deeper knowledge and critical thinking by offering literal, structural, inferential, and interpretative questions (Fisher et al., 2016). Importantly, these questions must adapt to the fluid nature of the discussion. Pre-planned questions do not work to guide discussion as genuine discussion is based on the direction students steer the discussion (Nystrand, 2006). This type of authentic class discussion will only occur in a positive environment in which student teacher trust is reciprocated. Trust results in the teacher using empathic listening techniques, having the humility to listen as well as the restraint to give students time to participate (Fisher et al., 2017). It is the relationships within the classroom which allow the discussion to happen. Teachers should strive to foster dialogue as the best teachers find themselves engaged in more dialogue and less monologue (Hattie & Zierer, 2018). The second category of class discussion, student to student, is also extremely beneficial. It is demonstrable as one of the most effective instructional models (Nystrand, 2006). Student to student discussion is also predicated on a positive environment as well as positive relationships between students. It is important for teachers to understand the necessity of teacher led dialogic instruction to serve as scaffolding for students as they learn how to participate themselves (Fisher et al., 2017). It is noteworthy that as students’ communication skills improve their writing will improve along with their reading comprehension (Fisher et al., 2017). One reason student speech in the class is so effective is that students are able to articulate thoughts within the context of their world in a way even an expert teacher is unable to do. When student discussions happen within a positive classroom environment, they allow students a safe space in which to confront difficult ideas. Student discussion allows for opposing viewpoints to be articulated and argued. Students are able to find their own voices and thoughtful opinions. Discussion allows for social STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 14 learning within the classroom as envisioned by Bandura and Vygotsky. Student to student discussion allows students to practice skills required to live a literate life and function as responsible democratic citizens. Students are able to fulfill the old pedagogical platitude, learning not what to think but how to think (Sherry, 2019). Current research shows that the genre of dialogic class discussions should be viewed fluidly, including many variations. The salient feature being the central role of students as producers of the discussion, and a lack of scripted questions and responses (Sherry, 2019). These discussions require a positive classroom environment created by positive relationships between student and teacher (Fisher et al., 2016). Commercial Curriculum Fails to Build Relationships Commercial curriculum often results in the alienation of both teacher and student (Costigan, 2017). The failure to build relationships within the classroom comes despite commercial curriculum programs attempting to include and subsume effective teaching modalities. Commercial curricula resulted in a stifling of communication between teacher and student (Croco & Costigan, 2007). These results contrast sharply with what research shows is necessary for the type of discussion that builds genuine teacher student relationships. True student centered dialogic discussions must allow students to explore ideas and concepts flexibly (Fisher et al., 2016). Effective discussion must be unscripted (Kohl, 2006). Relationships are not built when teachers read the insights and thoughts of someone else rather than sharing their own perceptions with students (Eisenbach, 2012; Kohl, 2006). Commercial curriculum has a stifling effect on educators. In one survey teachers responded that they felt their classrooms had become rigid and prescriptive in what they expected from their students (Costigan, 2017). Many educators feel stuck teaching what one educator refers to as, “fake” lessons (Costigan, 2017). These prescriptive lessons contrast STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 15 directly with what is required for genuine dialogic discussion (Nystrand, 2006). Dialogic discussions can be recognized as a dynamic process that involves negotiation between participants. Discussions should be flexible, changing based on previous iterations (Nystrand, 2006). Dialogic discussion must also take place within the social context of the classroom. An open and positive class environment is necessary for this type of free flowing exchange of ideas in which participants change and are chanced by the social context of the class (Bandura, 1989; Nystrand, 2006). Aside from a failure to capitalize on social learning in the classroom through relationships, commercial curriculum suffers from being less engaging to students. Most commercial curricula are extremely reliant on technology as the medium for delivering instruction (Moran, 2018). A biological explanation for the potential lack of engagement through technology is our brains use of mirror neurons (Sousa, 2016). Mirror neurons are located in the frontal lobe of our brains. They function by firing when we observe someone acting while we are engaged in that same action. Scientists believe that these neurons are the basis for empathy and other forms of social intelligence. These neurons also relate to student engagement. If students see a teacher or peer passionately engaged in learning, their brains are wired to mimic that enthusiasm. This enthusiasm does not happen from passively consuming curriculum through a screen. Critically, scientists believe that mirror neurons develop through social interaction, not through screen interaction. Though more research needs to be done to clarify the exact relationship between screen time and social intelligence, current indications are that increased screen time leads to isolation, anxiety, and lowered student performance (Sousa, 2016). Commercial curriculum through its reliance on technology fails to build relationships and positive class environments: instead contributing to student stress and anxiety. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 16 Narrowing of curriculum. Educational researchers have warned about charlatans using the pressure of high stakes testing to profit off the narrative of failing schools (Waite, 2015). However, one does not need to ascribe nefarious motives to creators of prescriptive, commercial curriculum. The effects of prescriptive, preplanned lessons speak for themselves. In the wake of No Child Left Behind teachers, and administrators felt increased pressure to succeed. This success was measured through high stakes testing. Because of these accountability measures teachers and administrators felt increased pressure to teach to the test. This teaching to the test resulted in a narrowing of curriculum (Berliner, 2011). Because there is such a strong focus on high stakes testing creators of curriculum focus solely on material and skills that will be tested. This narrowing of curriculum is especially damaging to students because high stakes testing focuses on shallow knowledge rather than deep thinking skills (Berliner, 2011). Human thought can be broken down into two basic categories: convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking involves taking disparate pieces of information and piecing them together to find a single correct answer. Divergent thinking involves creatively generating many possible solutions to a problem. In divergent thinking there is not a singular correct response to be found. Instead, students support inferences with evidence and argue the merits of their creative solution using evidence (Sousa, 2016). Both of these types of thinking are important in our modern society. However, it is divergent thinking that is most valued in the 21st century (Berliner, 2011). Unfortunately, divergent thinking would be slow and expensive to test. Instead high stakes testing focuses on a multiple choice format, which almost completely ignores divergent thinking skills. The lack of focus on divergent thinking reveals the most troubling aspect of this current educational environment: high stakes tests are not only narrowing curriculum by reducing time spent on non-tested subjects, but the curriculum is also narrowed by STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 17 focusing on convergent thinking because that is what students will likely face in their high stakes summative test (Berliner, 2011). Curriculum has narrowed in its scope and also in the type of thinking it teaches students. Commercial curriculum’s effects on teacher credibility. A key indicator for the state of teacher student relationships are the perceptions students have towards their teachers. Teacher credibility is one of the largest single factors for student outcomes with an effect size of .90 (Fisher et al., 2016). Students were more prone towards self-efficacy and higher achievement when they perceived their teacher as credible (Won et al., 2017). For teachers to be seen as credible, they must be seen as trustworthy and competent (Fisher et al., 2016). Research shows scripted curriculum has negative effects on teacher credibility (Kohl, 2006). The first characteristic necessary for teacher credibility is trust. John Dewey (1916) wrote, “We are made, so to speak, for belief; credulity is natural” (as cited in Hare, 2007, p. 207). Students have an innate desire to trust their teachers. Teachers have a responsibility not to break that trust. Educators who engaged students personally and were able to build relationships of trust were more effective than those who did not (Bolkan, 2009). Hare (2007) argued that John Stuart Mill was correct when he suggested students should monitor and even evaluate their teachers in order to build mutual trust. Hare explained teachers are worthy of student trust when they are open to criticism and are willing to participate in debate. Trustworthy teachers have kept their minds open and are genuinely willing to participate in risky intellectual discussions with their students (Hare, 2007). The willingness to be open to change allows teachers to model the behavior for their students. Teachers can model metacognitive strategies such as self-questioning which is has a positive effect on students (Fisher et al., 2017). Mill argued teachers have a responsibility to model intellectual openness and honesty with their students (as cited in Hare, STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 18 2007). Intellectual honesty will result in increased trust from students, which in turn will increase teacher credibility. Teachers must be viewed as competent in order to be viewed as credible (Won et al., 2017). While there is certainly a role to be filled by commercial and scripted curriculum as a support structure for new teachers, it is important for educators and policy makers to realize such scripted curriculum does not represent the complete scope of teaching (Rooney, 2015). A broadening of curriculum to include teacher generate lessons, not a narrowing down to scripted curriculum is required (Milner, 2013). A clear lack of trust in teacher competence is inherit in commercial curriculum. The idea that teachers cannot be trusted to create their own curriculum is deeply damaging to the perception of the profession as a whole and negatively effects students’ perceptions of their teachers (Milner, 2013). When students view their teacher as incompetent or less than professional, it has a negative impact on students (Gelisi, Baidrahmanov, Beisenbaeva, & Sultanbek, 2017). The standardization of teaching. Commercial curriculum is a direct result in a lack of trust that teachers can generate positive outcomes for students on high stakes tests (Berliner, 2011). Educational reformers have, instead of trusting teachers, embarked on a quest for standardized, teacher proof curriculum (Ohanian, 1985). The increased popularity of teacher proof curriculum must be understood within the context of the current high stakes testing environment in education. Standardized testing results in standardized teaching, which undermines teacher credibility (Au, 2011). Aside from teaching becoming standardized through standard commercial generated curriculum, the methods of instruction are designed and developed specifically for performance on high stakes standardized test (Berliner, 2011). The need to match instruction with test format is troubling as it precludes engagement in the very STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 19 types of activities, such as discussion, that most benefit actual learning in the classroom (Nystrand, 2006). One teacher remarked that they felt they were no longer able to teach writing to a real audience, rather they were forced to teach their students formulaic writing for a standardized test format. (Au, 2011). Because lower level thinking skills are more easily tested, these skills become the focus of new curriculum developed in conjunction with standardized tests. Increasing standardization of instruction has resulted in a shift away from student centered pedagogy towards more teacher centered approaches (Au, 2011). Many teachers feel that standardized testing has forced them to abandon the researched based best practices of student constructivist teaching modalities. The student centered approach to education is not found in most commercial curriculum. Instead, what is being offered are scripted instructions telling teachers what to say, structuring all learning, and leaving little room for creativity (Au, 2011). While many competent teachers resist the pressure to teach to the script, most teachers fall into line as penalties for failing to follow mandated scripted curriculum in many districts include termination (Au, 2011). Forcing teachers to rely less on their own expertise and more on outside experts is a clear example of commercial curriculum undermining teacher competence (Au, 2011; Berliner, 2011). The dynamism required to build teacher student relationships still exists in many classrooms (Kohl, 2006). While the adoption of scripted curriculum and pressure from high stakes testing are not ideal for building student relationships, some teachers have found ways to subvert the mandates and teach in a way that is best for students using standards (Kohl, 2006). This subversion of standardized teaching does not represent a departure from the mandate of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Dynamic student centered teaching actually fulfils the STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 20 original intent of the CCSS. The CCSS were developed as a way to articulate a standard set of desired learning outcomes. These were intended to serve as a guide as teachers created their own curriculum and tests in order to measure student progress (Kohl, 2006). Despite this intent, the CCSS became the basis of the 100% mandate in No Child Left Behind (Kohl, 2006). Standards that were designed to serve as a common language to facilitate teacher collaboration and development became used for high stakes testing. This testing was then used to pressure schools to adopt rigid commercial curriculum written by experts outside the classroom. Many of those involved in the writing of the CCSS have expressed regret that the standards ballooned into massive lists of standards and goals, when the original intent was for the standards to be intelligible and usable for teachers (Schmoker & Jago, 2013). Kohl (2006) clearly articulated the intended result of outcome based education: Central to the outcome-based education movement is the idea that goals for learning should be clearly articulated but that there should be flexibility in the way in which the goals are achieved. Thus schools that adopted outcomes did not become locked into specific preplanned and packaged curriculum materials and teachers who worked with the outcomes had a great deal of freedom, within the system, to design a way to achieve the outcomes for their students. (p. 6) The dynamism and freedom of the teacher is central to faithful implementation of outcome-based education (Eisenbach, 2012; Kohl, 2006). Teachers are the experts of the classroom and should be treated as such. Teachers who are free to teach also inspire more confidence from their students, and students who have positive impressions of their teacher’s content knowledge and ability are more motivated to learn than those who do not (Farmer, 2018). STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 21 Teacher Generated Curriculum Teacher generated curriculum creates positive teacher student relationships and classroom environments (Au, 2011). These positive environments will allow for communication, which is necessary due to the social nature of learning (Bandura, 1989). Positive classroom environments also result in decreased stress and higher mental function from students. Along with higher levels of self-efficacy, student confidence, and better educational outcomes (Fisher et al., 2017;Sousa, 2016). Teachers when allowed to teach their own thoughts and insights are more dynamic and passionate. Students see this and, as a result, teacher credibility increases. Teacher generated curriculum should focus on impactful constructivist learning strategies which put the students at the center of the class. Among these dialogic learning strategies should be prominently featured (Nystrand, 2006; Fisher et al., 2017). Conclusion Learning takes place within a social context (Bandura, 1989). The most effective teachers and teaching modalities make use of creating positive classroom environments through the building of positive relationships between teachers and students. These positive relationships allow for the implementation of impactful student centered strategies such as dialogic discussion (Nystrand, 2006). Positive relationships also create environments that allow students brains to function without stress and negative emotions, which leads to increased student learning (Sousa, 2016). Commercial curriculum fails to build positive relationships between teachers and students (Kohl, 2006). This failure results in a failure to effectively create positive class environments an effectively use teaching modalities, such as discussion, which are dependent on positive class environments for their implementation (Fisher et al., 2016; Nystrand, 2006). As a result of high stakes testing, curriculum has been narrowed in its subject matter and also in the level of STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 22 thinking focused on (Berliner, 2011). For all of these reasons teacher generated curriculum cultivating positive relationships between students and teachers is the most effective curriculum to use. Teacher generated curriculum will be able to more faithfully employ constructivist, student centered teaching strategies which will fulfill the original intent of the CCSS. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 23 PURPOSE The centrality of relationships for student learning has long been understood by educational researchers (Bandura, 1989; Jaramillo, 1996). Unfortunately, the pressures of high stakes testing, and the widespread adoption of commercial curriculum have seriously undermined teachers’ ability to build positive relationships with their students (Au, 2011; Berliner 2011). Without these relationships as a foundation for teaching classroom environments suffer. As a result, teachers are often faced with the dilemma of having to follow district mandated curriculum, rather than teaching in ways which best serve their students (Kohl, 2006). The research clearly demonstrates better learning outcomes for students with positive relationships with their teachers (Fisher et al., 2016). Research also shows the necessity of teacher-created curriculum, which allows for student centered teaching practices. Meta-analysis of teaching practice data confirms the effectiveness of these practices (Nystrand, 2006). Central among student-centered practices is dialogic learning based around teacher and student discussion. In order for these discussions to have the desired effect of fostering critical thinking skills students must have scaffolding and modeling from the teacher (Berliner, 2011; Sousa, 2016.) The purpose of this curriculum project was to provide high school ELA students with student centered, teacher created curriculum. The objective of this curriculum project was to teach the Common Core State Standards using constructivist practices with a specific emphasis on class discussion. In order to meet this objective, the curriculum was flexible in nature allowing for differentiation and adjustment towards different learning needs and points of student interest. By using teacher generated curriculum the teacher’s own passion and interest was able STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 24 to meet student’s own interests in a genuine way in order to foster authentic learning in a positive environment. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 25 METHOD The curriculum for this project was created in order to effectively teach the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for ELA literature to a group of high school juniors. The curriculum focused on the effective use of constructivist teaching strategies capitalizing on relationships between teacher and students to create a positive class environment. Dialogic discussion in both whole class, and small group contexts were employed to allow students to articulate ideas and find ownership over their learning. The curriculum used the novel, The Adventures of Huck Finn by Mark Twain as the base text from which the class practiced and learned critical thinking skills. Students learned both convergent and divergent thinking skills. Expert evaluators were used to determine the effectiveness of these constructivist teaching strategies. Along with the evaluators, I used reflective journaling after each lesson in order to evaluate and adapt the curriculum to my students’ needs. I also used a discussion rubric which I used to give clear expectations to my students (See Appendix B). Expert Evaluators This curriculum project used two expert evaluators. One, Lonnie Kay, is a master teacher who has been teaching ELA for thirty-five years. Lonnie is also an adjunct professor for Utah State University and the University of Wyoming. He has a master’s degree in education. Lonnie was invaluable in his ability to evaluate the quality of the instruction, as well as the quality of student engagement. The second evaluator was Rick Larsen. Rick is a principal and former president of the Utah Association of Secondary School Principals. Rick is an expert at evaluating student engagement and teacher effectiveness. Rick also spent time teaching ELA before he became an administrator. The specific background of both evaluators allowed them to evaluate the curriculum within the specific context of the Common Core State Standards for ELA. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 26 Instrument The observation/evaluation tool was divided into three sections using Likert-scaled questions: (a) the student-led discussion, (b) the teacher-designed curriculum which meets Utah core standards for English/ELA, and (c) the teacher’s rapport with the students (see Appendix A). The Likert-scale was on four points: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree. Since a particular data point may not be observed during an observation, a “not observed” option was included in the tool. Four open-ended questions appeared at the end of the evaluation tool. These open-ended questions allowed for commentary beyond what was observed on the Likert-scale. Open-ended questions gave the survey tool an amount of flexibility which allowed the observer to more holistically reflect on the class discussions. This tool was used by the evaluators during their observations and by the teacher at the end of each day during the unit as part of his reflective journaling. Design of Curriculum Curriculum was generated in order to effectively capitalize on a positive class environment within which the CCSS for ELA were taught. Specifically, curriculum focused on teaching both convergent and divergent thinking skills through the content of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (see Appendix B). The thinking skills specifically focused on in the CCSS are summarizing, analyzing, evaluating, inferring, and creating. All of the many lists of skills across the standards for reading are simply specific articulations of one of these five types of thinking. These five types of thinking skills were viewed as sub-categories of convergent and divergent thinking. These various levels of thought and types of thinking were the focus of the curriculum. Students demonstrated proficiency in the CCSS for ELA during the implementation of this project, specifically the standards for reading literature. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 27 The skill of summarizing or understanding reading served as the springboard on which students built further thinking skills. Student understanding of the text was assessed formatively through class discussion. Once students showed an ability to summarize the text, which required convergent thinking, I moved towards teaching analysis. Analysis itself requires inferential thinking skills and represented a move from convergent to divergent thinking. Analysis required students to learn appropriate literary terms and devices in order to accurately analyze what Twain was doing, how he did it, and why he chose to craft his narrative in a particular way. Requiring students to memorize basic literary devices, while itself not high order critical thinking, was necessary in order for students to think about and understand literature in a more elevated way. Analytical thinking was the focus of repeated practice. Students practiced this specific type of divergent thinking in the form of dialogic discussion as well as student writing. Dialogic class discussion was used to formatively assess student learning. This class discussion was also used by the expert evaluators to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the curriculum. Once students demonstrated understanding of the analytical process, students were asked to judge the effectiveness of Twain’s choices. This judgement required students to analyze Twain’s specific choices and then evaluate the effectiveness of those choices. Students’ understanding of evaluation was formatively assessed, similarly to summary and analysis, through production of writing and through dialogic discussion. By using The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as the medium through which critical thinking was practiced, my class was able to meet the learning objectives for reading literature found in the CCSS. Students also demonstrated effective dialogic discussion which showed a deep understanding of the novel. Students’ understanding was built as they participated together in making meaning through Twain’s novel and their reactions and critiques of that work. Because the thinking skills are STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 28 interconnected and build on each other, the curriculum was able to follow the principles of repetition and dispersed practice emphasized by Sausa’s (2016) work. The learning taken from this unit of instruction was academically beneficial because the critical thinking skills students practiced are used across various academic disciplines. The learning which took place during this unit of instruction will also be helpful to students as they strive to understand and make meaning in their own lives. Philosophical Underpinnings The pedagogical philosophy underpinning the curriculum for this project was constructivist in nature, leaning on the works of Vygotsky, Bandura, and others. Learning does not take place in a vacuum; it is best accomplished collectively. In order to best utilize the collective, social nature in which students learn, this curriculum used small group as well as whole class dialogic discussion. The element of discussion was the salient skill practiced throughout the unit. Along with the novel itself, discussion was viewed as the medium through which learning took place. Dialogic discussion must be flexible, student centered, student driven, and challenge students to articulate ideas in new ways. Procedures The teacher created the lessons for the unit on The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (see Appendix B). The lessons took place over two weeks of class. Lessons focused on using student centered teaching approaches to meet the Utah Core Reading Standards for Literature 1-10. Lessons also focused on creating a positive classroom environment and fostering effective dialogic discussion during that time. Once the unit began, the expert evaluators were invited into the class to observe the quality of instruction and discussion. They were given the day’s lesson plan prior to the STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 29 observation so that they were able to judge if the lesson met the Utah Core Standard that it was designed to meet. Each evaluator made two observations. The reflective journal was completed by the teacher each day for the first two weeks of the unit. The journal began with the same observation/evaluation tool used by the observers. Particular attention was paid to answering the open-ended questions and reflecting on the overall quality of each day’s discussion, meeting of the objectives, and the classroom environment. Data Analysis Observation feedback was analyzed after each evaluation and compared to the teacher’s journal. Likert-scale responses were used to identify areas of weakness in dialogic discussion. Appropriate changes or interventions were incorporated into the unit after each observation. The survey tool guided my reflections after each lesson and allowed me to analyze each lesson and make adjustments as needed. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The implementation of this project yielded positive results for my students. Expert evaluators found that students were highly engaged, and they demonstrated proficiency for the posted standards each day. Evaluators found the curriculum contributed to a student centered class where students had good rapport with their teacher. They also found the curriculum was successful in allowing students to demonstrate both convergent and divergent thinking skills. Generally, the findings of the evaluators supported what the research showed: dialogic discussion helped create a positive environment with students at the center and the teacher as a facilitator or guide (Nystrand, 2006). The results from the expert evaluators were supported in my own reflective journal. I noted that discussions were impactful, and curriculum demonstrated the critical thinking skills I was focused on. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 30 While the project produced strong pedagogical results, there were limitations. Time was restricted to a degree which did not allow for much growth to be observed in the students. The timing of the implementation for the curriculum would have been better coming at the beginning of an instructional year, rather than the end. Implementation at the beginning of the school year would allow for a more accurate view of student gains through the curriculum. This project occurred later in the year after class discussion had already been emphasized. Several things could be done to do further research in order to bolster the findings I describe below. Despite the limitations, completing this project was something which I found strengthened me as a teacher and as an advocate for my profession. Evaluator Findings The expert evaluators found that in our dialogic discussions students followed procedures and were engaged. Following procedures is a basic skill, but it is foundational to building effective discussion within a class. In the discussion-focused area of the observation tool the evaluators strongly agreed with the statement, “Most students were engaged in the discussion.” The level of student engagement was something they highlighted in their responses on the observation tool. Mr. Larsen noted, “It was apparent that the students were well prepared and enjoyed the discussion.” He also commented, “Students had obviously read the material and were enthusiastic to comment on Huck and Jim.” The high level of student engagement is supported by Nystrand’s (2006) research into the effects dialogic discussions have on students. Nystrand showed that dialogic discussion is key in creating effective student centered classrooms. The fact that the evaluators found my class to be student centered and the discussions to be effective is strong evidence that an effective dialogic discussion, as described in the research, was achieved in my classroom. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 31 As a teacher it is great to witness student engagement, but there is always some element of self-doubt as if the teacher is simply seeing what the teacher wants to see. It was professionally reassuring to hear my evaluators use words such as, “enjoyed” and “enthusiasm” in their descriptions of my student’s responses to The Adventures of Huck Finn. Mr. Kay noted that the discussion, “goes beyond the superficial,” and that, “students had aha moments.” I found having my own observations supported by both the research I had done for this project and by the observations of my evaluators gave me more confidence as an educator. I noted my reflective journal, and the evaluations of both Mr. Kay and Mr. Larsen showed strong agreement that students had demonstrated proficiency on the CCSS, while demonstrating both convergent and divergent thinking skills. While using the evaluation tool, both evaluators strongly agreed that the discussion lasted long enough to engage students in critical thinking, and that it used authentic (open-ended) questions rather than fishing for known responses. Nystrand (2006) found that collaborative whole-class discussions, such as the ones I was using, averaged an abysmal 15 seconds per class period observed. In contrast the whole-class discussions in my class ranged from 25-40 minutes. Discussions lasting this length of time allowed the evaluators to observe students engaging in critical thinking. The length of discussion was only possible because of the authentic (open-ended) nature of the questions. Discussions of this length, which were sustained throughout this curriculum supports one of Nystrand’s (2006) central points: effectiveness of discussion is lost when scripted. The unscripted nature of my teacher-created curriculum was extremely effective in implementing dialogic class discussion. Mr. Larsen described the lessons as, “excellent.” Mr. Kay said, “Student comments led to great discussion.” In fact, the only area which evaluators indicated anything less than “strongly agree,” was with the statements: “students engaged STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 32 directly with other students” and “students furthered discussion by asking follow up questions.” In one observed lesson, the evaluators marked these statements as “agree.” It is worth noting that the evaluators marked these statements “strongly agree” in the other lessons. These two aspects of effective dialogic discussion are areas I modeled for my students and emphasized in subsequent teaching. I noted in my reflective journal the need to emphasize direct engagement with the class. After making those areas points of emphasis, I noted marked improvement in students engaging directly with each other. Student improvement in these areas was further evidenced by the evaluators strongly agreeing in later evaluations that these categories had been met. Evaluators noted in the curriculum focused section of the observation tool that objectives were met. They also agreed that critical thinking skills listed were demonstrated. Fisher et al. (2016) showed in their research that class discussion has an effect size of .82. Meaning effective class discussion is one of the most impactful teaching strategies available to teachers. The findings of my evaluators support the findings in the research. My students effectively demonstrated learning and proficiency on specific CCSS during observations. Both evaluators strongly agreed that students demonstrated proficiency for the posted objective. Objectives which were met during the two week implementation of the curriculum were Utah CCSS reading literature 1-6, 9 and 10, as well as speaking and listening standards 1, 3, 4, and 6. Evaluators noted that student analysis was thorough. Both evaluators also commented on students’ understanding and use of specific vocabulary and literary terms. Mr. Larsen said, “One students commented on the juxtaposition of Huck and Jim’s situation. The student’s level of understanding and comprehension of this literary device was impressive.” Mr. Kay noted, “Students used the vocabulary of literature well.” Students understanding of literary terms was STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 33 necessary in order for students to analyze and evaluate Twain’s choices in the novel. Mr. Kay explained that the discussions, “Demonstrated a strong use of questions which kept the book studied in context and was an excellent way of introducing terminology and cultural references”. These comments show that the curriculum was effective in integrating necessary vocabulary instruction through discussion. Evaluators strongly agreed that students demonstrated convergent thinking as part of the lesson, as reflected by their responses on the observation tool. Students demonstrated convergent thinking through their concrete answers while summarizing events from the book. Convergent thinking skills were also demonstrated while answering specific plot level questions from their peers. This response demonstrated to the evaluators that they had done the assigned reading and understood the events which took place in those chapters. Mr. Larsen noted, “It was apparent students were well prepared” and “The students had obviously read the material”. By using this curriculum, I was successful in building students’ understanding of the text. Students were able to demonstrate their ability to read and understand complex texts independently. Additionally, Berliner (2011) pointed out in his research that in our modern education environment, curricula are often successful at teaching convergent think skills while divergent thinking skills are neglected. One of my focuses was allowing students to demonstrate divergent thinking through the implementation of this curriculum. Evaluators strongly agreed that the students demonstrated divergent thinking as part of the lesson. Divergent thinking was demonstrated through the use of authentic, open ended questions, which allowed for students to answer the question in many different ways, such as asking students to point out a literary device they noticed and analyze its use. In answer to that question, one student pointed out the role dramatic irony played in creating the humor throughout the text. This student’s observation was STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 34 then backed up by using text evidence. In this case dramatic irony is demonstrated by Huck’s math always being wrong. The student pointed out, we as the audience were supposed to realize that and see the humor in the situation. Students also used inferential thinking skills to analyze Twain’s authorial choices. Divergent thinking was also consistently displayed by students independently generating and answering their own authentic questions during discussion. During a lesson Mr. Larsen was observing I remember a student asking why Huck seemed to question everything other than superstitions. This led to an insightful conversation about Huck’s questioning of societal norms and how that may have allowed him to help Jim. Mr. Larsen explained, “Student comments were well thought out relative to discussion.” Student comments demonstrated high levels of engagement with the text, and the engagement was coupled with critical thinking. Mr. Kay wrote, “Students showed strong involvement with the issues in the book.” The last measurement on the evaluation tool was teacher focused. The evaluators found that I had good rapport with my students. Mr. Larsen told me, “Students feel safe in your room.” Rapport and trust are critical in order to create an effective student-centered class. Vygotsky pointed out having a classroom culture based on strong relationships is foundational to learning (as cited in Jaramillo, 1996). My personal relationships with students, as well as the relationships between the students themselves, created the necessary context for a discussion based curriculum. Evaluators strongly agreed that the teacher leads a positive classroom environment. Bandura (1989) found that because of the bidirectional nature of learning, the positive classroom environment is not simply an extra benefit but rather a key requirement in teaching. It is that bidirectionality that I strive for in my classroom. In my journal I noted that almost all students were comfortable participating in our discussions. Even those more reticent students would STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 35 answer questions when asked. If students do not feel safe, or if they dread attending class, effective learning cannot take place. Evaluators strongly agreed that I was a positive role model and was effective in supporting but not dominating discussion. By using my own teacher generated curriculum, students were able to see me as a professional and a role model. Kohl’s (2006) research showed commercial curriculum can be damaging to teacher credibility. Using my own curriculum increased my credibility with my students. This credibility allowed for the successful implementation of the curriculum. The foundational research for this project supports this conclusion: perceiving a teacher as a credible professional results in better student outcomes (Au, 2011; Won et al., 2017). The trust my students have in me is what ultimately allowed me to use this curriculum to lead a class which the evaluators strongly agreed was student centered. Reflections This curriculum project has increased my skill as an educator. The time spent planning, implementing, and reflecting on the curriculum helped me hone my practice and benefit my students. The first benefit occurred before I had a chance to implement the curriculum. I found that the research base for this curriculum project increased my ability to advocate for the teaching profession. After doing the foundational research for this project, I was asked to do a presentation for the Rich County School Board on district testing. I was asked to present because our district had recently adopted a new high-stakes testing software. Last year my students scored exceptionally well on the test. They wanted me to present on how I used the software and why my results were as high as they were. Because of the research I had done for this project, I was able to confidently speak about the social nature of learning and the necessity for positive classroom environments. The social STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 36 nature of learning, of course, was not new information to me or anyone else in the room. However, after completing the groundwork for this project, my personal antidotal evidence was now rooted in research, which I could confidently explain to the board. I explained that while a commercial curriculum textbook was in my classroom, it was rarely, if ever, used. I spoke about research showing the value of a discussion based learning model, which is how my students were able to achieve so highly on the test. Because I had read Berliner’s (2011) article on the narrowing effects of high stakes testing, I was able to explain Campbell’s law and the risks of putting too much emphasis on any single data point. Because of this project, I was able to advocate for less mandated pre-testing leading up to our district’s summative tests. My principal agreed with my position and said he would advocate for less mandated pre-testing in future administration meetings. Implementation I implemented the curriculum for this project by creating a discussion based curriculum covering two weeks of The Adventures of Huck Finn with my junior students. In order to be consistent with my observations, my reflective journals and the evaluations from my expert evaluators were always completed after teaching the same class of 18 juniors. This choice was a random sample of juniors from my high school, as the class is split randomly between two periods. This class contained both upper and lower level academically achieving students. I assigned students an average of two chapters, or about twenty pages, of reading each day to be completed outside of class. We would start class by briefly reviewing what we covered the day before, then beginning a discussion of the assigned reading. For the first few days I reviewed a specific discussion rubric (see Appendix B) with my students prior to discussion. This rubric was based on the observation tool found in Appendix A. The teacher focused section of the tool was STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 37 ignored as its contents were not relevant. I would post and review the specific standards we were attempting to cover during our discussion. During most classes, students provided initial questions, which I wrote on the board. I used those as a starting point for our conversation. I would also supply my own open-ended questions when I felt there was a salient point or issue that I wanted students to grapple with. While implementing the curriculum for this project, I modeled specific aspects of effective discussion, which increased the level of my classroom discussions. I created a rubric, based on Nystrand’s (2006) work, detailing for students exactly what an effective dialogic discussion looked like. I had explained expectations for discussion before completing this project, but expectations were never as concrete, measurable, or specific as the research allowed me to be while implementing this curriculum. It was the concrete nature of expectations coupled with the free flowing flexibility of the actual discussion which allowed this curriculum to be so successful. By giving students posted standards based objectives along with specific qualities of discussion, students knew what was expected of them. Because of this clarity there were moments during discussion when we could recognize together that a standard was not being met, or an element of discussion was lacking. Then, as a class, we could adjust to ensure our goals were being met. For the first few days I was primarily the one who would point out these deficits by briefly reviewing the elements essential to discussion and comparing those with what had transpired during our discussions. After the first three days this step was no longer necessary, as the students themselves would recognize what was lacking and fill in the gaps themselves. This student recognition for me was possibly the single biggest benefit to my teaching. By researching exactly what makes a discussion effective, I was able to clearly communicate those expectations to my students. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 38 In my reflective journal I noted that after our first discussion students were engaged in the discussion and followed procedures. I wrote, “Students showed a strong understanding of the basic procedures for discussion.” However, the discussion lacked three key elements of true dialogic discussion. Students rarely engaged directly with other students. They would engage with a topic but would not speak or expand directly about what other students said on the topic. Rather, I found each student would reset the conversation by giving their answer to the posted question or topic without consideration of points made by other students. Follow-up questions were nonexistent in our first discussion, unless I was the one asking them. The discussion did use authentic questions, which were successful in engaging most of the students long enough to show some critical thinking. However, some students did not participate, and I did not feel I could gauge overall class proficiency on the posted standard. Some recalibration was necessary. A class discussion was necessary for the successful implementation of the curriculum. The discussion would be a test of the relationship I had with my students. Students, in my experience, can have a hard time taking constructive criticism without internalizing that failure and putting up barriers as a defense mechanism. Our education system is doing a great job of inculcating a fear of failure into students. Once this fear happens, a myriad of negative cognitive effects occur which can impede student learning (Sousa, 2016). I was well aware of this when I went over expectations with my students. I explained which specific elements were missing from the discussion the day before. Because of the type of class environment I have been able to develop, the discussion was positive and resulted in students recognizing where they could improve and make adjustments. As Bandura (1989) pointed out, students in a classroom are responsible as producers of the class environment and I was able to help them recognize their role and take responsibility for it. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 39 Subsequent classes saw rapid improvement. I made one additional adjustment, after we initially asked questions and condensed those questions into a few big questions written on the board. I would give students five minutes to reflectively journal about the reading and any thoughts they might have on the posted questions. Some lessons would begin journaling and small group discussion which would then generate our initial questions for that day. I noted there were high levels of class engagement. I also saw strong analytical insights being made as well as connections to other novels we had read as a class. One student pointed out, “Huck was like the old man (in Hemmingway’s novel) because he understates the suffering he goes through. This in turn causes the reader to sympathize more strongly with the character.” This comment was made while referencing specific moments in the text of both The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Old Man and the Sea which illustrated that point. Students were also able to incorporate the specific knowledge they had of literary terms and devices. Students’ literary vocabulary was what allowed them to take their conversation past surface level summary into genuine divergent thinking as evidenced through analysis and evaluation of the text. The students asked questions themselves relating to irony, point of view, tone, diction, etc. Questions asked using specific academic vocabulary is what allowed the students do demonstrate proficiency on the State Standards. Sousa (2016) pointed out divergent thinking requires using previous knowledge. It does not take place in a vacuum. This curriculum required students to use vocabulary we had been practicing all year. There are about 30 literary terms which students had been memorizing and using throughout the year. This curriculum was a great capstone which allowed them to synthesize that static vocabulary knowledge into active articulation of literary analysis and evaluation. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 40 Another student comment which stood out was when one student pointed out that when Huck and Jim got lost in the fog perhaps Twain was using the fog in the setting to make a metaphor about Huck’s state of mind. The evidence the student used to back up their statement was, just prior to this point Twain shows Huck feeling guilty about helping Jim escape to freedom. Students were also able to take open ended questions I posed and give insightful answers. I started one class by asking the question, “How does Twain use setting in this novel?” This single question lead to a long conversation about the river functioning as a break from the evils of society they encounter whenever they venture ashore. Despite all these successes there were still moments when I found myself asking questions and then supplying the answers. Such as when I asked, “What story of innocence Twain might be alluding to when Huck and Jim are happy on the island before being bitten by a snake?” That question elicited nothing but blank stares. Overall, these moments were few and balanced out by many moments of insight and genuine interaction between students. I also noticed that these moments came primarily when I would interject my own questions. While students were supplying the questions and directly responding to questions and comments posed by classmates, things ran smoothly. One of the great successes of this project was the role it allowed my students to take in the classroom. In the preface to his article Nystrand (2006) wrote, “Recent sociocultural and dialogic research supports claims that classroom discourse, including small-group work and whole-class discussion, works as an epistemic environment (versus script) for literacy development” (p. 392). My experience in implementing this curriculum supported Nystrand’s conclusions. Students need to bring the knowledge as co-producers of the learning environment. Not simply consumers of an informative script. Students came into class knowing they were responsible for supplying questions, insights, interpretations, inferences, and predictions for STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 41 Twain’s text. This responsibility was something that they actually enjoyed. I could see them learning and taking ownership of that learning. In fact, I was concerned that for this two week period, class was getting repetitive. I am a big believer in mixing things up and introducing novelty into the lessons, something which was reinforced by my research (Sousa, 2016). However, I was loudly assured by my students that they were fine doing discussion uninterrupted for a couple weeks. “It’s fun,” one student remarked. This reaction was a great indicator of student engagement with the curriculum. Overall this curriculum allowed students to explain, elaborate, and defend their positions on issues relating to Twain’s novel. These responses are all elements Vygotsky pointed out were necessary for cognitive development (as cited in Nystrand, 2006). Improvements to the Curriculum Reflecting on the curriculum delivered, there are a few key adjustments which I believe would improve this curriculum. The first adjustment is that discussions could be strengthened through more written assignments which tie directly to the discussions. After a discussion students could be asked to write a paragraph analyzing the use of a specific literary device as it relates to either plot, setting, or character. Writing would allow students to choose an aspect of the discussion to explore and give them time to pursue that one topic further through writing. This writing would give students added time to focus on understanding one specific aspect of the novel. Supplemental writing assignments would further deepen the already strong discussions which occurred in my class. Students could then volunteer to share their thoughts. The curriculum could also be strengthened by incorporating more small-group discussion. Fisher et al. (2016) pointed out that small group discussions are an effective teaching method. This modality was largely unincorporated during this curriculum project. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 42 Limitations From a pedagogy standpoint this project was extremely successful. However, there were several limitations. The first was the length of time the curriculum was implemented. Two weeks is a small sample size. Implementation over a longer period of time would allow more longitudinal data to be gathered. These data would be helpful in measuring student growth and give a clearer picture of the effectiveness of the curriculum. The curriculum was also given during the third trimester after students had already practiced discussion with two previous novels. If curriculum was given during the beginning of a school year it would offer a clearer measurement of student improvement. This project relied on expert evaluators and my own reflective journals to measure its effectiveness. These observation tools do not include any quantifiable data to support the conclusions of the evaluators. Another major limitation to this project is the lack of any direct feedback from students. Additionally, it is possible having evaluators in the room effected student performance on those observed discussions. However, that does not seem to be the case. The students performed exceptionally well on an extremely difficult test on the novel at the end of the curriculum unit. If the discussions were propped up facades for the benefit of the evaluators it is doubtful students would have performed so well on the summative evaluation. The findings of the evaluators were also confirmed by my own findings in my reflective journal. Recommendations This project could be improved by gathering longitudinal data through pre and post assessments and comparing the results of that data with the observed results of evaluators and the teacher. The curriculum could be given to students during the beginning of the school year and lengthened to cover an entire novel unit. Students could be given a pre-test on the CCSS for STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 43 literature. After having covered the unit using discussion based curriculum, students could be tested again on those same standards. Further study could be done by replicating this study while taking a second group of students though a commercially created curriculum for the same duration. Students would take a pre-test to assess knowledge. Both groups would then be given a test after being taught the curriculum. The results of the students who went through the teacher-created discussion based curriculum could then be compared with those of students who went through the commercially produced curriculum. This study would pose many challenges, such as ensuring that the commercial curriculum was given with fidelity. Other challenges may be determining if the curriculum was the main driver of change between the two groups, or if other factors may be the cause of any statistically significant differences which emerge. Lastly, this project could be done while incorporating feedback from the students themselves. This would most effectively be done through surveys coupled with interviews. Students would be allowed to articulate their experiences with a discussion based classroom. Student feedback, evaluator surveys, and some quantifiable pre and post testing would provide a more complete understanding of the effectiveness of the curriculum. Conclusion Education is often about trust. One of the main challenges in creating a student-centered classroom is, the teacher must trust the students. One additional struggle in teaching is that the medium for instruction must be able to match the content that is being taught. Discussion as a medium for teaching and learning is big enough to bring literature to students. Discussion can be a touchstone for the worlds of experience literature has to offer. I had a great professor once tell me, “Great books are like a mansion. A teacher can open the door and show you a few rooms, STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 44 but that is all. There will always be doors left unopened, rooms unexplored” (personal communication, Dr. Harrison Kleiner). I agree fully with this sentiment. I cannot claim that during the implementation of this project my students were able to fully understand The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Its historical context, societal, moral, and personal meanings are more than can be completely covered in an hour of class. What I can say with confidence is this project allowed me to open doors to my students. Students were able to see themselves in places they had never been and recognize themselves in characters they had never met. Understanding literature requires understanding life, and life is neither scripted nor commercially produced. Life is a messy, sometimes painful, tragic comedy. Our discussions were able to mirror this reality to some degree. Our discussions were big enough to cover issues of society, history, and morality, yet personal enough to empathize with the pain of a father missing his family. This project allowed me to see the potential of social learning through discussion. It also helped me realize how critical having a positive classroom environment is to effective education. As one student put it. “This is the class where I can be myself, and I freaking love it.” If students do not enjoy walking into my classroom, the quality of my curriculum is largely irrelevant. Relationships are the foundation to learning, and any curriculum that fails to build those relationships will be ineffective. Students demonstrated proficiency on state standards, but this curriculum allowed them to go beyond those standards to collectively make meaning in a true sense and to use literature as a lens to view themselves. This project gave me the research foundation to support my belief that students should be trusted, and teachers should be allowed to be professionals. The findings of this project support the constructivist view that knowledge is created together in a classroom. Students should be trusted as joint producers of a learning environment, not simply consumers of curriculum. The STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 45 students made this curriculum successful. The students produced it themselves with their own questions, knowledge and insight. Ultimately, this project increased the level of trust I have in my students. It takes scaffolding, modeling, and specific instruction, but a student-centered classroom can produce outstanding results. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 46 REFERENCES Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. doi :10.1080/00220272.2010.521261 Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (pp. 1–60, Vol. 6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. doi: 10.1080/0305764x.2011.607151 Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4), 296–306. Costigan, A. (2017). I’m not teaching English, I’m teaching something else!: How new teachers create curriculum under mandates of educational reform. Educational Studies, 54(2), 198–228. doi:10.1080/00131946.2017.1379809 Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. doi: 10.1177/0042085907304964 Eisenbach, B. (2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. Clearing House, 85(4), 153–156. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2012.663816 Farmer, A. (2018). The impact of student-teacher relationships, content knowledge, and teaching ability on students with diverse motivation levels. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 1(1), 13–24. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 47 Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy: implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning: grades K-12. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2017). Teaching literacy in the visible learning classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Literacy. Gelisli, Y., Baidrahmanov, D. K., Beisenbaeva, L., & Sultanbek, M. (2017). Determination of the high school students’ attitudes towards their teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 361–378. Hare, W. (2007). Credibility and credulity: Monitoring teachers for trustworthiness. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(2), 207–219. Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2018). 10 Mindframes for visible learning: teaching for success. London: Routledge. Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133. Kohl, H. (2006). A love supreme--riffing on the standards: Placing ideas at the center of high stakes schooling. Multicultural Education, 14(2), 4–9. Lacour, M., Mcglawn, P., & Dees, L. (2016). Creating a positive classroom environment to meet the needs of the foster child. Education, 137(2), 141–148. MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Simonsen, B., & Briere, D. E. (2012). Effective teaching practices that promote a positive classroom environment. Beyond Behavior, 22(1), 14–22. McLaughlin, C. (2015). Humor in the classroom. Children’s Technology & Engineering, 19(4), 22–23 STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 48 Milner, H. R. (2013). Policy reforms and de-professionalization of teaching. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544286 Moran, C. M. (2018) “Just don’t bore us to death”: Seventh graders’ perceptions of flipping a technology-mediated English Language Arts unit," Middle Grades Review, 4(1), 1–18. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol4/iss1/5 Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392–412. Ohanian, S. (1985). On stir-and-serve recipes for teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 66(10), 696–701. Ortlieb , E. T. (2010). The pursuit of play within the curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 241–246. Rooney, E. (2015). “I’m just going through the motions”: High-stakes accountability and teachers’ access to Intrinsic Rewards. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 475–500. doi: 10.1086/681923 Schmoker, M., & Jago, C. (2013): Simplifying the ELA Common Core; Demystifying curriculum. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 59–63 doi: 10.1080/00228958.2013.786589 Sherry, M. B. (2019). Emergence and Development of a Dialogic Whole-Class Discussion Genre. Dialogic Pedagogy, 7, 27–57. Smith, V., & Wortley, A. (2017). “Everyone’s a comedian.” No really, they are: Using humor in the online and traditional classroom. Journal of Instructional Research, 6(1), 18–23. doi: 10.9743/jir.2017.3 Sousa, D. A. (2016). Engaging the rewired brain. West Palm Beach, Florida: Learning Sciences International STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 49 Sparks, S. D. (2019 12). Why student teacher relationships matter. Education Week, 38(25), 8. Waite, D. (2015). Of charlatans, sorcerers, alchemists, demagogues, profit-mongers, tyrants and kings: Educational reform and the death by a thousand cuts. The Urban Review, 48(1), 123–148. doi: 10.1007/s11256-015-0348-3 Won, S., Lee, S.-Y., & Bong, M. (2017). Social persuasions by teachers as a source of student self-efficacy: The moderating role of perceived teacher credibility. Psychology in the Schools, 54(5), 532–547. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 50 Appendix A Observation/Evaluation Tool Discussion focused Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Not Observed Students followed procedures Students engaged directly with other students Most students were engaged in the discussion (including those not speaking who may be listening or taking notes) Discussion lasted long enough to engage students in critical thinking Discussion used authentic (open-ended) questions rather than fishing for known responses Students furthered discussion by asking follow-up questions Curriculum focused Lesson objectives were clearly posted and communicated to students Students demonstrated proficiency for the posted objective There was enough participation to gauge overall class proficiency on posted objectives Students demonstrated convergent thinking as part of the lesson (students offered concrete solutions to questions with a specific, concrete answer) Students demonstrated divergent thinking as part of the lesson (students generated creative ideas and offered possible solutions to questions without a specific, concrete answer) Students summarized events from the novel, analyzed and evaluated author’s choices, inferred answers from evidence within the text, and demonstrated creative thinking skills. The curriculum meets the posted learning objectives The curriculum engages the students Teacher focused The teacher has a good rapport with the students The teacher leads a student centered class The teacher encourages participation from all students The teacher supports, but does not dominate, the discussion The teacher is a positive role model The teacher leads a positive classroom environment 1. What did you notice that worked well in this lesson? STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 51 2. How would you describe the quality of the discussion? 3. What did you find lacking in either the discussion or the lesson as a whole? 4. How could this lesson have been improved? STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 52 Appendix B Discussion Rubric Discussion focused Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Not Observed Students followed procedures Students engaged directly with other students Most students were engaged in the discussion (including those not speaking who may be listening or taking notes) Discussion lasted long enough to engage students in critical thinking Discussion used authentic (open-ended) questions rather than fishing for known responses Students furthered discussion by asking follow-up questions Curriculum focused Lesson objectives were clearly posted and communicated to students Students demonstrated proficiency for the posted objective There was enough participation to gauge overall class proficiency on posted objectives Students demonstrated convergent thinking as part of the lesson (students offered concrete solutions to questions with a specific, concrete answer) Students demonstrated divergent thinking as part of the lesson (students generated creative ideas and offered possible solutions to questions without a specific, concrete answer) Students summarized events from the novel, analyzed and evaluated author’s choices, inferred answers from evidence within the text, and demonstrated creative thinking skills. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 53 Lesson Plans Lesson plans have been edited to include only elements from each lesson which related directly with this project. Other elements, such as writing assignments, have been omitted. Utah Common Core State Standards which were taught and demonstrated during the implementation of this curriculum, Reading: Literature Standard 1-6, 9-10, Writing Standard 10, Speaking and Listening Standard 1 a-d. Day 1 Guiding questions for discussion, Which events in the chapters stood out to you? What about those events made them stand out? What themes do you see emerging in Twain’s novel? Day 2 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Review discussion rubric. Set expectations. Guiding questions for Discussion, What role does the Island play in this novel? Analyze, how is Twain is using setting? Day 3 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Review discussion rubric. Set expectations. Guiding questions for Discussion, STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 54 Analyze, why does Twain include so many details about superstition? Infer, has anything happened which confirms or challenges earlier inferences about Twain’s view of religion? Give students 2-3 minutes to write about each question in their journals before beginning discussion. Day 4 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Give students 2-3 minutes to journal about the reading. After journaling students will share their thoughts in small (3-4) groups. Each group should generate one essential question for discussion today. Discuss student created guiding questions. Add the questions, How does Huck feel about himself? How has Huck’s attitude effect his actions thus far in the novel? Day 5 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Give students 2-3 minutes to journal about the reading. Ask for individual voluntary responses to generate our initial questions. Lead the class in collaboratively grouping those questions into 2-3 initial questions to investigate. Discuss initial questions. Day 6 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Guiding questions for discussion, Any plot level questions? (Summary) STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 55 Infer, based on events from today’s reading, how does Twain feel about society? Has that attitude ben consistent, or has it changed? Day 7 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Guiding questions for discussion, Is Colonel Sherburn correct when he claims the average man a coward? Give students 3-4 minutes to write reflectively on the guiding question. Students should use both evidence from the text, as well as any relevant personal experience to answer the question. Day 8 Review previous class discussion. Any clarifying questions? Guiding questions for discussion, Have students journal about the novel so far. Leave this open-ended. After Journaling, as a class discuss overall perception of the novel. Ask, evaluate the novel to this point. What has Twain done especially well? If you were an editor, what would you ask Twain to change? Allow students 5 minutes to write responses. Start discussion with overall reaction, use show of hands for those students who overall dislike the novel. Discuss the specific reasons those students dislike the novel. Ask for show of hands of those students who have enjoyed the novel to this point. Discuss what specific things Twain has done which have been effective in creating a compelling narrative for those students. STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING IN ELA 56