Educ Res Policy Prac DOI 10.1007/s10671-015-9174-3 ORIGINAL PAPER

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts Common Core State Standards: an exploratory study Lasisi Ajayi

Received: 16 October 2014 / Accepted: 16 February 2015 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract This was an exploratory study that examined high school teachers’ perspectives about their early experiences with the English language arts Common Core State Standards. The sources of data for the study included a survey and structured interviews. Twenty-three high school ELA teachers from one unified school district in Southern California participated in the study. The findings suggested that the teachers wanted to acquire more knowledge about many aspects of the CCSS for ELA. In addition, they perceived that their professional development and curricula materials were inadequate to meet the high standards set in the CCSS. Also, the teachers perceived that they were not ready to teach the ELA CCSS even though they believed that the standards would help students have satisfying personal and professional lives. The implications were discussed, including the need for schools to provide ongoing, high-quality professional development, and research-based, aligned curricula materials for high school ELA teachers. In addition, California and school districts have to make adequate financial investment to support implementation of the CCSS. Keywords English language arts · Common Core State Standards · Sociocultural theory · Funds of knowledge · Communities of practice

1 A historical context of the Common Core State Standards The roots of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) can be traced to the “Accountability Movement” of the 1990s when almost all states in the United States introduced mandatory tests of students’ achievement. The standards-based tests were designed to test students’ learning of a common core of knowledge that all citizens were expected to acquire (Gibbs and Howley 2001). The core argument of the accountability movement was that schools should teach students the knowledge and skills to become effective workers in an increasingly globalized economy.This is an economy defined by national economic integration and L. Ajayi (B) Department of Teacher Education & Foundations, College of Education, California State University, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

L. Ajayi

interdependence and movement of goods, services, people, capital, and technologies across national borders (California Department of Education 2013). In 1996, 13 state governors and education commissioners (via the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and Council of Chief of State School Officers (CCSSO) and business Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)) led the development of the CCSS (Common Core State Standards Initiative, CCSSI, n.d.). The organizations (henceforth refers to as the developers) created Achieve1 , an independent, nonprofit education reform organization based in Washington, D.C., with the goal of helping states “raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthening accountability” (Achieve 2009, p. i). In a nation-wide study of the knowledge and skills that graduating high school students should have to succeed in their workplace and at college, Achieve (2004) notes that there is a gap between students’ knowledge and college-and-career readiness as “no state requires its graduates to take the courses that reflect the real-world demands of work and postsecondary education” (p. 3). Achieve (2004) recommends, among others, that states “require all students to take a common college- and work-preparatory curriculum in Math and English” and “align academic standards in high school with the knowledge and skills required for college and workplace success” (p. 3). College and career readiness is defined as the acquisition of the skills and knowledge a student needs to successfully secure admission to credit-bearing, first-year courses at a postsecondary institution, such as a two-year or four-year college or without a need for remedial courses (ACT2 2008). In 2005, Achieve sponsored the National Educational Summit, which was attended by CEOs, 45 governors, and leaders from K–12 and higher education sectors. The leaders discussed the issues of low high school graduation rates, poor performance in public tests, and students’ lack of readiness for career and college. At the summit, 13 state governors adopted the following college- and career-ready policies (quoted below): • Aligning high school academic content standards in English and mathematics with the demands of college and careers; • Establishing graduation requirements that require all students to complete a college- and career-ready curriculum; • Developing statewide high school assessment systems anchored to college- and careerready expectations; and • Creating comprehensive accountability and reporting systems that promote college and career readiness for all students (Achieve 2011, p. 7). In 2007, the American Diploma Project Network organized a summit which was attended by a panel of state and local government officials, K–12 and college leaders, and CEOs for the purpose of developing a common core curriculum for students. In 2009, the literacy and mathematics standards were written by a panel of experts convened by the NGA and state superintendents. The developers of the CCSS set the goal of providing a consistent and clear understanding of the knowledge and skills that students are expected to learn so teachers and parents know how to help them (Pearson 2013). As of 2014, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the CCSS. However, many critics argue that the CCSS does not recognize multiple literacies that youths view as functional in their everyday lives. Beach and Baker (2011) contends that CCSS marginalizes uses of a range of media/digital literacies that students use for building 1 Achieve, Inc. was founded in 1996 at the National Education Summit by leading governors and business leaders. 2 ACT is an independent, not-for-profit organization that provides assessment, research, information, and program management services in the broad areas of education and workforce development.

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

social networks, critiquing status quo, and engaging audiences (p. 2). Ravitch, a former conservative, former assistant secretary of education, and historian of American education, argues that “there is no evidence that the Common Core standards will enhance equity” (Huffington Post, September 2, 2013). Ravitch (2013) contends that children are made smarter by well-prepared and experienced teachers who have resources to work with the neediest students rather than harder tests.

2 ELA teachers as a crucial factor in implementation of the CCSS Teachers are crucially important to a successful implementation of the CCSS for English language arts (ELA) because they are expected to use the standards as a guide “toward curricula and teaching strategies that will give students a deep understanding of the subject and the skills they need to apply their knowledge” (CCSSI, n.d.). The developers of the standards suggest that ELA teachers should use their expertise to help students meet the challenges of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language. They note that the standards emphasize core concepts and procedures in the early grades so as to give “teachers the time needed to teach them and gives students the time needed to master them” (CCSSI 2010). Recognizing the central role of teachers in implementing the CCSS, the developers set grade-specific goals for students to be college and career ready but do not dictate how teachers should teach. The California CCSS states that “by emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and state to determine how these goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed” (p. iv). Hence, California treats teachers as professionals and gives them the responsibility to teach lessons based on the standards and continually define students’ learning and performance goals. Furthermore, the CA CCSS requires ELA teachers to provide a high-quality education by using the standards to help students learn critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication (CA CCSS 2013). The International Reading Association (IRA) (2012) states that it is teachers who must make the standards into “an effective instructional reality— what happens day to day in classrooms determines student ELA learning” (p. 1). Indeed, teachers are the lynchpin of success for ELA standards because effective implementation of the standards depends on the knowledge and effectiveness of instruction provided by individual educators (Reutzel 2013). For example, a majority of teachers in the U.S. agree that the CCSS will influence their instruction (Choppin et al. 2013). Hence, teachers across 45 states in the U.S. are grappling with what the new standards mean in their daily instruction and what students need to know, and be able to do, by the end of each grade level. Even with the crucial role teachers must play in the implementation of the ELA CCSS, there is limited research to gage their perspectives about the standards. In fact, there are more scholars theorizing about the CCSS than those who are actually collecting and analyzing data from teachers who are responsible for implementing the standards. Also, many commercially produced materials for teaching ELA are sometimes confusing for teachers who are struggling to understand the standards and how to effectively teach and assess them (IRA 2012). In addition, while teachers’ knowledge and awareness of the CCSS are developing rapidly, they are “not necessarily [advancing] in terms of the deeper level of mastery that students need to meet the standards” (ASCD 3 2012, p. 5). Teachers face serious challenges in implementing the CCSS because the curriculum is a multi-layered document and what is taught may differ greatly from the intended, learned, and assessed (Cuban 2012). Indeed, there are concerns 3 ASCD was formerly known as the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

123

L. Ajayi

that ELA teachers will be required to implement the learning progressions in the CCSS “but not with fidelity to any research base but with fidelity to the consensus-based progressions that are in the standards” (Pearson 2013, p. 11). 3 Research objective The purpose of this study is to examine high school ELA teachers’ perspectives regarding their early experiences with the ELA CCSS. Four research questions guided this study: • • • •

What is the teachers’ knowledge about the ELA CCSS? What are the teachers’ views of professional development and training to teach ELA? What are the teachers’ views of ELA CCSS curricula materials? What are the teachers’ attitudes to the ELA CCSS?

This study contributes to research on the CCSS as teachers’ perspectives provide insights on how the standards impact instruction in real-world classrooms. Forty-five states have adopted the CCSS to provide a consistent and clear understanding of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that K–12 students need to meet the challenges and opportunities of the increasingly globalized, knowledge-based economy and college readiness. A study of ELA teachers’ perspectives on the CCSS is, therefore, important because if educators can use the standards to guide instruction and teach “American students [to be] fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy” (Pearson 2013, p. 1).

4 ELA CCSS instruction: a sociocultural framework At the core of sociocultural theory is a view that “defines human learning as a dynamic, social activity that is situated in physical and social contexts, and is distributed across persons, tools, and activities” (Johnson 2009, p. 1). Sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a product of complex social interactions between individuals and their social situations and contexts (Beach et al. 2012; Beach 2011; Gee 2010; Perry 2012). Sociocultural theory has its roots in the research of Vygotsky’s (1978). Vygotsky (1978) uses “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) to describe the nature of children’s cognitive development as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Vygotsky (1978) argues that a child’s developmental levels consists of two parts: “the actual developmental level” and the “potential developmental level.” Vygotsky (1978) further emphasizes that the ZPD “awakens a variety of internal development processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment” (p. 90). The ZPD is the difference between what a child can do independently and what he/she can do with supports from more experienced adults or peers. Sociocultural theory is appropriate for the study of teachers’ pedagogical practices in the context of the ELA CCSS. For example, literacy practices are essentially social because they come from within a social matrix where meanings communicated are shared by individuals (Nelson and Shaw 2002). In addition, through societal and individual interaction, exposure, and collaboration with more competent adults (e.g., teachers) and peers, children learn to use literacy to participate in the community to express their experiences, identities, and social relations. Therefore, as the developers of the CCSS require teachers to teach students real-world skills, it is appropriate that ELA learning takes place through apprenticeship in

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

“communities of practice” with authentic contexts and activities, guidance, and supports from the expert (e.g., through modeling and mentoring) and “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave 1996; Lave and Wenger 1991; Vygotsky 1987). Furthermore, sociocultural theory recognizes the crucial role of “experts” (e.g., teachers) in using scaffolds and supports (e.g., picture drawing, small or whole-class discussions, graphic organizers, cognates, etc.) to prepare students to understand difficult vocabulary, phrases, and unfamiliar concepts in complex texts in the CCSS for ELA. Teachers can use scaffolding teaching techniques—based upon their understanding of students’ ZPD—to help learners grow and develop beyond existing ZPD. In addition, the theory emphasizes learning as a social activity and indicates that teachers can transform their classrooms into communities of practice, where the CCSS ELA learning is not an isolated, autonomous activity but a participative, collective, and collaborative social action (Dede 2004). As students interact and engage in exchanges of ideas during ELA instruction, they develop social constructs that allow them to learn new knowledge and skills and collaborate with their peers. Hence, the notion of learning as a social activity allows ELA teachers to meaningfully address issues of language, literacy, power, and identity and teach for social change—thus increasing students’ literacy repertoires in the context of the CCSS (Beach et al. 2011; Bunch 2013). In addition, sociocultural theory allows teachers to draw upon and affirm students’ knowledge, cultures, experiences, and social interests as a starting point for learning ELA (Hull and Moje 2012). This is a crucial issue in the CCSS as it requires teachers to help students make connections between ELA instruction and their cultural background. In this way, the teacher can draw upon students’ funds of knowledge; that is, the socially developed and culturally accumulated strategies (e.g., skills, abilities, and practices) and bodies of knowledge they bring from home and cultural community for learning (Gonzalez et al. 2005). Connecting ELA curriculum to students’ funds of knowledge allows the teacher to build a bridge between the learners’ home and community resources and instruction. First, such instructional practice shows that the teacher recognizes and values the linguistic and cultural assets that students bring from home. Second, the practice signals to the students that the teacher supports them to use their first language as a resource to learn ELA. When a teacher welcomes and values students’ experience and culture, they are more likely to feel accepted, respected, “safe” and ready to endure the challenges of learning a new language (Jiménez et al. 1996). In summary, sociocultural theory suggests that ELA teachers should use approaches that (a) situate instruction within schools and broader communities that support teacher learning and change efforts, (b) use scaffolding to help students develop beyond existing ZPD, (c) allow educators to think of ELA learning as a social activity and participative social action, and (d) leverage students’ sociocultural knowledge for learning through helping them to make links to their homes and communities’ culture and language. Implementation of the CCSS based on the principles of sociocultural theory brings new challenges for pedagogical practices, professional development, and curricula materials. The “new” sociocultural ways of thinking about teaching and learning in times of the CCSS means that the content and quality of professional development must be designed to provide ELA teachers a deeper understanding of instructional strategies that help all students learn the rigorous standards (Santo et al. 2012).

5 Review of related literature Literature is reviewed to shed light on the contributions of existing studies to the present paper and identify gaps (if any) in theory, methods, and analysis, and how this study addresses such

123

L. Ajayi

gaps. A search of databases including Education Full Text, Education: A SAGE Full-Text Collection, Google, SAGE Journals Online, Wiley Online Library, Education Index Retrospective, ERIC-ProQuest, and ERIC-Firstsearch using word search such as “ELA teachers and CCSS” and “Common Core State Standards, Implementation, and English language arts teachers” revealed that limited studies have investigated teachers’ perspectives about ELA CCSS. In all, more than 217 journal articles were reviewed over four months in 2014. In a study of school districts’ views about the CCSS, Kober and Rentner (2011) note that 76 % of respondents perceive adequate funding as a major challenge, while more than threefifths expect the standards to improve student learning. The present study builds on the findings by specifically investigating ELA teachers’ perspectives of the CCSS. Editorial Projects on Education Research Center4 (2013) investigate 600 teachers’ views of the CCSS, and the findings show that 78 % of the educators have some basic level of familiarity. Also, 28 % of the teachers indicate they have attended professional development activities of five days and 31 % say they have received two to three days of training. Extending the findings, the present research collects both quantitative and qualitative data to increase the validity of the findings. Some studies have examined the alignment of the new standards with the former. Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yang (2011) compared the ELA CCSS with the old standards and conclude that they show “generally low levels of alignment” (p. 114). The study suggests that it is crucial for ELA teachers to develop a deep knowledge of the standards to be able to implement them smoothly. In addition, there are abundant commentaries on the CCSS. Beach and Baker (2011) contends that ELA teachers should develop an in-depth knowledge of the ELA CCSS in order to use effective strategies that help align teaching with students’ cultures of learning mediated by multimodal and new media literacies, connectivity, collaboration, and interactivity. Building on the findings, this study collects data directly from teachers who have practical experiences with implementation of the CCSS to provide a deeper understanding of their perspectives. The literature review shows that few studies examined teachers’ views about the CCSS for ELA. In addition, a few studies have explored the role of sociocultural theory in how teachers conceptualize literacy instruction as socially and culturally situated practices (Lave 1996). To create an effective teaching environment for the CCSS for ELA, there is a need for sociocultural theory that allows teachers to situate instruction within everyday social activities of students. Such a theory will help researchers to examine how teachers provide support structures that help students extend existing knowledge. The theory will further help to explore how teachers become “involved in communities of practice in which their identities are changing with respect to (other) learners through their interdependent activities” (Lave 1996, p. 158). Since teachers are integral to a successful implementation of the CCSS, the present study builds on the available research to explore their perspectives on the new standards. 6 Methodology For data collection, a mixed methods approach was used to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data for purposes of examining the participants’ perspectives on ELA standards (Creswell 2006). The method allowed for complementarity (Greene and Caracelli 2003) as it afforded the opportunity to complement quantitative data with rich, detailed qualitative data from interviews to provide teachers’ perspectives and voices. 4 Editorial Projects in Education are the independent, nonprofit organization devoted to raising awareness

and understanding of critical issues facing American schools.

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

As a literacy education professor/researcher, I listen daily to a myriad of questions from pre-service and in-service teachers who are apprehensive of what the standards mean for their teaching and students’ learning. They ask questions such as how can they teach the CCSS to make sure they are fully addressing the standards, how can they have the time to teach students to have deeper understandings of the skills and concepts addressed in the CCSS, what can they do to meet the learning needs of English language learners (ELLs) and students with learning disabilities, and whether the standards tell teachers what to teach and how to teach. The fact is that little is known about the effectiveness of the CCSS. Hence, I am interested in conducting ongoing studies to inform the implementation of the CCSS as the public can know if the standards are delivering on their promise only through continuing research. 6.1 Recruiting participants and data collection procedures Recruitment of participants and administration of the survey relied on tailored design method, which involved “using multiple motivational features in compatible and mutually supportive ways to encourage high quality and quality of response to the surveyor’s request” (Dillman et al. 2009, p. 16). First, in January 2014, e-mails were sent to the five high school principals in the county (site of the study) to obtain permission for the study. Two principals agreed to the proposal while three declined because they were preparing for the California High School Exit Examination. Next, another e-mail was sent to all ELA teachers in the two schools to inform them about the study; they voluntarily agreed to participate and signed a consent form. The two participating schools were from the same unified school district in Southern California. In the 2013–2014 school year, the schools had a total of 5623 students. While 2708 (48 %) of the students were males, 2915 (52 %) were females. In addition, 99 % of the students were classified as Hispanic or Latino while 0.7 % were White. The institutions were classified as high-poverty schools; hence, 100 % of the students were identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and participated in the reduced-price/free lunch program (that is, the National School Lunch Program that provides free and reduced priced meals to low-income children before school, during school, and after school). Also, 77 % of the students were classified as ELLs. Furthermore, the schools had a total of 433 teachers; 425 (98.15 %) were fully credentialed while eight (1.85 %) were not. Moreover, 58 % of the teachers had taught less than five years. At the time of this study, the school district had provided some professional development activities and training for the teachers. The two schools began implementation of the CCSS in the 2013–2014 academic year. Data for this study were collected through a survey and structured interviews between February and April 2014. Twenty-three surveys were distributed and all were filled and returned, representing a 100 % response rate. The survey consisted of 67 items (see Appendix 1). The development of the survey was based on the research questions, sociocultural theory of literacy instruction, and the review of existing literature. I frequently revisited the research questions to make sure that survey items align with them because development of questionnaire items as a “method must depend on the formulation of a core research question that is amenable to being answered through a survey” (Baumann and Bason 2011, p. 414). In Section A (items 1–8), the teachers answered questions about biographical data such as gender, age, ethnicity, degree, and teaching experience. In Sections B, C, D, E, and F, a fivepoint Likert attitudinal scale was used to collect data. In Section B (items 9–13), the teachers responded to statements about their knowledge of the ELA standards. In Section C (items 14–31), the participants answered questions about professional development and training related to ELA standards and provided answers to statements about curricula materials and textbooks for instruction in Section D (items 32–41). In Sections E, the teachers responded

123

L. Ajayi

to statements about their readiness to implement the ELA standards and answered questions about their attitudes to teaching the standards, respectively. The teachers also provided informational responses in a box at the end of each section. While Likert-type attitudinal scale allowed me to cover a broad range of data with which to explore the various aspects of ELA teachers’ perspectives about the CCSS, the method had some limitations including the fact that each statement offered only a few options with which the students might not fully agree. The problem was addressed through open-ended interview questions which supplemented the quantitative data. All the 23 teachers participated in a taperecorded, one-on-one, and face-to-face semi-structured focused interview. The interviews were conducted during lunchtime and after-school hours in each teacher’s classroom within two days after they responded to the survey. Twenty-three interviews were conducted and each lasted about 25 min. The interview questions allowed the teachers to explain their perspectives about the ELA standards. The interviews were later transcribed by the researcher. 6.2 Validation of the survey The surveys and interview questions were validated to ensure that they accurately and reliably measured the teachers’ perspectives about the ELA standards. To test the content validity, three literacy education professors read the survey. Also, three high school ELA teachers (who did not participate in the study) responded to the survey to test its usability. Their suggestions including rewording some questionnaire items for clarity were used to revise and refine the survey. Refining questionnaires is important as researchers have the responsibility to develop clearly worded survey items (Baumann and Bason 2011). A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using ELA teachers in the county and to refine my “data collection plans with respect to both the content of the data and the procedures to be followed” (Yin 2009, p. 92). Seven high school ELA teachers (who were not part of the final study) responded to the survey. The data were then analyzed. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of scores within the survey. The teachers’ demographic data and comments were excluded from the analysis. The survey items were then grouped into descriptive categories. Because the items were likely to be related, Oblique rotation was used for correlation. Only survey items with loadings of 0.40 or higher on a factor were accepted. A three-factor solution was selected by examining (a) factor loadings greater than 0.40, (b) eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and (c) the scree plot of eigenvalues. Lastly, internal correlation for each of the factors was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability coefficients showed the survey had good internal consistency within each cluster at .94, .89, .87, .90, and .94. The survey was revised and the final version was used for the main study. 6.3 Data analysis The quantitative data were analyzed using the SPSS + Statistical software for descriptive statistics and reliability analysis. Descriptive statistics allowed researchers to use statistics for summarizing data frequency and measurement of central tendency (e.g., mean, median, and mode, and standard deviation). Also, the teachers’ responses in the informational boxes were analyzed by grouping similar answers into categories. Using frequency counts, the suggestions were ranked from most frequent to least frequent. Thematic analysis approach, a method involving identifying and analyzing patterns or themes within data (Creswell 2013), was used to analyze qualitative data. Interviews were read several times word-by-word to identify key ideas that were pertinent to the research questions for initial coding. Using interpretative coding and triangulation of data

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts Table 1 A summary of the biographical data of the teachers Education

Grades taught

Teaching experience

Gender

B.A.

M.A.

Ph.D. 9

10

11

12

0–5

6–10

11–15

26–30 F

M

15

8

0

7

3

3

12

6

3

2

7

65.21 % 34.79 % 0 %

10

16

43.48 % 30.43 % 13.04 % 13.04 % 52.17 % 26.08 % 13.04 % 8.69 % 69.57 % 30.43 %

(Corbin and Strauss 2008), I simultaneously coded the interview and constructed categories that captured themes across the data. Theoretical perspectives that ELA instruction must recognize students’ literacy practices provided an interpretative framework for the development of codes for linking the teachers’ responses across the data to the notions that the CCSS should prepare teachers to build on students’ social interests and cultural practices in ways that empower them to learn (Hull and Moje 2012). Coding means “naming segments of data with a label that simultaneously categorizes, summarizes, and accounts for each piece of data” (Charmaz 2006, p. 43). The constant comparison method (Corbin and Strauss 2008) was used to compare data within the same interview and between different interviews. A description of the coded analytic categories (e.g., patterns that incorporated other related codes) was provided. The coded analytic categories within and across the data were grouped conceptually in relation to the research questions: teachers’ knowledge of the CCSS for ELA, professional development/training, curriculum materials, readiness to teach ELA, and teachers’ attitudes to implement the CCSS Table 1.

7 Results The research objective of this study was to examine the teachers’ perspectives about their early experiences with the CCSS for ELA. This section presents the results according to the research questions. Quotes from the teachers are used to support specific findings. The survey items in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are shortened because of space constraints (see the survey for full wording). 7.1 The participants Table 1 presents a summary of the biographical data of the teachers. Table 1 shows that 15 teachers (65.21 %) had a B.A. degree while eight (34.79 %) had an M.A. degree. While 12 teachers (52.17 %) had taught ELA for 0–5 years, six teachers Table 2 The teachers’ knowledge of the ELA CCSS (N = 23) Survey items

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. deviation

7. Understanding of the ELA CCSS

2.00

2.00

2.00

.53

8. Understanding difference between ELA standards & ELA CCSS 9. Understanding alignment of ELA standards with ELA CCSS 10. Understanding implementation of ELA CCSS 11. Understanding assessment of ELA CCSS

2.25

2.00

2.00

.46

2.25

2.00

2.00

.46

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.19

1.25

1.00

1.00

.46

123

L. Ajayi Table 3 Summary of the teachers’ perspectives on professional development/training (N = 23) Survey items

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. deviation

15. Professional development and training for ELA were of great quality 16. Professional development prepared me to use the best practices 17. Professional development addressed alignment between ELA standards and ELA CCSS 18. Training prepared me to teach reading standards for literature 19. Training prepared me to teach reading standards for information text 20. Training prepared me to teach writing standards 21. Training prepared me to teach standards for speaking & listening 22. Professional development prepared me to teach language standards 23. Professional development prepared me to teach language progressive skills 24. Training prepared me to teach text complexity 25. Training prepared me to collaborate with colleagues to teach 26. Training prepared me to use specific strategies to teach ELA 27. Professional development prepared me to adapt assessment to ELA CCSS 28. Training prepared me to use grade-level appropriate materials 29. Professional development prepared me to use grade-level technology

2.00

2.00

2.00

.00

3.37

4.00

4.00

.91

3.37

4.00

4.00

1.18

3.50

4.00

4.00

.92

3.50

4.00

4.00

.92

3.50

4.00

4.00

.92

3.37

4.00

4.00

.91

3.37

4.00

4.00

.91

3.32

4.00

4.00

.74

3.27

4.00

4.00

.64

3.00

3.00

2.00

1.06

3.25

4.00

4.00

1.03

3.50

4.00

4.00

1.06

3.00

4.00

4.00

.53

3.00

4.00

4.00

.53

(26.08 %) taught the subject for 6–10 years. Of the five remaining teachers, three (13.04 %) taught ELA for 11–15 years and two (8.69 %) taught ELA for 26–30 years. In addition, 14 teachers (60.86 %) were between 26 and 30 years old, six (26.08 %) were between 31 and 35 years old, and three (13.04 %) were between 36 and 40 years old. Regarding the gender of the teachers, 16 (69.57 %) were females while seven (30.43 %) were males. Ten teachers (43.48 %) taught 9th grade while seven (30.43 %) taught 10th grade. Three teachers (13.04 %) taught 11th and 12th grades, respectively. Finally, 12 teachers (52.17 %) indicated that they were Mexican-American while nine (39.13 %) were Caucasian. The data showed that a majority of the teachers were inexperienced as they had taught for less than five years. The teachers were diverse in terms of academic qualifications, teaching experience, and ethnicity. More importantly, the teachers’ perspectives will provide insights into the state agency’s (e.g., teachers and schools) capacity to effectively implement the CCSS. In the next section, I examine the teachers’ responses to the research questions. 7.2 The ELA teachers’ knowledge about the CCSS for ELA Teachers’ knowledge of ELA CCSS is an important factor in developing best teaching practices. Table 2 shows that the teachers expressed low to medium frequency rates about their knowledge of CCSS for ELA with mean scores ranging from 1.25 to 3.00 on a five- point Likert-type attitudinal scale (low = 0 − 2.50, medium = 2.51 − 3.50, and high = 3.51 &

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts Table 4 The teachers’ views of curricula materials and textbooks (N = 23) Survey items

Mean Median Mode Std. deviation

30. Need access to ELA CCSS curricula materials & textbooks

4.00

4.00

4.00

.53

31. Textbooks allow me to make choices of WHAT to teach

1.62

2.00

2.00

.51

32. Textbooks allow me to make choices of HOW to teach

1.30

3.02

3.50

5.00

33. Need ideas on how to align former standards with ELA CCSS 3.52

3.00

2.00

1.45

34. Need more information about ELA CCSS curriculum

2.00

2.00

1.16

3.25

35. Need more training in using technology to teach ELA CCSS

3.25

2.00

2.00

.70

36. Training to teach students read high-quality texts critically

3.37

2.00

2.00

1.06

37. Training to guide students to use research-based strategies

3.75

3.00

4.00

1.38

38. Need more time to collaborate with my peers

2.75

3.00

4.00

1.38

39. Need more professional development on assessing students

2.00

1.50

1.00

1.30

Table 5 A summary of the teachers’ perspectives on their readiness to teach ELA CCSS Survey items

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. deviation

40. I have knowledge and skills to teach ELA CCSS to all students 41. Prepared to teach ELA CCSS to ELLs

2.12

2.00

1.00

1.24

1.87

2.00

1.00

.83

42. Prepared to teach ELA CCSS to GATE

2.25

2.00

2.00

1.03

43. Prepared to teach ELA CCSS to students with disabilities 44. Prepared to teach ELA to students from low-income families 45. Aligned my curriculum with ELA CCSS

2.62

2.50

2.00

1.06

3.50

4.00

4.00

1.06

46. Incorporated ELA CCSS into my teaching practices 47. School is prepared to implement ELA CCSS 48. District is prepared to implement ELA CCSS 49. CA is prepared to implement ELA CCSS 50. School provides support for teachers to implement ELA CCSS 51. School provides resources that align with ELA CSS 52. School provides textbooks that align with ELA CCSS 53. School provides access to technology to teach ELA CCSS 54. School provides staff support to teach ELA CCSS

2.50

2.50

2.00

.92

2.12

2.00

2.00

.99

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.06

2.75

2.50

2.00

.88

3.37

3.00

3.00

.91

3.37

3.50

4.00

.74

2.87

2.50

2.00

.99

3.12

3.00

3.00

.99

3.37

3.00

3.00

1.183

3.47

4.00

4.00

.99

above). The teachers expressed a low frequency rate with statements that that they had a clear understanding of the ELA, with a mean score of 2.00; understood alignment between the former standards and the new standards, with a mean score of 2.25; and understood the assessment of the new standards, with a mean score of 1.25. The teachers showed a moderate frequency rate for understanding implementation of the CCSS for ELA, with a mean score of 3.00. Table 2 presents the summary of the data.

123

L. Ajayi Table 6 The teachers’ attitude to ELA CCSS Survey items

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. deviation

55. CCSS allows me to determine how to help students meet standards 56. ELA CCSS will better help me improve my instruction 57. ELA CCSS provides tools to teach knowledge that are important 58. CCSS provides me strategies to teach students to read critically 59. Today’s knowledge economy requires me to teach ELA 60. ELA CCSS allows me to teach students to synthesize ideas 61. ELA CCSS allows me to connect instruction to students’ agency 62. CCSS allows me to prepare students to have satisfying lives 63. CCSS allows me to prepare students to have more productive lives 64. CCSS allows me to promote students’ engagement with texts 65. CCSS allows me to teach students to have fun and hard-working

3.00

3.00

2.00

.92

2.37

2.00

2.00

.74

2.34

2.00

2.00

.74

2.30

2.00

2.00

.91

2.50

2.00

2.00

.75

2.37

2.00

2.00

.74

2.50

2.00

2.00

.92

2.25

2.00

2.00

.70

3.25

3.50

4.00

.88

3.62

2.50

2.00

1.06

3.37

2.00

2.00

.91

In the informational box (included in the survey), 67 % of the teachers wrote that they had knowledge of teaching ELLs. During the follow-up interviews, the teachers suggested that they wanted to learn more about the CCSS for ELA. More specifically, the teachers wanted professional development to help them learn more about the essential knowledge and skills to be taught, grade-specific standards that students must meet, and how to provide appropriate supports for learners to meet the standards. 7.3 Professional development and training Professional development is important in providing opportunities for in-service teachers to learn research-based strategies and improve their quality of instruction. The teachers had mixed views about the quality and quantity of professional development in their schools. Twenty-one teachers (91.30 %) indicated that they received 0–10 h of professional development relating to the CCSS for ELA, while two teachers (8.70 %) noted that they had 11–25 h. All the 23 teachers stated that their professional development was provided solely by school districts. Table 3 shows that the teachers expressed a medium frequency rate regarding professional development with mean scores ranging from 2.00 to 3.50 on a five-point Likert scale. The teachers showed a low frequency rate with the statement that professional development for ELA was of great quality, with a mean score of 2.00. The teachers showed a medium frequency rate relating to the statements that professional development prepared them to use grade-level curricula materials, with a mean score of 3.00; use specific strategies to teach ELA to specific student groups such as ELLs, with a mean score of 3.23; teach text complexity, with a mean score of 3.27; use best practices, with a mean of 3.37; and teach reading standards for information texts, with a mean score of 3.50. Table 3 shows a summary of the teachers’ perspectives. In the informational box, 86 % of the teachers stated they needed professional development specifically designed for ELA teachers. While 88 % of the teachers wrote that they wanted

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

more professional development opportunities to learn about the new standards, 76 % wanted more time for collaboration with colleagues to share ideas on how best to implement the CCSS for ELA. Similarly, 82 % of the teachers suggested that they needed more time for planning. An important issue is whether the state agency has the capacity to effectively implement the CCSS. During the interview, a teacher suggested that they needed professional development to prepare them to judge texts complexity and practice with such materials. Another teacher argued that they wanted professional development to be provided by multiple organizations to supplement district-initiated trainings. The teachers also argued that they needed professional development that provided knowledge and skills to build upon their content knowledge and implement best teaching practices using effective materials and textbooks. 7.4 The teachers’ views of the CCSS for ELA curriculum materials ELA teachers need access to high-quality materials for teaching the new standards. The teachers expressed a medium frequency rate about materials for teaching the CCSS. The teachers indicated that they needed access to high-quality textbooks, with a mean score of 4.00; more information about ELA curriculum, with a mean score of 3.25; additional training to help students read high-quality texts closely and critically, with a mean score of 3.37; and further training in using technology and new media, with a mean score of 3.02. The participants showed a low frequency rate in regard to the statements that textbooks allowed them to make choices of what to teach, with a mean score of 1.62; needed more time to collaborate with peers, with a mean score of 2.75; and more help with assessing students, with a mean score of 2.00. Table 4 summarizes the teachers’ perspectives. Seventy-seven percent of the teachers (in the informational box) suggested that they did not have textbooks that align with the CCSS while 84 % wrote that their textbooks were dated. Teachers and students need high-quality and aligned textbooks that provide a broad range of teaching strategies and learning activities that actively engage students in learning and meet their individual needs. A teacher suggested that schools should provide technology for students to use during instruction. Another teacher argued, “We need textbooks and other resources that will help us build a bridge between where the students are now and where they should be to meet the rigor of the CCSS.” One teacher stated that teachers needed “more books and novels that are of high-quality.” The teachers noted that they needed high-quality instructional materials as such items could enhance educators’ confidence in their readiness to teach the new standards. 7.5 The teachers’ perspectives on their readiness to teach the CCSS for ELA Teachers’ perception of readiness to teach ELA is a crucial factor that impacts their teaching practices and dispositions. The teachers showed low to medium frequency rates in regard to their readiness to teach ELA with mean scores ranging from 1.87 to 3.87 on a five- point Likert-type attitudinal scale. The teachers indicated that they were ready to teach ELA to ELLs, with a mean score of 1.87; incorporate ELA standards into teaching, with a mean score of 2.12; and teach ELA to GATE (Gifted & Talented) students, with a mean score of 2.25. The teachers further showed that their schools provided access to technology to teach ELA, with a mean score of 3.37 and staff support to teach, with a mean score of 3.47. Table 5 shows the teachers’ perspectives. The CCSS represents a profound shift in the ways teachers teach and assess students. To ensure high-quality instruction, ELA teachers need to feel confident that they have developed effective pedagogical knowledge, appropriate content knowledge, skills to implement best

123

L. Ajayi

teaching practices, and have access to aligned materials. During interviews, a teacher argued that districts needed to “provide technological resources to all teachers in order to have a successful implementation of the CCSS.” Another teacher noted that schools needed “new assessment formats (formative and summative) that align with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).” A teacher argued that schools were not ready for the CCSS because they lack knowledge about the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). The teachers wanted the SBCA’s developers to make samples of assessments available so that they could align instruction to meet the standards and enhance students’ success when they take the examinations. 7.6 The teachers’ attitude to teaching the CCSS for ELA Teachers’ attitudes to the CCSS for ELA play an important role in how they think more deeply and expend time and effort on learning new strategies and connecting instruction to the standards. The participants indicated low to medium frequency rates about their attitude to teaching the CCSS for ELA with mean scores ranging from 2.25 to 3.87 on a five-point Likert scale. The teachers believed that CCSS for ELA would better help them improve instruction, with a mean score of 2.37; provide tools to teach important knowledge and skills, with a mean score of 2.34; and equip them with strategies to teach students to read critically and analytically, with a mean score of 2.30. Also, the teachers perceived that the CCSS for ELA would allow them to prepare students to have more productive professional lives, with a mean score of 3.25 and promote students’ engagement with complex texts with a mean score of 3.62. Table 6 provides a summary of the participants’ attitude to ELA CCSS. A successful implementation of the CCSS for ELA requires teachers to have a practical understanding of the changes brought about by the standards. More specifically, ELA teachers may have to develop changes in attitude, reflect on new teaching demands, and changes in practice. During the interviews, the teachers stated they were working to ensure a smooth implementation of the CCSS and learning new ways of teaching to provide high-quality instruction for students. ELA teachers may need to build their own capacity in order to teach the CCSS. The teachers were optimistic about the challenges and opportunities brought about by the CCSS. The participants had expectations that schools, districts, and California would offer opportunities for professional development and training that would help them provide support for their students. The teachers also stated that they were looking forward to opportunities to participate in collaborative teamwork to better understand how curriculum changes resulting from the CCSS will impact their teaching practices and how they might develop new ways of thinking about teaching in their classrooms. 7.7 Discussion Data analysis indicated that the teachers did not have a clear understanding of the CCSS for ELA. Research has shown that teachers’ understanding of the subject matter is a crucial component of their knowledge base (Bunch 2013). The teachers wanted to acquire more understanding about important knowledge and skills to be taught and how to provide effective supports for all students to meet the new standards. The findings suggest a need for more discussions of the CCSS with the goal of providing teachers with a deeper understanding of the subject matter (content) knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge of teaching specific to the CCSS for ELA) (Beach et al. 2012). Santo et al. (2012) argue that “Educators will need to understand deeply the core areas of the disciplines and the learning progressions that operate within the domains of each discipline” (p. 3).

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

Teachers’ development of both the subject matter (content) knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge will prepare them to “transform” instruction. Such transformation comes when teachers critically reflect on and interpret the content of ELA, use multiple teaching strategies to make lessons meaningful to students, and adapt instructional materials to students’ developmental levels and abilities, gender, and prior knowledge (Shulman 1986). In addition, it includes the ability to select texts and themes that are engaging, culturally and socially relevant, and relatable to students’ backgrounds, prior knowledge, and reading ability (Bunch 2013). For example, the developers of the CCSS recommend that “texts need to be selected around topics or themes that generate knowledge and allow students to study those topics or themes in depth” (CCSSI 2010, p. 58). The findings in this study indicate that teachers need to develop the knowledge that prepares them to teach students to respond to literary texts from a variety of genres from American and world cultures and develop cultural and personal connections with diverse text-types such as spoken, written, and digital forms. In this way, teachers can develop the knowledge of how varied cultural perspectives influence literary analysis in the real-life classrooms and teach beyond “a focus on dominant forms of content and cultural literacy” (Beach et al. 2012, p. 26). The findings also suggested that the teachers were moderately satisfied with professional development in their schools. The teachers wanted more professional development designed for ELA teachers, opportunities to learn about ELA, time for collaboration with colleagues, and more planning time. The findings show that it is crucially important that school districts and states provide all teachers “access to high quality professional learning opportunities that develop facility with the new standards and a variety of instructional strategies that will support student attainment of them” (California Department of Education 2014, p. 6). School districts need to develop partnerships with universities and sponsor teachers to attend conferences and workshops with organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Organization (IRA) to supplement district-initiated professional development. Attending conferences will help teachers keep abreast of new developments and resources in the CCSS. Also, ELA teachers need to conduct action research in their own classrooms to investigate the needs, interests, strengths, and abilities of their students and use such understanding to inform and make changes in their instruction (Beach et al. 2012). The findings indicated that the teachers viewed their instructional materials as inadequate to meet the rigor of the new standards. Making changes to curriculum materials requires substantial financial investments by states. However, with the Great Recession that started in December 2007, many states have drastically cut spending on schools. Another problem is that instructional materials for the CCSS “either have no studies of their effectiveness or have no studies that meet reasonable standards of evidence” (Chingos and Whitehurst 2012, p. 1). States need to provide ELA teachers with high-quality, research-based, and aligned instructional materials that draw from a broad range of American and world cultures and genres and contain a wide range of teaching strategies and learning activities that actively engage students in learning. Also, districts and states have to provide funds to make technology widely available to teachers and students. 8 Implications and conclusions The research objective of this study was to examine high school ELA teachers’ perspectives about their early experiences with the CCSS for ELA. The findings suggested that the teachers wanted to acquire more knowledge about the CCSS for ELA and perceived that their

123

L. Ajayi

professional development and curricula materials were inadequate to meet the high standards of the CCSS. Also, the teachers perceived that they were not ready to teach the CCSS for ELA even though they believed that the standards would help students have satisfying professional and personal lives. The findings have important implications for schools, districts, and teachers. Schools and districts have to provide ongoing, high-quality professional development as teachers learn to implement the CCSS. The traditional, fragmented professional development is ineffective to meet the demands of the new standards. Teachers need a new model of professional development such as “distributed-learning communities” (Dede 2004, p. 4) which moves from the transmission and assimilation model to creation, sharing, and mastery of knowledge. In this model, professional development involves active collaboration among teachers, administrators, staff, and community about (a) professional development strategies that will be effective for the CCSS in specific schools; (b) strategies teachers can use to engage students in deeper content knowledge of the CCSS for ELA (e.g., text complexity, academic vocabulary, creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, creative and purposeful expression, and literacy across the curriculum); (c) innovative models of pedagogy to teach the CCSS (e.g., shifts from scripted instruction to innovative pedagogies that work for students in specific schools); (d) evaluation of effectiveness of professional development; and (e) strategies for generating funds and distributing such resources. This model of professional development can enhance teacher effectiveness, quality of teachers’ professional practice, and provide teachers with “high levels of emotional/social support in addition to mastering the intellectual/technical dimensions” (Dede 2004, p. 34) of the ELA CCSS. School districts and states have to make financial investments in implementation of the CCSS. Recognizing that teachers need high-quality materials that align with the new standards, instruction, and assessment, the California Budget Act of 2013 allocated $1,250,000,000 to school districts to “support the integration of academic content standards in instruction” for K–12 students for “purposes of establishing high-quality instructional programs for all pupils” (AB 86, Section 85, Chapter 48, Statutes of 2013, p. 1). California requires school districts to use the fund for professional development for teachers, administrators, and staff; development of instructional materials; and integration of the academic content standards through technology-based instruction (California Department of Education 2014). However, there is no information regarding how much California and the school districts are currently investing in the CCSS. Research has shown teacher development and training are expensive, and local school districts need support from the state. In addition, instructional materials have great impact on students’ learning because teachers and students, in many cases, rely primarily on state-approved texts for teaching and learning. If teachers are to successfully implement the new standards to raise student achievement, they need access to high-quality materials (Chingos and Whitehurst 2012). Finally, there is a need for large-scale research about teachers’ perspectives on the CCSS for ELA. Such studies should focus on problems of practice such as teacher effectiveness, support from school districts, collaboration and teamwork among teachers, school-based learning community, expert teachers (who can provide models of effective instruction), and coaching from master teachers. By researching different aspects of the school practices that contribute to effective CCSS implementation, researchers will identify specific components that contribute to teachers’ positive perspectives about the new standards and what specific areas schools need to concentrate on as educators learn to implement the CCSS for ELA.

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

9 Limitation of the study and recommendation for future research A limitation of the current study is that the findings provide a summary of the ELA teachers’ perspectives about their early experiences with the CCSS for ELA rather than how they enact the standards in practice. As noted earlier, most school districts in California began to implement the CCSS in the 2013–2014 academic year. Consequently, teachers are still grappling with multiple contextual factors, such as how to teach the standards, the key instructional shifts they need to make, and how to access CCSS-aligned instructional materials. The limitation suggests a need for future studies to explore how the CCSS for ELA is enacted in practice. Such research, which may include classroom observations and examination of teachers’ curriculum documents and instructional materials (e.g., textbooks, supplementary materials, and technologies), will provide important information about how the CCSS impacts the teaching of ELA in classrooms.

Appendix Survey Please check the box () that corresponds to your answer. Section A: Biographical data 1. My highest level of education is: B. A. Other

M. A. Ph. D. Please, specify________________________

2. I teach ________________ grade 3. I have been teaching English-language arts for (years): 0–5

6 – 10

21 – 25

26 – 30

4. My age is (years): 20 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 35 36 – 40 46 – 50 51 – 55 56 – 60 61 & above

41 – 45

5. My gender is:

11 – 15

Male

16 – 20

Female

6. My ethnic background is: (a) Mexican/Mexican American/Chicana/o (b) Other Latina/o (e.g., Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.) (c) Asian/Pacific Islander (d) African American/Black (e) White/Caucasian/European American (f) Indian/Native American (g) Other

_____________________ (please, specify).

123

L. Ajayi

Section B: ELA teachers’ knowledge of the ELA Common Core Standards

7. I have a clear understanding of the ELA Common Core State Standards 8. I have a clear understanding of the difference between the former California ELA standards and ELA Common Core State Standards 9. I have a clear understanding of alignment of the former California ELA standards with ELA Common Core State Standards 10. I have a clear understanding of classroom implementation of ELA Common Core State Standards 11. I have a clear understanding of assessment of ELA Common Core State Standards Please, provide examples of the knowledge of ELA CCSS you may have in this box: a. b. c. d. e.

Strongly agree

Agree

No opinion

Disagree

Strongly disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Section C: Professional development and training related to English-language arts Common Core Standards 12. How many days in total have you spent in training and professional development relating to the ELA Common Core State Standards? a. 0–10 hours

b. 11–25 hours

c. 26–40 hours

d. 41–64 hours

65 hours & more 13. Who provided the training and development activities for you? a. School staff

b. School District

c. California State

d. local university

e. Independent professional development provider 14. Did you consider a particular training or professional development more useful than others? If yes, list the one:

The training I consider more useful: __________________________________

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

15. The professional development and training for ELA Common Core State Standards were of great quality 16. The professional development and training prepared me to use the best practices for teaching ELA Common Core State Standards 17. The professional development addressed alignment between former California ELA standards and ELA Common Core Standards 18. The training prepared me to teach college and career reading standards for literature 19. The training prepared me to teach college and career reading standards for information text 20. The training prepared me to teach college and career readiness anchor standards for writing 21. The training prepared me to teach college and career anchor standards for speaking and listening 22. The professional development prepared me to teach college and career readiness anchor standards for language 23. The professional development prepared me to teach language progressive skills 24. The training prepared me to teach text complexity 25. The training prepared me to collaborate with colleagues to teach ELA Common Core State Standards 26. The training prepared me to use specific strategies to teach ELA Common Core State Standards to specific student groups (e.g., ELLs) 27. The professional development prepared me to adapt assessment to ELA Common Core State Standards 28. The training prepared me to use grade-level appropriate curricula materials and textbooks 29. The professional development prepared me to use grade-level appropriate technology Please, provide additional information relating to how professional development and training in your school has prepared you to teach ELA Common Core State Standards: a. b. c. d. e.

Strongly agree

Agree

No opinion

Disagree

Strongly disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

123

L. Ajayi

Section D: Curricula materials and textbooks for teaching ELA Common Core Standards

30. I need access to ELA Common Core State Standards curricula materials and textbooks 31. ELA Common Core State Standards textbooks allow me to make choices of WHAT to teach 32. ELA Common Core State Standards textbooks allow me to make choices of HOW to teach 33. I need more information on how to align the former California standards with ELA Common Core State Standards 34. I need more information about ELA Common Core State Standards curriculum 35. I need more training in using technology and digital media to teach ELA Common Core State Standards 36. I need more training to help my students read high-quality texts closely and critically 37. I need more training to guide my students to use research-based strategies when reading complex texts 38. I need more time to collaborate with my peers on ELA Common Core State Standards 39. I need more professional development activities on assessment of students Please, specify other resources you may need to teach ELA Common Core State Standards below: a. b. c. d. e.

123

Strongly agree

Agree

No opinion

Disagree

Strongly disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

Section E: Readiness to implement English language arts Common Core Standards

40. I have the knowledge and skills to teach ELA Common Core State Standards to all students 41. I am prepared to teach ELA Common Core State Standards to English Language Learners 42. I am prepared to teach ELA Common Core State Standards to gifted and talented (GATE) students 43. I am prepared to teach ELA Common Core State Standards to students with disabilities 44. I am prepared to teach ELA Common Core State Standards to students from low-income families 45. I have aligned my curriculum with ELA Common Core State Standards 46. I have incorporated ELA Common Core State Standards into my teaching practice 47. My school is prepared to implement ELA Common Core State Standards 48. My school district is prepared to implement ELA Common Core State Standards 49. California is prepared to implement ELA Common Core State Standards 50. My school is prepared to provide support for teachers to implement ELA Common Core State Standards 51. My school provides instructional resources that align with ELA Common Core State Standards 52. My school provides textbooks that align with ELA Common Core State Standards 53. My school provides access to technology and digital media to teach ELA Common Core State Standards 54. My school provides staff support to teach ELA Common Core State Standards Please, write in the box other ways you think you are ready to implement the ELA CCSS: a. b. c. d. e.

Very prepared

Somewhat No opinion Somewhat prepared not prepared

Not at all prepared

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

123

L. Ajayi

Section F: Teachers’ attitude to teaching English language arts Common Core Standards

55. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to determine how I will help my students meet the Standards within my school setting 56. ELA Common Core State Standards will better help me improve my instruction 57. ELA Common Core State Standards provide a tool to teach knowledge and skills that are important to my students 58. ELA Common Core State Standards provide me strategies to teach students to critically and analytically read literature texts 59. Today’s knowledge economy requires me to teach students the knowledge and skills imbedded in ELA Common Core State Standards 60. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to teach my students to synthesize ideas from multiple sources 61. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to connect instruction to students’ agency (e.g. interests, capabilities, abilities, practices, etc.) 62. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to prepare students to have more satisfying personal lives 63. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to prepare students to have more productive professional lives 64. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to promote students’ active engagement with complex texts 65. ELA Common Core State Standards allow me to teach students to have fun while at the same time engaged and hard-working in my class Please, write below other aspects of your attitude to teaching ELA Common Core State Standards: a. b. c. d. e.

Strongly agree

Agree

No opinion

Disagree

Strongly disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Interview questions (1) (2) (3) (4)

What is your philosophy of English language arts (ELA) instruction? What are your views about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for ELA? What are your views regarding the implementation of the CCSS for ELA in your school? Comment on whether or not the CCSS for ELA will help you improve your instruction of English language arts and classroom practices.

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts

(5) Describe your views of the professional development activities specifically on the CCSS for ELA (if any) that you have received in your school. (6) Please, describe your readiness to teach the CCSS for ELA. (7) What are your views about the notion that the CCSS will guide your instruction and help you deliver a high-quality education for students in ELA? (8) Comment on the instructional resources (if any) in your school that will help you implement the CCSS for ELA effectively? (9) Comment on whether or not the CCSS for ELA will help you prepare your students to be college or career ready. (10) What challenges (if any) do you have in implementing the CCSS for ELA in your school? (11) What opportunities (if any) have the CCSS given you as an ELA teacher? (12) Please, comment on any aspects of the CCSS for ELA that may not have been covered in this interview questions.

References Achieve Inc (2004). The Expectation Gap: A 50-State Review of High School Graduation Requirements. Retrieved August, 27, 2013 from http://www.achieve.org/files/coursetaking.pdf. Achieve Inc (2009). Closing the expectations gap: 4th annual 50-states progress report on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and careers. Retrieved August, 27, 2013 from: http:// www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2011 Achieve Inc (2011). Closing the expectations gap 2011: 6th annual 50-states progress report on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and careers. Retrieved August, 27, 2013 from http:// www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2011. ACT Report (2008). The forgotten middle: Ensuring that all students are on target for college and career readiness before high schools. Retrieved August 27, 2013 from www.act.org/research/policymakers/ pdf/ForgottenMiddle.pdf. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (2012). Fulfilling the promise of the common core state standards: Moving from adoption to implementation to sustainability. Retrieved January 29, 2014 from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/commoncore/CCSSSummitReport.pdf. Baumann, J., & Bason, J. (2011). Survey research. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 404–426). New York, NY: Guilford. Beach, R. (2011). Issues in analyzing alignment of language arts Common Core Standards with state standards. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 179–182. Beach, R., & Baker, F. W. (2011). Why core standards must embrace media literacy. Education Week, 36(30), 1–3. Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S., & Wilhelm, J. (2011). Teaching literature to adolescents (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Beach, R., Thein, A., & Webb, A. (2012). Teaching to exceed the English language arts Common Core State Standards: A literacy practices approach for 6–12 classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge. Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. California Budget Act (2013). AB 86, Section 85 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2013). Retrieved January 7, 2015 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/ab86sec85ch48s2013.asp. California Department of Education (2013). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical studies for California public schools, Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Department of Education. California Department of Education (2014). Common Core State Standards systems implementation plan for California. Retrieved February 5th, 2014 from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/documents/ ccsssysimpplanforcaapr13.pdf. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Chingos, M., & Whitehurst, G. (2012). Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher effectiveness, and the Common Core. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

123

L. Ajayi Choppin, J., Davis, J., Drake, C. & McDuffie, A. (2013). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and related assessment and teacher evaluation systems. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from www.warner.rochester.edu. Common Core State Standards Initiative (June, 2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved February 2014 from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Creswell, J. (2006). Understanding mixed methods research. Retrieved February 22, 2012 from www.sagepub. com/upm-data/10981_Chapter_1.pdf. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Cuban, L. (2012). The multi-layered curriculum: Why change is often confused with reform. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved September 3, 2013 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/ multi-layered-curriculum. Dede, C. (2004). Enabling distributed-learning communities via emerging technologies. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference of the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE) (pp. 3–13). Charlottesville, VA: American Association for Computers in Education. Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Editorial Projects on Education Research Center (2013). Findings from a national survey of teachers perspectives on The Common Core. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from http://www.edweek.org/media/epe_ survey_teacher_perspctives_common_core_2013.pdf. Gee, J. P. (2010). A situated sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. Retrieved July 17, 2014 from http://networkingworlds.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/1/5/15155460/approach_to_literacy_paper_gee.pdf. Gibbs, T. J. & Howley, A. (2001). “World-class standards” and local pedagogies: can we do both? Thresholds in Education (Aug/Nov. 2001). Retrieved August 27, 2013 from: www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/world. htm. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 91–110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hull, G. A. & Moje, E. B. (2012). What is the development of literacy the development of?. In K. Hakuta & M. Santos (Co-chair), Understanding Language. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 52–63). Retrieved January 14, 2014 from http://mes.sccoe.org/resources/ALI%202012/11_ KenjiUL%20Stanford%20Final%205-9-12%20w%20cover.pdf. International Reading Association (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards. Retrieved January 29, 2014 from http://www.reading.org/general/aboutira/white-papers.aspx. Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Kober, N. & Rentner, D. (2011). Common Core State Standards: Progress and challenges in school districts’ implementation. Center on Education Policy, Retrieved 07/17/2014, from http://www.edweek.org/media/ epe_survey_teacher_perspctives_common_core_2013.pdf. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(3), 149–164. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, K., & Shaw, L. (2002). Developing a socially shared symbolic system. In E. Amsel, E. Amsel, J. P. Byrnes, & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 27–57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations for the Common Core State Standards in English language arts. Retrieved January 5th, 2015 from http://www.scienceandliteracy.org/sites/scienceandliteracy.org/files/ pdf/Pearson_Research_Foundations_Common_Core_State_Standards_in_ELA.pdf. Perry, L. (2012). What is literacy?—A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 8(1), 50–71.

123

High school teachers’ perspectives on the English language arts Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. Ravitch, D. (2013). The biggest fallacy of the Common Core Standards. Retrieved September 2, 2013 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/common-core-fallacy_b_3809159.html. Reutzel, D. (2013). Implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the practitioner: Pitfalls and possibilities. In S. Neuman & L. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core State Standards (pp. 59–74). Newark, DE: IRA. Santo, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher development to support English language learners in the context of Common Core State Standards. Retrieved June 18, 2014 from: http://ell.stanford.edu/ sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/10-Santos%20LDH%20Teacher%20Development%20FINAL. pdf. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Reiber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

123