Abstract
Students are active in shaping the implementation of any curricular intervention. At Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD), more than 1,500 students in Grades 1 to 6 were recipients of the William & Mary English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum units. In this article, we share students’ perceptions related to the following three themes: (a) perception of researchers in the classroom, (b) perceptions of new curriculum, and (c) receptivity to the teaching models. Students’ responses revealed that they had much to say about the work being conducted at PVUSD. Gaining an understanding of students’ perception of curriculum could lead to stronger curricular reform in the future, especially when outcomes of school reform are measured by the success of students.
The Center for Gifted Education (CFGE) and Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) initiated a 3-year collaborative partnership in November 2015. Our goals for this project were (a) to study the efficacy of the William & Mary English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum units, (b) to improve the district educational practices with gifted students, and (c) to contribute toward research knowledge in gifted education. We collected data and examined various facets of implementing the William & Mary ELA curriculum units to meet our goals.
Although much of the work focused on teachers and curriculum, students were also active in shaping the implementation of this curricular intervention. In fact, this collaboration brought about changes in the gifted services being provided at PVUSD. Gifted education specialists adjusted their instructional practices as a result of implementing this ELA curriculum. More than 1,500 students in Grades 1 to 6 were recipients of this change. One of the various facets of the partnership we explored was students’ perceptions of our work.
A total of 14 students from the experimental group were interviewed by the first author. Students were randomly selected from the classroom roster before the observation. Every student was assigned a number and the number was randomly selected from the list. Four students were in Grade 6, four in Grade 5, three in Grade 4, two in Grade 3, and one in Grade 2. The main interview was semi-structured including seven questions along with prompts to be used if necessary (see the appendix). Not all questions were asked to all 14 students. Two factors dictated this decision. First, we had to keep all interviews under 5 min to minimize the portion of instruction missed when pulled out of the classroom to be interviewed. Second, not all students who were interviewed had been exposed to all the teaching models; therefore, we only asked questions that pertained to their experience.
In what follows, we share students’ perceptions related to the following three themes: (a) perception of researchers in the classroom, (b) perceptions of new curriculum, and (c) receptivity to the teaching models.
Perception of Researchers in the Classroom
If you ask any teacher, they will tell you that all students are observant. We observed that as soon as we walked into classroom, students stopped their work and looked at us. The teacher had already prepared a seating arrangement. We would take our seats immediately and silently complete our observation instruments. We spent an average of 30 min in each classroom. While the students noticed us, what were their perceptions of what we were doing in the classroom?
Among the 14 students we asked, only four students stated that their teachers talked about our coming to observe the classroom. However, with the exception of one student, all were able to provide some justification for our presence in the classroom. Perhaps the most common student reason for our presence was conceptualizing our work as a contribution to the field of education. A group of students proposed the potential benefits to other gifted learners. A sixth-grade student focused on the learning process and explained it by saying, I think it’s just looking at how we learn . . . just how we’re doing it and if some of the things that we’re doing in the class right now can be used for other classes or other places so they can learn like we do or try to learn in different ways. (Student A, 2017)
Another sixth-grade student focused on the teaching process and said, “I think you’re inspecting us to see how your teaching methods help students” (Student G, 2017). A fifth-grade student was concerned with the content and commented, “I think you are here to see if you are getting the right books for other children to read. . .” (Student L, 2017).
A smaller number of students explained that the work being conducted was to improve curriculum for gifted students. A sixth-grade student articulated the idea clearly by saying, “to get feedback on the William & Mary worksheets and books and literature” (Student H, 2017). A fourth-grade student explained that “these are your lessons and you are trying to understand what you need to do to work on them and you are gathering information on other ages” (Student M, 2017).
Another recurring theme in students’ responses was that the observers were interested in seeing the “what” and “how” of the teaching and learning process. For instance, a fifth-grade student said, “I think you’re just watching what we’re doing and seeing how the curriculum is taught. . .” (Student B, 2017). Similarly, a fourth-grade student stated, “I think you’re watching not just the students but [our teacher] and how she teaches Perspective and how we learn it” (Student I, 2017). Another student explained that the observers were conducting some form of evaluation of the teacher by saying, “I think you are sitting there and recording us and her teaching skills to see how good of a teacher she is. . .” (Student K, 2017).
Interestingly enough, within the responses, the number of students referencing words related to research was so great that we believe it speaks to their awareness of research being conducted. Such words included “collect information” (Student L), “inspecting” (Student G), “observing” (Student D), “recording us” (Student K), and “seeing if your thing works” (Student D). The words “research” or “study” were not explicitly mentioned. However, for some students, their descriptions centered on the idea of exploring and investigating new things. This is evident in the following fourth-grade student’s response: I think you are observing how we react to what you are giving us and seeing if it is effective because I think it is new and you want to see if kids like it or just doing it because their teacher assigned it. (Student N, 2017)
Another student said, “I think you’re trying a new thing and you’re testing it on us. . .” (Student D, 2017).
Students’ perceptions of what we were doing in the classroom were relatively accurate representations of the situation. Using their own words, they explained that the observers were collecting information to improve the field of education, examining the content and process of teaching and learning, and updating curriculum. In addition, their responses revealed some awareness of research.
Perceptions of New Curriculum
Seeing two observers in your classroom is definitely a concrete message of change. However, are students aware of those changes? Are students aware their teachers are using a new curriculum? Are students aware of the outcomes of implementing this curriculum? Do they see this curriculum as beneficial? What are their responses to the curriculum?
Among the 11 students we asked, nine were cognizant of changes in pedagogy in their classroom. Students pinpointed different aspects of pedagogy as being new to them: Some students mentioned using new processes, some indicated deeper understanding of new content, some named specific teaching models, and some described positive outcomes. The following four quotations are representative of the students’ awareness: So I think this year I’ve been learning a lot more in visual forms instead of more just like worksheets and that kind of stuff. I’ve been learning in visual forms, and we have more projects so I can express myself more creatively. I actually really enjoy this type of learning. I think I like it more than other learning because I’m more of a creative person so I think in different ways and I like to express myself more creatively so I like being able to express that. (Student A, 2017) We are learning in new ways. I have been learning more complicated thinking. In third grade it wasn’t hands-on and the teachers guided you through and now in fourth grade there is more independence. (Student N, 2017) In reading, we learn more about perspective. In third grade, we didn’t really remember or know any of that. So, now, we learned about like people’s perspectives, or like the characters, or whoever was the main character in the story, and we learned to connect our reading to generalizations. We developed four generalizations and kind of worked on those. (Student I, 2017). Well I did learn how to map out and break down stories apart. It is useful because now I understand things better because working on all those different sections are better to understand. We are learning different ways of doing things. There is more expanding and learning more and going deeper. (Student G, 2017)
The students’ descriptions suggest that the implementation of the curriculum aligns with its main framework, the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM; VanTassel-Baska, 1986). As the ICM emphasizes, when teachers implement the curriculum, students are exposed to advanced content, use higher order thinking processes, and make connections to overarching themes and issues.
Receptivity to the Teaching Models
The William & Mary ELA curriculum introduces eight teaching models. In the following section, we examine students’ receptivity to three of these models, including the Vocabulary Web, the Literature Web, and the Reasoning Model.
Vocabulary Web Model
According to the teacher guide, The purpose of the Vocabulary Web model is to enable students to gain in-depth understanding of interesting words. Rather than promoting superficial vocabulary development, the web approach allows for deep student processing of challenging and interesting words. It asks students to investigate a single word in detail, finding its definition, synonyms and antonyms, and etymological information. (CFGE, 1999, p. 28)
The Vocabulary Web is used to examine the meaning and application of words identified in the literature. As students complete each section of the Vocabulary Web, they explore the construction of words in greater complexity.
Overall, students were highly receptive to the Vocabulary Web. Of the six students we interviewed, five expressed positive learning outcomes toward the model. The helpfulness and accessibility of the Vocabulary Web were particularly salient to students, especially in relation to classroom instruction and skill development.
“I like it,” said Student M (2017), explaining, “it has been helpful because we applied it to the stories we read.” Another student described the integration of the model into classroom lesson plans, saying, “. . . so we do Vocabulary Webs, we read it several times, we talk about it in the class, and those really help us” (Student A, 2017).
Student F (2017) acknowledged the benefits of the model’s design, saying, “I also think it’s really helpful. If I don’t know a word, the synonyms, the antonyms, and everything else . . . it helps me understand what the word means better.” Student K (2017) highlighted additional benefits, sharing that the model “. . . helps us distinguish words that we might not know. I did it on the word sonnet. It means an Italian poem.” Student D (2017) identified personal benefits, “ . . . I like how I learn new words and the simple words I didn’t know all those things in it, like the definition, the origins, and I kind of like it.” When asked if they learned a lot of new words this year with the Vocabulary Web, Student D confirmed saying, “Yes I have.”
Across all models, students expressed a clear preference for the Vocabulary Web. Students shared that it was “very fun” (Student D, 2017) and “pretty fascinating” (Student K, 2017). Student K also noted that the model is “kind of like the Literature Web” but that they “liked it better than the Literature Web.”
Students did not propose any recommendations or adjustments to the current model.
Literature Web Model
As outlined in the teacher guide, The Literature Web model encourages students to consider five aspects of a selection they are reading: key words (important, interesting, intriguing, surprising, or unknown to the reader), images or symbols, ideas, feelings, and structure of writing (anything you notice about how the piece is written, such as dialogue, rhyming, short sentences, or big words). The web helps students organize their initial response and provides them with a platform for discussing the piece in small or large groups. (CFGE, 1999, p. 30)
What are the images and symbols evident in the literature selection, and how are these significant? What is the structure of the story? How can words reflect feelings and larger thematic ideas?
The Literature Web directs students to explore these questions through independent learning as well as collaborative discussion. This begins with helping students to connect their personal observations with specific elements of the literature selection.
Similar to the Vocabulary Web, receptivity to the Literature Web was high. Interview responses indicated that the Literature Web guided students in increasing their knowledge of text elements by first deconstructing these elements. Among the 14 students interviewed, students unanimously agreed that the design of the Literature Web aided their understanding of the reading selection. The following responses summarize the benefits of this deconstruction: I think it helps me and everyone with. . .since we read so much and reading is a key part of everything in life. . .it helps us identify these kinds of things and put them together to have a more richer story and to understand it better, because if we understand the components, we can put it together and go more in-depth. (Student A, 2017) I think they’re pretty useful. . .like separates them all individually like in the Literature Web, it will ask like the characters and the feelings and everything and it just breaks it up and makes it easier to understand, so that you can remember the story, like the key ideas, the key points, the key characters. It’s just very helpful. And then it also helps to learn new words because the key words. . .they can also be words that you don’t know. (Student B, 2017) I like it because I’m not the best reader but I’m definitely learning a lot from her about how to identify the setting and the climax and what they are actually so I think I learned a lot from that and I think it helps other students learn. (Student E, 2017) While it’s helpful, sometimes it can be hard, and I like how we break down the story. Because you can catch things that you didn’t catch before. If you’re reading it too fast, and it can help you in understanding the story a lot better. (Student D, 2017)
Students also described how increased usage of the Literature Web enhanced their critical thinking skills. Student M (2017) noted that the model might help “everyone with understanding activities in our class. Understand all parts and not just one part.” Student N (2017) shared similar beliefs, saying, “I like the web a lot because I like how it is split into different sections and each section makes you think a lot.”
When asked why their teachers used this model, most students said the Literature Web was implemented to gauge students’ attitudes and beliefs about the material. “I think it is to see how we think about the book and if we had different feelings,” said Student J (2017).
Other students felt that the Literature Web was incorporated to enhance the depth and scope of their analysis. As Student K (2017) said, “It helps us to explain the book better and gives us a chance to look into the book more.” Students shared the following similar responses: Maybe to help us understand the meaning behind like stories and to help us like . . . to kind of picture it in my mind what it looks like . . . I know what it looks like . . . I guess it just helps us to recognize the parts of the story and remember it I guess. (Student H, 2017) I feel like we do it so not only can we see it in a different perspective, that we can understand it better, and it helps us understand the character’s perspective and the perspective of the whole story. (Student I, 2017)
Most students agreed that the Literature Web was neither too challenging nor too simple in its design. For example, Student I (2017) said, “I feel like it’s not exactly hard but not exactly easy. I feel like it’s just kind of perfect for fourth grade to do it.” Similarly, Student J (2017) commented, “It is not too hard or too easy, just my level. I like doing it. I think it’s really fun to do because we get to write down our ideas of what we thought.” One student also described how the model became easier to use over time, saying, “It was harder at the beginning, and I just got more used to it so I could do it easier” (Student K, 2017).
For some students, their perceived difficulty of the Literature Web varied by the literature selection. Student F (2017) explained that the model can be challenging but “it depends on . . . I think it depends on the thing that we’re reading.” Another student shared, “It’s useful but sometimes it can be challenging with different things that we’re doing it on. Like sometimes it’s really easy and sometimes it’s hard” (Student G, 2017). Student A (2017) noted that their overall receptivity was influenced by the story selection, saying, Umm . . . so I like to write and I like reading . . . those are like my favorite subjects so I really enjoy this kind of stuff but I would also say that it depends on the story and the concept. So [The Fault in our Stars] . . . I really liked it . . . it was a bit confusing but I thought it was really . . . it gave me ideas in my head and it like showed me how to be visual and I got the ideas of what they were saying so I really like it.
Two students expressed that the model was fun to use in class (Student B, 2017; & Student C, 2017). Throughout our interviews, many students recalled specific texts and applications of the model that stood out to them. “I like the dictionary definition because it gets you thinking about the word more” said Student N (2017). In addition to the dictionary definition, Student E (2017) discussed other parts of the model that helped the class to explore story elements, sharing, “We read passages and then we would answer questions about like the climax, the setting, and all that.” Student K (2017) referenced a specific text, saying, “It is an interesting way to think. We did it on a book called [From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler]. We did it in chunks of chapters. It was interesting.” Student B (2017) also discussed the value of using the Literature Web to explore works of poetry, as illustrated below.
Like when you’re doing poetry. She explains what it is and each individual part and then we’ll also work on one little passage or something that we’ve been leading in class together on the board and it helps break down the story like I said previously and it just provides a lot more information.
When asked if students have the same answers when they share their Literature Webs, Student J (2017) explained, “Well they can usually but we can choose our answers on what we think. We might get some things the same but there are differences.”
Students did not propose any specific recommendations or modifications to the current model. However, as noted earlier, students did express that the reading selections played a major role in how they perceived the model. Working collaboratively with students to determine their preferred selection for the model may increase engagement.
In a note of encouragement to other young learners using this model for the first time, Student M (2017) said, “I think it is challenging but fun at the same time and you shouldn’t be scared about it because I was the first time but now I’m not. I feel more comfortable using it.”
In our final section, we examine student receptivity to the Reasoning Model.
Reasoning Model
According to the teacher’s guide, Paul’s (1992) Elements of Reasoning is a model for critical thinking and emphasizes the following eight elements: issue, purpose, point of view, assumptions, concepts, evidence, inferences, and implications or consequences. These elements of thoughts are the basic building blocks of productive thinking. In literature interpretation and listening, they help one make sense of the reasoning of the author or speaker. In writing and speaking, they enable authors or speakers to strengthen their arguments. (CFGE, 1999, p. 32)
How is the Reasoning Model used? In their own words, Student K (2017) told us, I think that it is pretty useful if you have to make a decision and are having a hard time deciding what you are going to do. It helps you decide what is the best decision. It also tells you [how to] learn about making a decision. It is pretty interesting.
This response shows a strong understanding of the model, aligning with the framework presented in the teacher guide. Among the nine students who were asked about the Reasoning Model, we identified a positive consensus related to its application. Student L (2017) said, “Yeah I like it,” while Student M (2017) expanded, “I think they are fun to relate to in the stories and in real life. More fun in real life. I would suggest that others use this.”
Along with such positive views on the model, three students across grade levels felt it was challenging. Student H (2017), a sixth grader, associated the challenge with the reading selection being used along with the model, saying “. . . different stories might have harder ways to find the Elements of Reasoning but [with some] stories it’s pretty easy.” The fifth-grade student realized that the challenge of using the model was reduced as he became more familiar with its elements and understood its benefits, I think at first it’s sort of hard just because of all the concepts and what you have, but after you read the information, it makes a lot more sense, and then it lets you [go] deeper [to] analyze the story . . . it makes you think of the points of views of the different people. (Student B, 2017)
The sixth grader associated the challenges with the format, I think most of the kids like it, but some think it is difficult because of the way it is formatted. I think everyone loves it, but format is difficult. Some people like bigger spaces to write and to make up their own stuff to say, but this is more set in stone. (Student N, 2017)
Although students found greater challenges associated with the Reasoning Model, they recognized its value. Overall, students were appreciative of the skills they developed by using this model. Students agreed that the Reasoning Model was a helpful learning tool, especially the Point of View element. This element encouraged them to explore the concept of perspectives. Student G (2017) said, “It kind of makes me understand like the perspective and stuff because I don’t really think about the perspective that much . . . so it just helps me understand that better.” One student elaborated on these points, as detailed below: I like it because I like being given directions and working off that. I think that this helps because we are working around the [theme] perspective, and I think the point of view section is a great way to see perspective because in the beginning of the year we had no idea what perspective meant but with that point of view section it helped us understand. (Student N, 2017)
Among the various use of the Reasoning Model, students were able to explore the anatomy of a problem or an issue, [We haven’t used it a lot in class], this is our second time doing it I believe. The first time we did it, it was on a person receiving money from their Grandma and what they should do and their scenario and then the class broke up into separate groups doing each section and as a class, we discussed it. (Student B, 2017)
Looking at the students’ responses, all three teaching models had positive receptivity. In addition, students were able to articulate the benefits and skills they acquired as they used these models. For all three models, it was clear that students associated the level of difficulty with the reading selection as well as their familiarity of the models’ elements. Students even provided some suggestions for future classroom application.
Conclusion
Students’ responses revealed that they had much to say about the work being conducted at PVUSD. The majority of the students saw our work as being a valuable contribution to the field of education. Students were aware that PVUSD is exploring and investigating a new ELA curriculum. Interestingly, their views on pedagogical changes in their classroom matched remarkably well with the ICM, which is the curriculum’s main framework. In fact, students mentioned being exposed to advanced content and using higher order thinking processes. The use of overarching themes and issues and making interdisciplinary connections were also referred to as new instructional practices in their classroom. Moreover, we found that students had positive views about the three teaching models. In general, the Vocabulary Web was viewed as the easiest and was considered by a few to be fun. Students also acknowledged its benefits of gaining in-depth understanding of words. When it came to the Literature Web, the majority of students explained how the process of analyzing the aspects of the texts deepened their understanding of the reading. In addition, the difficulty of its application was associated with the difficulty of the reading selection. The Reasoning Model was thought of as challenging but necessary for higher order thinking. The Point of View element of the model resonated the most with students and was considered the most helpful for critically analyzing issues.
Gaining an understanding of students’ perception of curriculum could lead to stronger curricular reform in the future, especially when outcomes of school reform are measured by the success of students. We do know that young people have unique perspectives about learning, teaching, and schooling. Their insights require attention and should be considered by adults during the decision-making process. Students and teachers may have different perspectives, and those differences need to be appreciated. It is noteworthy that any innovation that requires new activities on the part of the students may succeed or fail based on whether students actually participated in embracing these activities. Listen to the voices from the desk!
Footnotes
Appendix
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Bios
Yara N. Farah, PhD, received her doctorate in educational psychology from Baylor University, specializing in gifted education and measurement. She has a master’s degree in special education, mild to moderate, from California State University Northridge (CSUN, ’11) and a bachelor degree in elementary education, with a minor in psychology and a minor in philosophy, as well as a diploma in special education from the American University of Beirut (AUB, ’09). For the past 3 years, she coordinated and provided research support for the partnership between Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary and a large school district in Arizona. Since 2013, she has served on the Board of Directors for The Association for the Gifted (TAG)—Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Previously, she worked as a special education teacher in International Baccalaureate schools and as a paraprofessional in fully inclusive classrooms.
Lauren M. Jimenez is an MEd candidate in the school counseling program at the College of William and Mary. As a graduate assistant of Dr. Farah, she aided in the data collection and analysis of the William and Mary English Language Arts curriculum efficacy study. She is passionate about increasing educational attainment among ability diverse learners by supporting student self-advocacy and skill building. Prior to her assistantship with the Center for Gifted Education, she worked as a classroom paraprofessional at a special education public charter school in Southeast, Washington, DC.