Part II A Review of the Literature Source #1: Edutopia: (Aguilar blog 2013) Within this blog, Elena Aguilar

r (2013) enumerates structural supports necessary for teachers to cultivate pedagogical skills that can result in more weighty learning experiences for both teachers and students. The author looks at an

educational community in a systematic manner that investigates concepts of equity, shared pedagogical vision and professional development. One of the major concepts that stood out is Aguilars working definition of deeper learning as a major driver for educationally equitable classrooms. To reiterate Aguilars words, an equitable classroom is one where every child receives the support necessary to succeed in both college and their chosen careers. From my perspective, the authors call for a rich collection of creative delivery systems for content including collaboration and inquiry align well with my research question.

Source #2: Teachers Network: (Clinkscales article, 1997) Within this article, Gwen Clinkscales (1997) describes a policy practice called shared leadership as an alternative to the top-down governance commonly prescribed by policy makers on the lets improve test scores bandwagon. The author uses the challenges faced by the W. Haywood Burns School, a member of the Core of Essential Schools as a case study on the pros and cons for shared leadership within a successful school system. As my school is also a member of a similar consortium, this article seemed to present an appropriate lens to study my research question. The

author highlights shared leadership as a paradigm shift which allows schools to become communities of learners with an equal share in the academic success of all of its members. One of the major concepts that stood out is Clinkscales idea that schools should put practices in place to allow all members of the learning community to be held accountable for the success of all students by leveraging multiple student centered alternatives to high stakes testing. To put a fine point on it, Clinskscales suggests that schools should be given the freedom to develop multiple measures of accountability that exhibit student mastery of content which are given equal weight to high-stakes test scores.

Source #3: (Mills Text, pp: 198-200 ) Mills illuminates the work of Penny Junemann (2004) whose theoretical framework included cooperative learning. This particular source uses the work of (Trempy, 2002) to suggest that students learn best when they are able to leverage strengths and perspectives garnered within diverse groups within a school or classroom setting. Junemann discusses a host of changes to her instructional practice including but not limited to 1. 2. Increasing the number of discussion opportunities within the classroom setting Increasing the number of high-order questions(using Blooms taxonomy as a lens) 3. Added guided inquiry as a tool for scientific laboratory assignments.

The author uses the data collected by Junemann to emphasize that action allows for improving pedagogical practice by not simply collecting data, but using the outcomes to help improve the learning environment for both teachers and students. The importance of this particular source to my research question was that it describes the pitfalls associated with one of the instructional practices which were of interest to my research topic, cooperative learning.

Source #4 : Ebscohost Database: (Pearlman article, 2006) Within this article, Bob Pearlman (2006) makes a case for twenty first century learning marked by project based learning. The author uses the challenges faced by the New Technology High School, as a case study on the benefits for project based learning within a school system charged with educating students for the needs of a 21st century society. Pearlman suggests that the key design issues for developing successful strategies for 21st century schools involves identifying the knowledge and skills students need, along with curricula, assessments, facilities and technology

required to obtain said knowledge. As my research question is related to identifying the central strategies required for student mastery over content, this article seemed to be well aligned with my research question. The author highlights project based learning as a methodology that allows schools to provide opportunities for students to successfully tackle complex problems while leveraging both collaboration and critical thinking. One of the key concepts that stood out is the idea that schools should put practices in place to allow students to present work to multiple experts at several time i ntervals throughout the project. More precisely, Pearlman recommends that schools should be given the

choice to utilize a panel of experts drawn from the community to assess student understanding of content. These experts would be tasked with monitoring student progress within a complex assignment at several time stamped benchmarks of critical thinking as an alternative to students writing solely for their teacher to assess their mastery.

Source #5 : Ebscohost Database: (Ritchhart and Perkins article, 2008) Within this article, Ron Richhart and David Perkins (2008) elucidate the idea of making thinking visible. The writers characterize successful educational

communities as those where thinking is king, because from their perspe ctives learning is a consequence of thinking marked by open-minded, intellectually curious teams of collaborators who use evidence, skepticism and imagination to take stance on complex issues. One of the six anchors emphasized by Ritchhart and Perkins is that the tone of learning is set by the culture of a classroom that governs the rhythm of thoughtful learning. In particular, the authors describe the thinking routines like headlines, connect-extend-challenge, see-think-wonder and compass points to summarize, make connections, record observations and take stances on topics based on information gathered either prior to or within a class period. From my perspective, the authors call for promoting open mindedness and intellectual curiosity while u sing tools like thinking routines and to build on students prior knowledge align well with my research question.

Source #6 : Ebscohost Database: (Clymer and William article, 2006) Jacqueline B. Clymer and Dylan William (2006) reassert research by Black and William (1998) and William, et.al (2004) that suggest that standards based grading can not only improve our expectations to students, but can improve the manner in which students learn and measure how much science they have learned. The author points out that according to William and Thompson (in press) using assessment for learning or formative assessment can double the rate of student learning and it makes the case for integrating these types of assessments into the architecture used to assess National systems of Learning within the United States of America. The author highlights Terry Crooks (1998) review that indicated how assessment for grading had far outpaced the use of assessment to support student learning. This stood out to me because my school has switched to a web based application that leverages a standards based grading system called JUMPROPE. JUMPROPE allows users to give students and their parents a color coded overview of their mastery levels on a scale of 0 (No evidence of mastery, colored red) to 5 (Highly proficient, colored green) for individual skills, outcomes, and standards. Standards based grading is certainly directly related my research question because it represents a methodology focused on transforming a superficial and numerical interest in grades into a deeper understanding of complex material. In particular, having a tool that can show student growth over time as they are provided greater access to information is both informative and revolutionary (well to my instructional practice in any event). Similarly, having a database that aligns each work product, every content area and each process to standards like JUMPROPE, gives clarity and transparency into the strengths and weaknesses of each student.

Source #7 : Ebscohost Database: (Myer et. al. article, 2012) A group of authors lead by Daniel Z. Meyer noted that creating meaningful opportunities for students to internalize complex content is deeply challenging. The writers recommend a series of eight strategies to implement inquiry as an instructional strategy after studying hundreds of inquiry based activities across multiple curricula. Three of the approaches stood out to me for the broad range applicability that these strategies: A) Protocols: a precise practice for collecting data that can be applied to an assortment of settings (Meyer et. al, p.2, 2006) B) Design Challenge: C) Modeling: With regards to myth 1, the authors add their voices to Burton(1994), Garrison(2001) and Wong(2007) in reiterating the fact that in direct contrast to the myth, arts, recess and other electives in our curriculum encourage what I think of as the limiting reagents of learning: independent thinking, creative problem solving, physical health and academic success. Without an independent environment to hone these fundamental skills, students have been shown to flounder in all academic areas. Similarly, regarding Myth 4, the authors highlight the myriad factors that negatively impact student performance at schools with high percentages of economically disadvantaged students including but not limited to the lack of funding, poor facilities, and the larger number of inexperienced and unlicensed teachers, reported in the National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future (2004). This stands out to me because as an educator at a Title I school in the New York City Public School system, the struggles of students who are socioeconomically challenged to learn effectively are part of my motivation to continually improve my instructional practice.