Andrew J. Henwood Final Portfolio

Andrew Henwood
In Fulfillment of Content Guidelines
Eastern Michigan University

Master of Arts in Curriculum
and Instruction

Table of Contents
1. Introductory Comments
2. Resume
3. Program Requirements
4. Setting in Which Portfolio Evidence was collected
5. Philosophy of Education
6. Educational History
7. Personal Professional Goals
i. Short Term (currently working towards)
ii. General Approach to Long Term Goals

8. Standards-Based Evidence

Section 1: Discipline, Teaching Methods, Strategies – focuses on content,
units, lessons taught &Teaching / Learning Strategies
Standard 7.3: Vary Perspectives to inform decisions about instruction /
assessment / classroom management.
ARTIFACT 1:
Curriculum Mapping

Table of Contents (cont.)
Section 2: Class Environment – Organization and Structure of the Classroom
Standard 2.6: Learning and Development. The Program prepares
masters educators who are committed to and understand how to
address all learning Domains
ARTIFACT II:
“Life is But a Walking Shadow…”
A Differentiated Approach to Teaching the Play “Macbeth” by
William Shakespeare.
CURR 655
Section 3: Preparation & Organization – Planning and Instruction
Standard 3.5: Knowledge, Curriculum, Pedagogy and
Assessment. The Program prepares masters educators who know
their subjects and how to teach them to use a variety of instructional
technologies to cultivate learning
ARTIFACT III:
Screenshots of a variety of digital learning programs and
software I use in the classroom on a daily basis for all of my
classes

Section 4: Student Evaluation – A Focus on Student Assessment
Standard 4.4: Classroom and Learning Management. The
Program prepares masters educators who are effective classroom
managers. They include multiple strategies for evaluation and
assessment of academic learning and individual growth and
development.
ARTIFACT IV:
Standardized Skill-Based Rubric (by Dr. Robert Marzano) and
Self-Designed and Created Standardized Skill-Based
Gradebook
Section 5: Other School Involvement – Other Responsibilites Carried Out
By the Teacher
Standard 5.1: Reflection. The Program prepares masters
educators who think systematically about their practice and learn
from experience. They draw on educational research and other
data to improve their practice
ARTIFACT 5:
Standardized Grading Review of Literature Project for CURR
616

Section 5: Other School Involvement – Other Responsibilites Carried Out
By the Teacher
Standard 6.1: Collaboration and Professional Development. The
program prepares master educators who see themselves and
function as members of learning communities. They collaborate
with colleagues to improve schools and advance knowledge and
practice in their fields.
ARTIFACT 6:
Clarkston Community Schools Advanced E.L.A. Vertical
Curriculum Workshop PowerPoint
9. Concluding Comments

Introductory Comments
I, first and foremost, consider myself some sort of hybrid between a builder,
an architect, a surgeon and a teacher. My interests and passions are
easiest described with these professions because of their eclectic nature,
but because they are all hands-on positions where creation,
modification, and problem solving are taking place. I have been lucky,
professionally, to consistently find myself in a position to apply the trade I
love so much to a career field I love so much. In a practical sense I have
navigated my way within my school district to be a part of courses where
I have been able to design from the ground up (currently teaching 3
different courses, but my design total is up to 10) as well as teach. My
school district, Clarkston Community Schools in Clarkston, Mi., is a
wonderful place to work in that I have been given professional flexibility
to turn my classroom into a theoretical, pedagogical, and experimental
setting for nearly a decade.
Also of note, my journey to completion of this program has been anything
but linear. I started down my current path here at Eastern Michigan
University in 2008 and have witnessed a change in graduation
requirements, and I have also completed nearly all of my courses online
during the Spring and Summer terms with a reduced and accelerated
pace. So, in a way, I found a path that required me to work twice as fast
for twice as long. In a small sort of way, this enigma represents me quite
accurately.

Introductory Comments (cont.)
Because of the very fragmented nature of my advancement to degree
completion, and because I (as my principal recently told me) cannot
help but immediately implement the changes in pedagogy and
practice I pick up in my adventures in coursework, training, and
research, a majority of the artifacts contained within come from
courses I have designed and materials I have actually used within the
classroom.
Where noted, work may have been completed in conjunction with a
teaching team, such as the development of my Utopia Curriculum
that was a modification of an actual course of study taught by a
team of teachers, of which I was the “captain” (as our school refers
to it) of the curriculum for the course as well as the lead advocate
and defender of the course curriculum, vision, and learner profile –
addressed in a reflection later in the portfolio. Unless noted then,
materials within are of my own creation and have been used and
modified by me at least once over the course of their use.

Setting in Which Portfolio
Evidence Was Collected
All of the evidence contained within this portfolio consists of work completed
within courses of study at Eastern Michigan University, work that was
completed for my professional duties as a classroom educator, or work that I
do as a professional development facilitator within my school district
(Clarkston Community Schools) and within my local Intermediate School
District (Oakland Schools).
The school where I teach (Clarkston High School) is a primarily middle to upper
middle class socio-economic community with a rapidly increasing low socio-
economic representative population. The community has traditionally been
very homogenous (with a mostly Caucasian population) but in the past 10
years the racial minority population in the school has nearly doubled (in
percentage of total students) from a number less than 5% to a number slightly
over 10%.
The ISD I complete work for (Oakland Schools) is a well-funded organization
committed to providing professional development (amongst many other
services) to teachers within Oakland County and beyond. Their current work
on developing a vertically-scoped and scaffolded Common-Core ready
English Language Arts Curriculum for grades 6-12 is the project I am currently
spending time working on them piloting, reviewing, and eventually facilitating
at a professional conference this coming June in East Lansing, Michigan.

Statement of Educational Philosophy
It was once said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” I
cannot help but smile thinking back to my first manifesto of teaching,
realizing I have, in many ways, remained exactly who I was when I first
wrote the belief statement a decade ago; while at the same time I have
changed in so many profoundly interesting ways as well as a result from
my myriad of experiences.
My father used to say to me as a young man, “Andy if you aren’t working at
getting better, you’re working at getting worse.” It’s hard to remove the
echoes of our fathers from our heads sometimes, and amazingly
(although not necessarily surprisingly) I have grown into a teacher that
has come to live and grow by this simplest of credos.
As a result of this fundamental belief I have been able to grow by leaps and
bounds from the young man I was back in 2003 when I first drafted a
personal professional belief statement. Fundamentally, at my core, I
have not changed. I believe all people (here: specifically, students,
teachers, parents, administrators) can stand to grow as people,
communities, and as a culture as a result of the work that is done in a
classroom. I still believe with all my heart that every student can learn.
This implies that I still believe that every student has something to learn
when they enter my classroom. I still also believe that community, and
class culture, are essential if a student is to become willing enough to
take the types of risks I expect in the classroom.

(cont.)

What I didn’t expect in 2003 was the fact that I would become hyper-involved
with educational training and professional growth, impacting me so deeply
that I now don’t see myself as a teacher (as I once did) – the term is too
limiting. I now see myself as an advocate for educational reform at the local,
state, national, and to a degree international level. I never would have
predicted the light with which I hold educational research and how highly I
hold its findings, particularly work dedicated to unraveling the mystery of what
the 21st century learner and 21st century classroom “should” be. I have
become a devout believer in data-based decision making, not as the end-all
be-all perfect form of making decisions, but if and when I can I have made a
shift to decision making based on what is qualifiedly and quantifiably
established as best practice – even when it outright challenges the status quo.
Particularly, my rooted belief in the role teaching to understanding and the
coaching of skill sets plays in the definition of what, and whom, a teacher is.
I also believe that the noun “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are undergoing a
period of linguistic reform; an incredibly exciting time to be an agent of
change in the field of education when the term used to represent the
profession is under contestation and challenge from any party that is remotely
concerned or connected to a classroom! I believe the impact Google (which
because a recognized verb as well as noun!) and the immediate access so
many people have to broad and deep pools of knowledge has shifted my
role professionally in the classroom.

(cont.)

Gone are the days where my job was to find interesting and entertaining
ways for students to know information, using my professional expertise
and access to information to place challenging and interesting
materials in front of my students – something that they could not do
seemingly anywhere else. The world has changed and that simply
isn’t enough for a teacher to do to prepare students for the reality
they will face as adults in the 21st century. I try to define myself with a
word now and it is much more difficult. Teacher, coach, shaman,
guide - all these terms are a part of what I do but not the sum of the
parts of what I do. What I do now is predict what might be and push
my students to improve themselves every day I work with them. I
believe in standards (for both teachers and students) and I believe
the highest bar is the only bar ever worth perusing.

Plans for Professional Development
Short-term goals and specific plan: Long-term goals and specific plan:
• Short-term goal: Broaden Professional Influence • Long-term goal: Become a professional workshop
– Work with Oakland Schools Pilot and Review Curriculum facilitator
Workshops designing curriculum – Use MAISA experiences (being a paid facilitator) to
– Design Professional Development modules and module workshop with other school districts and create
template for a MAISA conference in July opportunities to work with other schools or ISDs
– Attend annual workshops in International Baccalaureate
curriculum development • Long-term goal: Become an advocate for
Standards-Based Grading and an Agent of
• Short-term goal: Push CHS curriculum to contain Change for this practice
more cross-curricular and interdisciplinary learning – Work with district Task Force to present research on
taking place Standardized Grading
– Design another workshop module for CHS teachers to – Attempt to make contact with other school districts
use Theory of Knowledge as a bridge to push cross- who might be looking into this same practice
curricular and interdisciplinary learning opportunities
– Push Administration to include within our Teacher • Long-term goal: Become a Literacy Coach /
Evaluation Model language that requires
interdisciplinary learning opportunities or assessments Subject Area Coordinator / Curriculum Director /
Assistant Superintendent of a School District
– Application currently submitted for Macomb
Intermediate School District as a Literacy Coach

• Long-term goal: Earn Doctorate Degree and
become a University Professor of an Education
Course focused on Standardized Grading,
Formative Assessment Practices, and
Differentiated Instruction and Differentiated
Assessment
– Time, funding, and the right Doctoral Program are
significant hurdles. Within the next 15 years I hope to
begin saving enough money to pay initial term costs,
apply to a variety of local programs, and find an
effective way to incorporate my university work into
daily professional life.

Section 1: Discipline, Teaching Methods,
Strategies – focuses on content,
units, lessons taught &Teaching /
Learning Strategies
Standard 7.3: Vary Perspectives to inform decisions
about instruction / assessment / classroom
management.

ARTIFACT I:
Teaching Utopia Curriculum Project
Part III - ELA 11:
Literacy in the 21st Century I and II
An English Language Arts Curriculum designed to combine
instruction of traditional and 21st century literacies for students in
response to the social problems of mass over-consumerism
and its relationship to the changing nature of global economies
and personal wellness.

Artifact I: Curriculum Mapping
First Attempt at a Map
Section 1: Discipline, Prior to being accepted to
Teaching Methods, Eastern Michigan University I
had a passion for trying to
Strategies – focuses on figure out “what a course is
content, units, lessons made up of” given that I had
never really been trained on
taught & Teaching what made a course. The first
/Learning Strategies artifact was my starting point
on a journey leading to this
Standard 7.3: degree.
Educational Equity- Utopia Curriculum
The program prepares Over 5 years and a painstaking
master educators who number of formal and informal
understand the team meetings, trial and error,
ideas and compromise, this
importance of course outline was created.
educational equity and Over this span I had been
its effects on schooling. introduced to the pedagogy
They use varying of Curriculum at Eastern
perspectives to inform Michigan University and the
decisions about impact is quite apparent.
instruction, assessment
and management

In 2005, Prior to Any Specific Curricular
Training, this was my first attempted Mapping
of a Course

Eventually, Over a Span of 5 years,
the Course Was Mapped as Such.

Rationale for Artifact 1:
Teaching Utopia Curriculum Project Part III –
ELA 11:Literacy in the 21st Century I and II

Section 1: Discipline, Teaching Methods, Strategies – Focuses on content, units,
lessons taught & Teaching / Learning Strategies
Standard 7.3: Vary Perspectives to inform decisions about instruction /
assessment / classroom management.
Early in my career I was very lucky to fine my way to a team of teachers (well not
entirely lucky per-se, as I volunteered) who were ready and willing to rethink
how our decisions as teachers at the curricular level were having ripple effects
not only on the quality of student work we were receiving, but also on our
quality of instruction, the quality (and authenticity) of the formative and
summative assessments we required, as well as our own theories and practice
of classroom management.
The artifact contained represents an autopsy of the course “Literature and Modern
Media: 21st Century Literacy in Action” from Clarkston High School. I say
autopsy because the course was summarily euthanized by my department
three years ago. In a last-ditch effort to preserve a course I had previously
invested hundreds of hours, and countless team meetings lasting well past
11PM into building I created this course outline (that was eventually modified
slightly and reorganized to fulfill course requirements for CURR 616 with Dr.
Harder) to make a legal-esque defense in order to try and preserve this course
based on an 4-pillared argument:

Rationale for Artifact 1: (Cont.)

1. There was an obvious student interest in the course, measured in 4 consecutive terms of
section number increases due to students requesting the course of study
2. Impact on student learning – we had created pre- and post- unit assessments with data
measuring student improvement on identified course skills and demonstrations of critical
thinking;
3. Students were passionately engaged with the learning, practicing, and applying the skills
we were fostering on the assessments we had painstakingly designed from scratch;
4. We had a lock-step alignment of formative and summative assessments as measures of
student ability on identified state standards for English Language Arts (the first course at
Clarkston High School to be so thoroughly mapped in regards to state standards).
I presented this defense to my department, who had a very vocal minority unwilling to
recognize any of the 4 pillars of my argument – focusing instead on an inability (or
unwillingness) to see pieces of modern media (such as film, Television, Advertisements,
Social Media Outlets) as “texts” that were “worthy” of a center piece for a course
curriculum. In a two-hour defense I was questioned (at times feeling more like an
interrogation) over and over about the “lack of difficulty” (as “rigor” wasn’t an available
buzz term yet) in a skill-based curriculum that focused on visual and verbal and cinematic
interpretation as a means of making authentic (particularly to the interest in the lives of our
juniors) the traditional English Language Arts skills of observation, interpretation, making
claims, and synthesizing texts leading to an expression of a unique perspective from the
student as a learner. My peers were unwilling to recognize the value in practicing smaller
sub skills of English Language Arts (such as quality observation of a thematic moment in a
text) in anything under the umbrella of “modern media” - Ironically, the very practice that
allowed for data driven evidence of student growth of the applied skill in a blind passage
environment like the ACT and MME. They did this without observing a single class period of
a single teacher of this course. In the end I, and my team, lost and the course was
dismantled and disseminated (meaning: I see other teachers taking materials I had
designed and using them in other courses without telling me as such.)


I bring this artifact to my portfolio because it is a piece of my work (and
professional life) that I am most proud of. This course was the most pure,
dedicated, and concerned group I have ever been a part of that were
simply bent on researching, discovering, synthesizing, and fostering as many
perspectives as possible in the creation of a course that was, at least in my
home district before the rolling out of the Common Core, a decade ahead
of its time. When our team came together there were 3 young male
teachers with a combined 5 years of experience professionally in the
classroom (all of us fresh from university undergraduate studies) and a
female teacher with 23 years experience in the Social Studies and English
Language Arts classroom. We were a perfect storm of varying perspectives
and professionals with time to burn – and we burnt it (particularly the
midnight oil on more than 1 occasion). We did research in professional
journals together (where we discovered Dramatic, Cinematic, and Literary
as meaningful lenses of study in an English Journal) and engaged daily in
inquiry, trial & error to try and create a course from thin air…something none
of us had done, but all of us were interested in doing in order to challenge
and change the status quo of the English Language Arts classrooms of our
building (where status quo was reading a canonical novel, taking reading
quizzes, perhaps doing a “fun” project (barely connected to any kind of
learning purpose) then write an analytic essay to be graded on an abjectly
arbitrary rubric demarking qualities based on being “excellent”, “good”,
“adequate”, or “developing”. We knew that we, and our students, could
do better. And we, all of us, did.


I vividly remember a day when I realized our shift was paying dividends. Prior to
this day, prior to our changes being implemented in the classroom, we started
this course with an established in-class novel, “The Catcher in the Rye” that
had a prescribed curriculum that included 4 reading quizzes (90% knowledge-
based with 1 short answer requiring independent thought), a 50-question
multiple choice exam covering the text (everything within the text) as well as
an essay analyzing the character of Holden and his developing identity. That
first year was horrible. Students didn’t want to read, or discuss, and quizzes (or
“annotation books”) were viewed by all parties as babysitters and sentencing
guidelines for a lack of willful engagement. All students did was work, so rarely
did they think. After a year (and dozens of meetings lasting multiple hours)
curriculum was developed and put into place where students were
responsible for much more differentiated expectations such as creating a
screenplay for the novel via a storyboard “pitch” to a team of teachers /
students to see whose group had the most “interesting vision” for turning the
novel into film. The day I so vividly remember was when 4 students (whose
academic profile led me to believe would have been the type of students
“requiring” a threat of grade punishment for them to engage) voices began
to elevate during group work (now a centerpiece of our classroom
environment) and I was convinced that they had fallen off task because why
else would they be arguing with one another with such a personal tone in their
pleas. When I asked them why they were getting a bit “amped up” one
pointed out: (now, I paraphrase here, but this is very accurate to the moment)
…


Ok Henwood…we are debating our interpretations of the book and how to frame
a short around Holden’s sister Phoebe reaching for the Golden Ring on the
Carousel at the end of the book. I think Holden watching and crying is a
metaphor for him rising to the challenge of adulthood and breaking away
from childhood and he should have a “hero shot” with “hero music” and
these guys think it is another moment of him reaching to hold on to his
childhood via being angry he couldn’t ride the ride anymore and the actor
should have a childish frustration to his tears. I was floored. The degree of
analysis and personal investment they were demonstrating was so far above
and beyond my experiences with the novel the year before that I literally had
a moment with my moth open and nothing to say…which doesn’t happen
often…because they were doing on their own the very thing I used to have to
pry out of them via cohersion and grade-threatening. It was in that very
moment that I realized my belief in the power of curricular reform was possible
– coincidentally this was also the very year was admitted to this program at
EMU.
So it was in LMM (as we called it) that I discovered that varying perspectives for
how to engage with literature actually existed and was simply waiting to be
discovered and engaged with. Since then I have been a wrecking ball of
influence, trying to bring pedagogical variety to every team and course (7
thus far in my career) I teach, trying to facilitate change at the curricular level
that can create the type of learning environment that can abandon, as
Daniel Pink called it in his novel “Drive”, a “carrots and sticks” approach to
driving student engagement and learning.

Section 2: Class Environment – Organization
and Structure of the Classroom
Standard 2.6: Learning and Development. The
Program prepares masters educators who are
committed to and understand how to address
all learning Domains

ARTIFACT II:
A Differentiated Approach to Teaching the Play
“Macbeth” by William Shakespeare.
CURR 655

Author’s Motivation – A Differentiated
Artifact II: Approach to Teaching “Macbeth”
by Shakespeare
Everyone remembers their first time hearing that they
would be responsible for teaching a work of
Shakespeare. For some it was embarrassing, others
Section 2: Class thrilling, but the bottom line is that everyone
remembers the first time. The problem with the study
Environment – of Shakespeare is that most people are so intimidated
by the daunting nature of something as prolifically,
Organization and majestically…unattainable…that they miss out on
what could be a wonderfully cool learning opportunity
Structure of the for themselves as professionals, but also for their
students.
Classroom
When I was in high school I hated studying
Standard 2.6: Shakespeare. I would have completely forgotten this
ironic fact if it weren’t for me running into my former AP
Learning and English teacher one afternoon at the grocery store
(the very boring vegetable section). When he heard
Development. that I was a high school English teacher he, in his wryly
gruff tone of voice snickered, “figures;” but it was his
The Program prepares reaction to hearing that I teach a course dedicated to
masters educators who the study of Shakespeare – willingly – that he flat out
are committed to and dropped his potatoes. He exclaimed, “are you kidding
me Henwood!? You? You HATED Shakespeare when I
understand how to taught it to you.” It was at this point a little blood
address all learning pooled atop my tongue as a I managed to say aloud
Domains the very tip of the surface of what I was feeling and
thinking: “Well, time changes many things.”

In this case it didn’t though. He was boring. I can say that now. The
teacher I liked so much was boring. This is why I hated Shakespeare as a
teenager. A wonderfully passionate man who was thrilled every day he
could open a play, but he simply didn’t know how to approach the
delivery of the material; the engagement method of capturing the interest
and attention span of a teenager that thought with all his heart there was
no way, none, that I would ever see any measure of validity in studying the
stuff. After all, was it even English?
Once I was hired into Clarkston High School in Clarkston, MI. I leapt at the
opportunity to teacher a recently teacher-less (mostly because nobody
wanted to teach it) senior elective course in Shakespeare. It was a
“medal-on-the-chest” course, like surviving it was enough to grant the
lucky chap an extra .5 on their G.P.A. or something. I knew I had to
change things. For me, I took it upon myself to never allow one of my
students suffer the way I had: from a passion that was just below the
surface – fogged over but most definitely there. I needed a different way
to engage them.
For years I delivered the curriculum I was given, swung, and missed. It
wasn’t for a lack of effort; I simply had a lack of know-how. I finally
empathized with my high-school English teacher….I needed to new way to
approach the same material that I fell in love with during a study abroad
in England while studying in my undergraduate at Michigan State
University. Thankfully I found a course at Eastern Michigan University in
Differentiation: precisely what my Shakespeare course (among all my
other courses!) needed.

Don’t get me wrong…I took enormous strides with my Shakespeare course in
three short years. I trimmed the curriculum (going from 5 plays to 2 and a film
study) in order to have more depth of understanding in their studies than
breadth of content covered. I created a final exam project (whose
instructions and rubric has been added to the end of this unit since it was
submitted to Dr. Boyd for a grade) that forces students to take up the pen
and write a research-based one scene play that consists entirely of a single
Soliloquy using all the literary devices we studied in our course (referenced on
the rubric) connecting the works of Shakespeare to details of his life via a
central theme to answer whether or not William Shakespeare lived through his
writing, or if his writing was a reflection of the life that he lived. I had the
opportunity to meet the Lord Mayor of London, England when he was touring
our high school prior to our marching band competing in England. In his
words he referred to this unit as “impressively ambitious” with a distinct raise of
his eyebrows.
I had this assignment, but I always knew I needed more lessons in place that
could engage my students in the same way I know my final project did. This is
how “Life is But a Walking Shadow” was born.
This unit was designed specifically for the context mentioned above. This is a
senior elective group. I have a student body ranging from seniors who don’t
need any additional English credits to graduate who sign up for my because
it is a “different” sort of English course, to AP students on the bring of writing
the next great novel, to some students with I.E.P.’s in place to let me know
that they currently read at a 3rd grade level. I have them all and they are all
welcome. This unit allows the opportunity to engage all levels of learners
every day of this unit of study in aw ay that isn’t mundane or ordinary – it is
surprising, engaging, and dare I even say .. Fun. So no matter what previous
experiences my students have had with Shakespeare, be it exhilarating or
terrifying, their last high school experience with Shakespeare will be
memorable, wonderful, enjoyable, and hopefully leave them with a longer-
lasting impression that I had when I pushed The Bard away after high school.

A Differentiated Approach to Teaching the Play “Macbeth” by William
Shakespeare.CURR 655

To this point in my career I have plenty of experience building various aspects of
curriculum ranging from a skill-scaffold approach to 6-12 advanced English
Language Arts to a 2-year course of study for the International Baccalaureate
Program, but this artifact represents the most specific and concerned effort I
have ever made in the development of a single unit of study.
Within this artifact there are lessons, task cards, learning contracts, rubrics, and
learning materials. The learning standard being addressed represents, to me,
more than anything, a commitment to meeting the individual learning needs
of individual students in the classroom; this is the clearest differentiation (pun
intended) from a standard, or traditional, form of teaching where every
student is treated as being similar enough to all others from their “model year”
(see Ken Robinson’s thoughts) that one lesson can be delivered, and
expected, of all students in a class period. The work contained within this
artifact is one of my best efforts at identifying, based on meaningful and
accurate language, the difference between having a variety based on
student interest, student ability, and student readiness.

A Differentiated Approach to Teaching the Play “Macbeth” by William
Shakespeare.CURR 655
The original purpose of this artifact was in fulfillment of the unit of differentiation assignment for CURR
655 with Dr. Boyd. This artifact was actually used once (and soon to be twice) in one of my
classes as a unit of study – a course dedicated to the study of Shakespeare with students
ranging from Sophomores to Seniors – an environment needy and perfect for a focus on
differentiation. With an environment so conducive to differentiation ready, I found this space a
wonderfully receptive place to practice a new wrinkle to my professional pedagogy: when
possible, and when appropriate, get out of the way and let students discover what it means to
learn without someone holding their hand, directing and redirecting every time they hit a hurdle
or potential challenge. This unit (and course of study) armed me with tools to finally understand
how to do this. For years I had valued grouping and placing students into learning positions
where they were dependent upon one another, but I had no idea what I was doing – I was
either “throwing darts” and making groups at random, or allowing my students to chose. I was
definitely not making professional choices based on professional reasoning – thus a very
ineffective practice.
I had read for years about student-centered classrooms, but what most of the theory I had read
failed to point out was where and in what capacity a teacher should take in a student-
centered learning environment. After my introduction to meaningful differentiation by Dr. Boyd,
I finally had access to a simple fact that had previously eluded me: a student-centered
learning environment has more than one center. Also, as this unit demonstrates, I was able to
learn that expectation, progress, and the environment of the classroom were one in the same.
When every student’s progress is a measurement of incorrectness – a subtraction of a seemingly
unattainable 100%- the environment is bound to be mired in negativity, deficiency, and an
atmosphere of students trying to find ways to inch closer to the unattainable (or all-too often
inflated) 100% “A”. Now, I see that when different students were put into positions to actually
demonstrate success (and feel the resulting pride that comes from getting better at a task) they
took off…simply flew. Learning in this unit made my classroom unpredictable and predictable
simultaneously: students knew they were never expected to be on some mythical and utopian
(or delusional) “same page,” while still discovering daily who the best students were to work with
on a given day for a given task. It was here that I felt a true sense of mastery over the
identification of, and teaching towards, multiple learning domains.

Section 3: Preparation & Organization –
Planning and Instruction
Standard 3.5: Knowledge, Curriculum,
Pedagogy and Assessment. The Program
prepares masters educators who know their
subjects and how to teach them to use a
variety of instructional technologies to
cultivate learning
ARTIFACT III:
Screenshots of a variety of digital
learning programs and software I use
in the classroom on a daily basis for all
of my classes

Artifact III: Online Learning Platforms
– Ning
• Not included due to free service being shut down
Section 3: / no longer in use by myself or our program
Preparation and – Edmodo

Organization – • Used primarily as interdisciplinary tool for
Clarkston High School International
Planning and Baccalaureate Program
Instruction – Schoology
• Online platform used for a variety of purposes for
Standard 3.5: my Oral Communications, Shakespeare, and 20 th
Century American Literature Courses
Knowledge,
– YouTube
Curriculum,
• Used as a hub for videos taken in the classroom
Pedagogy and for a variety of purposes ranging from digital
Assessment – sharing of best practices within the district to
students Formatively reflecting upon
The program prepares performances, to a continuation of an in-class
master educators who discussion
know their subjects and – Turnitin.com
how to teach them; use • Used as a Bulletin Board for student-generated
a variety of instructional Questions and Answers for specific tasks
technologies to
cultivate learning • Online Portfolio of written work

Edmodo – Online Communication and Collaboration
Across Subject Areas for the CHS IB Program

Turnitin.com – Discussion Boards / Forums For Questions
Students Can Ask and Answer One Another
Regarding Specific Projects

Turnitin.com – Peer Review, Plagiarism
Prevention, and Online Portfolios of Work

Schoology – A Central Place for Links to
Resources As Well As Essential Materials

Schoology – Using Online Discussion Forums as
Extensions of In-Class Discussions

Schoology – Using Embedded Videos as a
part of an Inquiry – Driven Lesson on Satire,
History and Culture

Schoology – Maintaining Online Discussions
with Embedded links to videos as a part of
modeling practice

Schoology – Online Learning Platform with
Discussions / links / assignments / Formative
Quizzes and Summative Assessments

Schoology - Online Summative Exams

You Tube as an Extension of the
Classroom

Recording Student Presentations and
continuing learning afterwards through
questions / answers

Small Group “Fishbowl / Socratic
Dialogues continued onto You Tube

Screenshots of a variety of digital learning programs and software I use
in the classroom on a daily basis for all of my classes

When our high school began investigating the International Baccalaureate
Program for the first time in 2006-2007 every teacher involved in the creation
of this “school within a school” knew we had to do some things differently, not
only for the benefit of our students, but also for one-another professionally.
One such method was the incorporation of more technologies to aid us in the
delivery of a higher volume of content at a more complex level, but also
because learners within this program came to expect an opportunity to
demonstrate their understanding in a variety of ways at a variety of times for a
variety of purposes.

The artifacts contained within this section show an evolution I have made
professionally that started from our inquiry into delivery as a part of the IB
Program, and becoming a more refined process I have demonstrated in other
courses I teach including Shakespeare and 20th century American Literature.
The first online-learning program I used was Ning, and eventually teaching
teams I was a part of progressed to Moodle, Edmodo, Turnitin.com and most
recently Schoology. These artifacts are screenshots of discussions,
assignments, or assessments done partially or completely online to cultivate
learning from all, not a portion of, but all my students.

Screenshots of a variety of digital learning programs and software I use
in the classroom on a daily basis for all of my classes

These artifacts are the tip of the iceberg for I how I have involved technologies to cultivate
rather than prescribe the learning taking place in my courses. In order to meet this
change in the educational paradigm (a concrete difference between work done in
class and work to be done at home) I had to be willing and flexible to rethink my
planning and instructional practices to accommodate a shift of this magnitude. By
“flipping” my learning environment I finally put myself professionally where I always
wanted to be – facilitating or coaching the process of learning – not punishing
incorrectness.

Online learning technologies have also made available for me meaningful inquiry
opportunities for students at the drop of a hat. Specifically, the work I am doing on
Turnitin.com and Schoology have allowed me to place students in a position nearly daily
where I can project a timer digitally onto a whiteboard counting down and ask them to
find as much information as they can about a particular topic (such as Satire, The Cold
War, or Iambic Pentameter) and post the results to our Schoology discussion page. In 15
minutes students have done the traditionally “homework” aspect of the lesson and I was
there to guide students who were not at a truly “independent” state of readiness when it
comes to finding, sorting, and valuing information they found online. Subsequent
discussions (that took place immediately after searching) led to discussions of what
quality evidence was on a scale that we created. This sort of lesson was nearly
impossible 10-15 years ago. This evolution in technology has led to an evolution in the
responsibilities a teacher has within the classroom to wield this new weapon effectively
and meaningfully…a challenging process to say the least. Because of my new teaching
philosophy – get out of the way whenever possible and let students learn – I know see
myself as primarily placing my students into a position to discover information, learn how
to effectively think about it, and then create a product to demonstrate their thinking.
Without technology I am not sure if this revolution would be as deep with the potential it
currently has…at least for me.

Section 4: Student Evaluation – A Focus on
Student Assessment
Standard 4.4: Classroom and Learning
Management. The Program prepares masters
educators who are effective classroom
managers. They include multiple strategies
for evaluation and assessment of academic
learning and individual growth and
development.
ARTIFACT IV:
Standardized Skill-Based Rubric
(generic – Dr. Robert Marzano) and
Self-Designed and Created
Standardized Skill-Based Gradebook

Artifact IV:
Section 4: Student
Evaluation – Focuses
on Student
Assessment
Standard 4.4:
Classroom Learning
and Management
The program prepares
master educators who
are effective classroom
managers. They; include
multiple strategies for
evaluation and
assessment of academic
learning and individual
growth and
development.

A 4- Level Model for Rubric Generation Received at
an IB Conference at Macomb ISD Facilitated by Louis
Marchesano

A Working Model for Tracking Student Progress on
Standards using a 4-Level Standardized Scale
(Designed by me in EXCEL)

Sample Visual Graphic I Can Create to
Represent Data of Student Growth on
Prescribed Standards Using 4 – Level Formative
Assessment Model

Progress With Reading Standards

Literary Analysis 1 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Reading for Main Idea 1 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Skill Level
6 5 4 3 2 1 Pretest
Assessm ent Num ber

Self-Designed Online Grade book to Monitor Student
Progress Using 4 – Level Standardized Formative
Progress Model

Representing Student Progress Visually Over 6
Assessments Translating 4-Level System Into
Percentages With My Value-Added Formula

Creating Data Tables, Writing Formulas, and Reporting
Student Progress for Other Teachers

2013 English A1 Predicted Marks

2 1 7 6 5
4 0 1 2 1

4
16

3
29
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7 2013 English A1 Predicted Marks
30
25

1 20 6
15
10
5 1 2
0 2013 English A1 Predicted
0 1 Marks
4

2 5

16

29

3 4

Standardized Skill-Based Rubric (generic template created by Dr.
Robert Marzano) and Self-Created Standardized Skill-Based
Gradebook, Data Tables, Charts and Graphs
In the profession of teaching it would be poetically appropriate if assessment were
a four-letter word or at least appeared on George Carlin’s list of words that
“can’t be said on television.” When I completed my undergraduate it was
understood that “traditional” practices were flawed – yet I was still measured in
terms of my professional “readiness” on a gigantic high-stakes multiple choice
exam – an irony that did not go unnoticed and something I still scoff at today.
Since that moment I wanted a third-rail for assessment: something rigorous,
accurate and also meaningful for students while they are learning, not simply
an after-the-fact comparative representation of how they performed
compared to their peers. Without the necessary time to conduct broad-
reaching research on how to create this third rail I simple dove into the water to
find out how deep it was. The result of this personal quest is the next artifact in
my portfolio.
In another wonderful quirk of timing I happened to attend an International
Baccalaureate Program teaching workshop at Macomb Intermediate School
District shortly before I had begun teaching a 1 term elective course in Oral
Communication (long-accepted as students, staff, and administration as a
“blow off” class for students who needed a Language Arts credit and, as an
unnamed administrator once told me, and I quote, “these students aren’t
exactly going to go out and change the world”). At this workshop I was
introduced to a measurement system developed by Dr. Robert Marzano that
had a 4 – level system generic enough to apply to any learning task in any
subject area. I nearly jumped out of my seat, arms waving and shouting Amen!

The year before this workshop I had taken many, many hours to create
a similar rubric for a single unit of study (Hamlet) to measure critical
thinking as opposed to content knowledge. With this more generic
template I finally had the means of transferring my trial and error
rubrics confidently, knowing it was in fact grounded in a wide and
deep pool of educational theory and research. What resulted was a
drastic re-organization of this “blow-off” course. Students were
expected to demonstrate growth on 7 different communication skills I
identified (which was a process, given that I was told that the only
measurable criteria that every other teacher evaluated was time
and the only “curriculum” – used loosely – was a list of 6 different
speech titles) on a range of evaluative speaking tasks. When I
applied the variety of pedagogical shifts I discussed in sections I-III
and combined it with the work I had been reading from Dr. Marzano,
evaluation, assessment, individual growth and development took on
the following form that we used for each speaking task:

1. Students were given a speech theme (such as “Telling a great story to family”)
and were given the task of finding “master storytellers” online and posting a
video of the individual speaking onto our Schoology Discussion page.
2. Students would then jigsaw-read a chapter from a university communications
textbook I obtained on a free trial and had to transfer connections from the
chapter to their master-speaker online.
3. Students would work in ability groups (based on a pre-unit speaking
performance I evaluated on a 4-level rubric I designed) and draft a speech-
specific rubric specific to their abilities (with an option for 1 personal skill they
wanted to improve, such as an international student of mine choosing
“pronunciation” as a category requesting feedback for improvement) on 4 of
the 7 different class skills. Students were never measured for every skill on
every task. They were allowed to choose.
4. Students would perform their speech to their ability groups and have it
recorded. After all speeches of a group were complete I would publish the
videos to my You Tube channel.
5. They would view, and reflect, on the videos in their ability groups (usually from
their cell phones in class) and create an appropriate “mark band” for
translating the levels they were performing to a letter grade.
6. I would dialogue with them on how they progressed on a given skill and they
would determine if they wanted to perform another speech on a given topic
to demonstrate a higher level of ability on a given skill.

The beauty of this process (well there were many beautiful things from my
perspective) was that I had empowered students to progress as learners
independent from me. I still coached them, I still introduced and helped clarify
points of understanding, but they were self-directed autonomous learners working
towards mastery on a purpose of their own choosing (again referring to the work
of Daniel Pink in his book “Drive”). Also, in this process there was a complete
removal of points and letter grades from the formative process. They were
present at the summative end (and required me to write a program in EXCEL to
translate levels into points) but not the formative process…instead the dialogue
had shifted away from “getting points” to “getting better”.
Students had simply bought-in to the idea that Language Arts had skills and that they
had come into the classroom with room for measurable improvement, and I was
free from the cycle of using abstract metaphors and arbitrarily chosen point totals
(I still never really understood how I would chose a task to be worth 20, 25, or 50
points) to represent formative progress to actual using accurate descriptors of
what did, and what did not, happen in student work. This eventual appreciation
for the value in improvement gave students ownership of their own progress and
mastery (choosing skills to be evaluated on a given task, designing their own
rubrics with their own language, self-grading and reflecting after a performance)
and we were able to turn a “blow-off” course into a fantastic learning experience
for both the students and myself. They told me their friends “didn’t have to work
nearly as hard” for other teachers of the same course, but in the end, even they
said, “They actually learned how to communicate and not just give speeches”…
and I think that was supposed to be the point of the course.

Section 5: Other School Involvement – Other
Responsibilities Carried Out by the Teacher
Standard 5.1: Reflection. The Program prepares masters
educators who think systematically about their practice and
learn from experience. They draw on educational research
and other data to improve their practice
Standard 6.1: Collaboration and Professional Development.
The program prepares master educators who see themselves
and function as members of learning communities. They
collaborate with colleagues to improve schools and advance
knowledge and practice in their fields.
ARTIFACT 5:
Standardized Grading Review of Literature
Project for CURR 616
ARTIFACT 6:
Clarkston Community Schools Advanced E.L.A.
Vertical Curriculum Workshop PowerPoint

Artifact V:
• Review of Literature for CURR 616 covering subject of Standardized
Grading and Grade Reform
– Literature Review
• Many sources (both Peer Reviewed, and not Peer Reviewed) were consulted to
gain a better understanding of the research foundation that exists regarding the
practice of grading. “Best Practice” is, as it seems, tenuous at best. The release of
The Common Core Standards as well as The Smarter Balanced Standardized exam
Section 5: Other School will have a tremendous impact on how student learning is measured and, in my
opinion, how teachers will eventually be evaluated. These documents were the

Involvement – Other most impacting pieces of reading I did as a part of my graduate studies.

Responsibilities Carried Out by
the Teacher
Standard 5.1: Reflection
The program prepares master
educators who think systematically
about their practice and learn from
experience. They; draw on
educational research and other data
to improve their practice.
Standard 6.1: Collaboration and
Professional Development
educators who see themselves and
function as members of learning
communities. They collaborate with
colleagues to improve schools and
advance knowledge and practice in
their fields.

Review of Literature for CURR 616 covering subject of
Standardized Grading and Grade Reform

Review of Literature for CURR 616 covering subject of
Standardized Grading and Grade Reform (cont.)

Review of Literature for CURR 616 covering subject of Standardized

The next artifact is a Review of Literature assignment I completed for CURR 616
combined with a screenshot of a Grade Book Program I wrote to
accommodate a Standardized Grading Model within my school districts
required “points and letters” online grade book.
This particular assignment was a wonderfully eye-opening experience in helping
me to realize I have a wealth of research backing up a small movement I am
trying to start at my school (in addition to other school districts I do work with
for Oakland Schools ISD). Not many teachers in my building even know about
Standardized Grading, let alone are willing to rethink a change to their long-
held belief systems regarding the role of grading in the learning process, but I
feel a change is in the wind (and that wind is the Common Core, Smarter
Balanced, and 21st Century Learning Expectations) and I am proud to have
positioned myself to be a school leader when the time comes for every
teacher to be aware of, if not be required to, make this shift. In fact, my
grade book program was so intriguing that administration invited me to be a
teacher representative on a task force investigating the “issue of grades” – as
it is a distant issue regarding equity and inflation. Within my program I can
clearly see how students are progressing on particular English Language Arts
standards based on their performance-level description of tasks they have
completed. Assignments aren’t simply work to be done, but opportunities to
progress on a standard. I have identified, labeled, and organized them as
such and can record progress as such.

Review of Literature for CURR 616 covering subject of Standardized

The Review of Literature artifact was originally completed for CURR 656 with Dr.
Harder but has been, and will continue to be, the centerpiece of a dialogue I
am having with my superintendent and the grading task force to push the
conversation forward rethinking how we evaluate students with a system of
grading that is regularly abused by teachers as a purpose-motivator for
engagement and practice. A closer examination of grading practices could,
in my opinion, have the greatest of possible impacts on student learning and
achievement due to the central role it plays in the process of formatively
influencing student learning: for example, abandoning the practice of using
zeros as a weapon to threaten students or allowing non-academic factors
such as punctuality impact summative task performances) as well as the
nature of achievement itself by redefining how a student must demonstrate
achievement via performance, where a student is active in the process of
their own learning, as opposed to “getting points” or “getting grades” which is
a very passive process for students and places teachers in a too-powerfully
subjective position to “give points” or “assign grades” – a process that
removes accountability away from the student and places it onto a teacher
which is an unnecessary burden given that the central purpose of schooling is
student learning, experiencing, and demonstrating mastery over content
knowledge and skills, not teacher granting approval of this process.

Artifact VI:
Visual Aide / PowerPoint Presentation for Clarkston
Community Schools Advanced English Language Arts
Vertical Curriculum Workshop
– Course Maps
Section 5: Other School • Teachers were asked prior to the workshop to try
Involvement – Other and map the content and skills of our various
courses for the first time. I collected these tables
Responsibilities Carried Out by and set them to my presentation.
the Teacher – Data
• We were really starting to make a push on two fronts
Standard 5.1: Reflection with this workshop: making concerned curricular
choices based on data and the concept of
The program prepares master Backwards design applying to courses down the
educators who think systematically vertical chain from 11th and 12th grade AP.
about their practice and learn from
experience. They; draw on
educational research and other data
to improve their practice.
Standard 6.1: Collaboration and
Professional Development
educators who see themselves and
function as members of learning
communities. They collaborate with
colleagues to improve schools and
advance knowledge and practice in
their fields.

ARTIFACT 6:
Clarkston Community Schools Advanced E.L.A. Vertical
Curriculum Workshop PowerPoint

ARTIFACT 6: (Cont.)
Clarkston Community Schools Advanced E.L.A. Vertical Curriculum
Workshop PowerPoint

Standardized Template for P.D. Modules
at MAISA workshop in East Lansing, Mi.

Workshop PowerPoint

More than any other standard I struggled choosing an artifact here because it is the latest
turn in my career and is full of opportunities I am taking advantage of to become a
significant agent of change to improve schools and advance practice within the field of
English Language Arts.
The artifact I ended up choosing to use was a PowerPoint presentation I used during a
professional development module I facilitated within my district for teachers that are a
part of our advanced track program (Advanced ELA grades 6-10, Advanced Placement
11 and 12, IB 11 and IB 12). When our district adopted the IB program we had a
significant conflict arise within our department regarding our identity as a program in
addition to whether or not we are adequately preparing our students at the middle-
levels for the expectations of grades 11 and 12 in either of our two advanced tracks,
particularly because the learning and assessment expectations of the IB program are so
vastly different than those of the AP program. I was asked by my Subject Area
Coordinator (now a Literacy Consultant with Oakland Schools) to lead a workshop
introducing our vertical team to how well we are doing as teachers with our students
(particularly focusing on preparedness as measured by student performance data) and
how we could use this data to influence our practices in the classroom. Being that this
was my first module of professional development it was heavily prescriptive, but for me its
value is in what it has led to for me professionally. Since this workshop I have led 3-4
different professional development modules to more closely align the skills and content
of our entire English department vertically (grades 6-12) to organize our courses based on
what we are asking our students to do as opposed to the chosen content being used
(i.e. a unit of study is an opportunity for students to learn about the role Satire plays in the
American ideal of Justice via the novel “The Things They Carried” as opposed to the unit
purpose to analyze the theme of Justice in “The Things They Carried”). This work began
before Common Core was rolled out, putting our overall curriculum into a prepared
place for the shift in learning standards that took place.

Workshop PowerPoint

The other opportunity that I have taken advantage of to collaborate with colleagues to
advance knowledge and practice is with the work I am currently doing with Oakland
Schools ISD. The first part of the project I am working on was to be one of many teachers
pilot-teaching a unit designed by Oakland Schools to teach to the expectations of the
Common Core. Teachers from across the county would teach a unit then come
together to discuss what went well and what should be modified when the units are
made available to teachers around the world as a model for approaching the
pedagogical shift and change in student performance expectations as measured on
standardized tests such as Smarter Balanced. Given how contributory I was during these
modules I was asked, and then chosen to be a Team Leader and Facilitator of P.D.
modules at a conference to be held this June in East Lansing. Within this project I shifted
from simply attending developmental workshops leading up to the conference to
playing a central role developing the actual P.D. modules to be delivered at the
conference – I am now training the teachers who will train the teachers. The artifact
contained for Part B of Section V – an outline for other facilitators to use when
determining what sort of information from their own experiences they want to bring into
the P.D. modules, is the result of work I have done to try and standardize the learning
opportunities within the workshop itself.
It is the work I am doing with this MAISA conference that I feel; truly feel, like I have earned
my Masters in Curriculum and Instruction. With the mastery I feel I have obtained I am
able to confidently work with other teachers through a period of tremendous change
that is currently coming down on the field of education. In addition to being a hand
ushering in this meaningful change in my classroom, I feel as though I am impacting
classrooms around the county, the state, the nation, and the world. This, to me, is why I
started the degree process that ends here, today. I am now ready, and prepared, to be
the agent of change I have always wanted to be armed with a deep understanding of
the nature of Curriculum and its direct and inseparable relationship with Instruction.

Concluding Thoughts
Part of me is having a hard time accepting the fact that I am done with this program of study, while the
other part of me (the one who receives 5 hours of sleep per night due to a toddler struggling with
the same sleeping issues that I have) has a hard time remembering when I started this journey. I
suppose that is a good thing, though, that if I can’t recall the moment when it began, and am not
particularly accepting of the fact that it is ending, perhaps it is because this course of study isn’t
limited to obtaining a degree – the pursuit of research related to curriculum and seeing myself as
an Agent of Change is no longer an assignment for a course, or a requisite of graduation, but a
state of my being. And I’m ok with that. In fact, if there is any one thing I can walk away from this
program of study knowing, it is that I have a future outside of the classroom that I didn’t even
know was possible in 2008 when I started down this path. I know that I have some talents here,
and I know that I am getting better every day at communicating my thoughts and perspectives
(which, based on work I have done thus far, people want to hear). I have grown leaps and
bounds in my understanding of the issues inherit with the practice of curriculum, (I say “practice”
here in the doctoral sense of the word – that mastery is possible but it is an ever fluid and
changing field that demands its practitioners to change based on changing knowledge and
paradigms of practice) and see myself continuing head-first down a path to know and understand
even more.
The primary reason I became a teacher wasn’t because of a deep-seeded love of children, or
because I was a passionate student of literature, or because I wanted to help students get better
at something (although all are true); the reason I became a teacher struck me shortly after I
dropped out of a Pre-Med. program of study in my undergraduate: I realized I could do better. I
thought back to all the teachers and professors I had over my life and realized I could do better
than they did. There was something about the relationship between purpose, delivery, and
student understanding that simply struck me as something I have a talent at producing. Now that
original purpose has brought me, armed with the same premise of reasoning, to a much larger
stage with a potential of helping more and more teachers realize there is a “better way” out there
waiting to be discovered.

Andrew J. Henwood Final Portfolio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Andrew J. Henwood Final Portfolio

Similar to Andrew J. Henwood Final Portfolio (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Andrew J. Henwood Final Portfolio