Back to Table of Contents

Sophomore Team: An ARL Reflection Paper
By Rick Holst, Scottie Nash and Stephanie Solis

PART A: Description of the Team: Describe any pertinent characteristics of the staff and students who were involved in WEB(01-02 school year) and Sophomore Team(02-03 school year), as well as the focus of your work in Sophomore Team.

During the 2001-02 school year, the following four teachers worked together to form what the students named WEB. WEB combined World History, English, Biology and Art. The students received credit for all of the classes except art. Rick Holst was the art teacher and had 30 years of experience. Bill Johnson was the biology teacher and had approximately 7 years of experience. Scottie Nash was the world history teacher and had 3 years of experience, and Stephanie Solis was the English teacher and had 11 years of experience. We worked with 23 level 2 sophomores. There was an approximately even boy/girl split. The students had not specifically signed up for this program, nor for art; however, we offered the students the option to leave if they did not want to be in this teaming situation. We did lose one male student after the first day of school. Our work together focused on providing the students with an integrated curriculum in a smaller learning community.

After we completed our first year together, Bill decided to leave the science department and teach physical education instead. The biggest changes to Sophomore Team during the 2002-03 school year included the following: Biology was no longer a part of the program, we had 40 level 2 sophomores, and the role of art increased as Rick now had FTE to work in the program. We will discus the impact of these changes later in the paper. During this school year our work focused on incorporating more art into the program and learning to work with an increased number of students.

PART B: Description of the Research Process: What were you studying? What did you do? Address and answer your PGP/Sophomore Team goal.

Before teaching in this teaming situation, Rick, Scottie and Stephanie had two years of experience on a Task Force that collected data to determine our focus. Among other things, the three of us conducted a literature review, visited Alverno College, a college who teams successfully, and the four of us visited Addison Trail High School, a school with many years of teaming experience. Scottie and Stephanie teamed together the previous year, their goal being to pre-plan curriculum and policies for the following year. We participated in summer curriculum writing workshops for three consecutive years, through National Louis University, we joined a consortium of other schools who were trying to design smaller learning communities with Jessica Swanson as our National Louis representative. When the 2001-02 school year began we became an Action Research Laboratory team to enforce data collection and allow for necessary collaboration time among the four of us with Robin Gapinski as our facilitator. We had a common lunch period and met weekly to discuss students and curriculum. We conducted various surveys and interviews to gather data: we surveyed parents at Open House, surveyed students mid-year, surveyed our respective department chairs, and interviewed students at the end of the year. In that year we were also part of a number of informational sharing sessions including a critical friends’ luncheon with Highland Park teachers and we hosted that year’s "Center for City Schools" meeting with visitors from National Louis University and various other high schools.

The following year, although Bill was no longer a part of our team, Rick, Scottie and Stephanie remained an Action Research Laboratory team. Working with 40 students for a double period, instead of last year’s 23 students probably brought about our most difficult challenge. We struggled with room arrangement in the beginning of the year, but that was solved once we moved to the new team room in January. We also used creative grouping arrangements and 3 rotation groups during the art projects to give the group a smaller feel. Manipulating the chunk of time to best suit our needs was one of our favorite aspects of this year. We also incorporated additional writing into our program this year through our bimonthly newsletter and the quarterly pen name project which devoted time to creative writing. We also continued our commitment to making life better for others: Sophomore Team painted a hallway mural during first quarter, came in 2^nd place during the canned food drive, adopted a family during the holiday season, and created a Holocaust memorial currently displayed in the auditorium foyer. While we realized that working with 40 students was going to be a struggle, we quickly found ways to overcome this challenge. Therefore, our question became "How does integrating English, history and art benefit student learning?" This year Rick has been able to take-on a much larger role in the classroom. He has had time to be in the classroom, read student work, create instruction and get to know the students. We believe that his increased role has helped students find not only a greater appreciation for art, but to reach a better understanding about history and English curriculum through the use of art.

There was a new emphasis on the increased role of art. In order to answer this question we again conducted various surveys and interviews to obtain further data: we surveyed parents at Open House, surveyed our current students at mid-year, interviewed current students at mid-year, conducted follow-up interviews and surveys with students from last year, and asked Ted Schaffner to obtain attendance and academic data from our students from the previous year. At this time, he has yet to provide us with this information.

PART C: An Analysis of your Work: What did you learn about yourself, your teaching style, and students from this experience? Use illustrations, examples, and class assignments to help explain and justify your answers.

As we reflect on our second year of working together, we find ourselves at a crossroads. On one hand, data collected over two years provides student insight into the comfort of the classroom, the closeness with their teachers, the positive role of art and feeling prepared for their futures. On the other hand, while working in a school that has an established record of success, we believe it has been difficult to apply a new model of teaching within the realities of the existing structure. First and foremost, we want to convey how the experience of working with such a wonderful team of people has helped each of us grow as people and as professionals. We also want to avoid being negative or pessimistic when expressing our sadness in knowing that Sophomore Team is not an option for next year. Therefore, while we certainly want to reflect upon and share all of the wonderful events and findings discovered during our experience in working in Sophomore Team, we also believe it is important that we reflect on the pitfalls of this experience as well.

After completing our two years of action research, we realized that we were organized, determined, motivated teachers who find follow-through and commitment to students and colleagues to be critical to the success of our team. We also found ourselves to be somewhat flexible in that we were willing to create new curriculum to align with curriculum of one another (we worked to align our curricula within the boundaries of the current curriculum of World History Since 1500 and Sophomore English.) For example, Julius Caesar was taught in conjunction with the Renaissance period. Lord of the Flies was taught in conjunction with the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. Maus I and Maus II were taught in conjunction with the Holocaust; and Master Harold and the Boys and Six Feet of the Country were taught in conjunction with a study of the human rights violations in South Africa. An art project coincided with each of these four units of study. An analysis of the student surveys/interviews informed us that the students’ favorite aspects of WEB/Sophomore Team included: the benefits that go along with 3 or 4 teachers communicating about students and curriculum; they felt their stress levels were decreased, and they liked that content was combined across subject area. Some specific examples include: "I love how the classes are integrated and we learn more about art. Art is something I love and everything seems to be easier. I can understand more in this class." … "How all the classes are together and there is one final. We don’t do what normal classes do." … I like the integration and connections between world history, art and English because they help me learn more easily." With the teachers working together to integrate curriculum students realized the benefits of collaboration.

We realized that we are committed to a high level of academic standards as well as process and skill achievement; we wanted our students prepared not only for next year, but for later in life as well. The videotaped interviews supported this when many students from both the 01-02 and 02-03 school years said, "I feel prepared for next year in English and social studies." Furthermore, another student commented on how she felt as though there was less busywork and that she was getting a deeper understanding for the material and it made her more aware of world issues. Finally, another student said, "the teachers prepared me for life… I grew up a lot last year, I am more assertive now and I participate more now." We walked away from viewing the interviews and reading the surveys, confident we had achieved our goal.

Our many interactions with students in and outside the classroom helped us realize that our students trusted us and understood our commitment to them. Student opinions as voiced in the interviews helped prove our hypothesis to be true. For example, some comments included, "I was close with the teachers, they were helpful,"…"they were optimistic and willing to work with others and we all learned to tolerate one another’s opinions,"…"it was a friendly environment and the teachers understand us," and finally, " the teachers were very accessible to meet with outside of class." Three students in particular, made comments about how vastly different they are as people and as students as a result of being a part of WEB. One said, "you’ve ruined me because no class will ever be as great as this one." Another said that he did not know he could make friends in a class until he was part of WEB. Finally the third student, who rarely came to school her freshmen year, had excellent attendance in WEB sophomore year. The students also commented on the community they had amongst themselves in the classroom. One stated, "it was a relaxed atmosphere with students pushing each other." Another student, when asked if it was a positive environment, responded, "Yes, it feels like an educational get together." Our belief that a smaller classroom environment is beneficial was supported by most of the students’ actions and interview feedback.

One example that we will discuss further is our Holocaust unit. During this unit, the students and teachers were completely engrossed with Holocaust studies for approximately four weeks. In these four weeks the students learned more about the history of the Holocaust through "traditional" instruction (discussions, lectures, readings, movies, an analytic essay, etc.); they read Maus by Art Spiegleman and led student-teach days based on the book; they created a sculpture to recognize and remember Holocaust survivors and victims; and finally, they were able to bring closure to this unit on Holocaust Remembrance Day. This unit represents a model of teaching and learning that we believe to be ideal. The students were not able to draw distinct lines between history, English and art. The students clearly agreed that art was a critical way to enhance their learning. For example, one student commented on how much he liked art and wanted to continue with it in future years because of this class. Many students listed art as one of their favorite aspects of this course. They did not feel as though they had to stop and start when the bells rang, but rather they could genuinely and naturally apply all of the Learning for Life Abilities to their experience, and in turn, apply learning about the Holocaust to their daily life. The overall conclusion that we can draw about teaching in Sophomore Team is that it is a successful teaching and learning model.

While there were many wonderful aspects form this experience, we realized their least favorite aspect was the check grading system. In reading the surveys students who appeared negative throughout the survey can be tracked as students who felt frustrated by not getting "A’s" because of what he or she felt was a result of the check system. This leads us to believe that we need to consider the grading system again, but independently from our research about integrated curriculum. If we were to continue as an action research team this might be the area of our inquiry. And finally, as a result of working closely together we have learned from one another about ways to interact with students, grading possibilities, teaching strategies, and the workings of other departments.

PART D: An Action Plan: Where do you want to go from here? What are you going to do as a result of what you’ve learned from this year’s experience? What do you need in order to make this plan successful for next year?

At the end of our first year together, the three of us met over the summer and re-worked our curricula based on a better understanding of our students. We added a research unit at the start of the year so as to provide skill building for later units. We also added the writer’s sketchbook with quarter writing/art assignments, 3^rd and 4^th quarter art projects, and the bimonthly newsletter as a way to communicate with parents and administrators. We felt our first of year of working as an action research team was beneficial and wanted to continue the following year so that we would have additional research and collaboration time. Scottie and Stephanie conducted a summer Learning for Life Abilities workshop, using their experience with Sophomore Team as a basis for the workshop. We were positive and excited to start the new year, but felt that a supportive administrative staff was critical to our future success.

As a final result of our action research, we have many questions, but we believe that one question is most dominant: what can an educator do when the initial findings of a new model of instruction prove to be successful, but they butt up against the realities of an existing system? In other words, while Sophomore Team seems to be successful, based upon evidence from parents, students and teachers who have been affected by Sophomore Team, why is there not a section of Sophomore Team at Highland Park High School in the 2003 – 2004 school year? Some of the realities to which we are referring:

Although many questions come from the successes and failures of Sophomore Team, our research about Sophomore Team will be on an indefinite hiatus. Yet, because we believe in action research to improve our own practice, we are certain we will each find a new question to pursue in the years that follow.

We believe that Sophomore Team was a natural outgrowth of District 113 guiding principles. We also believe that while it will not exist next year, many of the most important ideas and findings are present in other areas of the building. As the school continues to look at the freshmen year and alternative schedules, we believe that Sophomore Team is a good place for people to look for successful practice.