'What's the Plan Stan?' Does working in 4s result in an increase in topic knowledge?

School: Houghton Valley School
Year Level: 1
Teacher: Adele Murray
Focus area: Participating and Contributing (in co-operative groups)
Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can students be supported to participate and contribute through the use of small group work?
Question 2. Engagement: What impact does the use of small group work have on student’s engagement during topic lessons?
Question 3. Knowledge: What impact does working in groups of 4 have on their topic knowledge?

Success Criteria for Knowledge
Expert: I can carry out a good/bad chart in relation to our response to the junior school ‘Disaster Day’.
Practitioner: I can discuss how to prepare for the natural disasters that could affect me in Houghton Valley/Wellington.
Apprentice: I can discuss natural disasters and how they can affect me in Houghton Valley.

Novice: I can discuss natural disasters that could occur in New Zealand.

Question 4. Competency: What impact does working in groups of 4 have on their ability to participate and contribute.

Success Criteria for Competency
Expert: I can identify the good and bad points of working in a group of 4, and what I need to do better next time.
Practitioner: I can describe how I could participate and contribute equally in a similar task.
Apprentice: I can state how I participated equally in a group task. Novice: I can partially contribute to a group task.

Learning Story:
At the beginning of the year I had noticed the poor interpersonal skills of my new class. They were reluctant to work with each other in pairs and therefore my random buddy system was being protested against. I kept up with it, slightly rigging the ‘randomness’ of the buddies and eventually we had a class culture of an expectation where everyone will work with everybody.
At the beginning of term 3, I had 6 new students move up from the NE class. They quickly fitted in with our routines, expectations and our class culture. I decided that it was time to put as much effort into the teaching of group work skills as I had into our paired work. Up until then we had done some group work activities, but I hadn’t specifically tought them how to work successfully in a small group.
So I began term 4 by assessing their group work skills, and their knowledge of natural disasters. I started teaching some of the small group skills out of the Socially Speaking Programme, provided by our RTLB. We then began working through the “What’s the Plan Stan?” civil defense unit, gradually building up our knowledge of natural disasters. Next, we applied our new knowledge by doing several small group activities, such as venn diagrams and cause and effect charts. I collected data on their engagement levels.

Children working in their co-operative groups, making a chart about the effects of natural disasters.

By week 8 we were ready for our junior school 'Disaster Day'. This involved 4 classrooms being told that a magnitude 7.4 earthquake and just struck and we were going to be stuck in our classrooms for at least 2 days! We worked through different scenarios and tried to apply our new knowledge. The next week, I did the unit post test, which was the same as the pre test, with a good/bad chart on the back. I also asked them whether they preferred to work in pairs or 4s.

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement: SCALE: 1 = never, 2 = not very often, 3 = about half the time, 4 = often, 5 = always
Mean level of engagement of students ...
Offered ideas - 3.7
Asked questions - 3.8
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 4.6
Used positive body language related to task - 4.4
Persevered in order to enact related task - 3.9
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 3.7
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 3.8
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.6
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 3.9

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 4.2

Outcome 2. Knowledge: Number of students who were ...
8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7. Beginning experts - at start 0; at end 7
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 2
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 1; at end 3
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 2
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 1; at end 1
2. Proficient novices - at start 6; at end 1
1. Beginning novices - at start 13; at end 0

Knowledge effect size = 1.3

Outcome 3. Competency: Number of students who were ... 8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 1
7. Beginning experts - at start 0; at end 7
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 1
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end 2
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 3
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 8; at end 3
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 2
1. Beginning novices - at start 13; at end 2

Competency effect size = 1.5


Conclusions: PMI

Plus:

• Children loved the 'disasters topic' and it coincided with national/international events.


• The 'Teaching Social Skills' programme was very good, and I will start 2010 by using it again.


• Children were very engaged during activities.


• I choose the cooperative group make up well, and they were very sucessful.


• The increase in knowledge was pleasing.


• The childrens' self assessment of their participation levels was very accurate, I was surprised but pleased. We had done some of these before and I think this helped. We also have, as part of our class culture the belief that being wrong is ok as it gives us something to strive for.


• My 3 new children, whilst not included in this data, improved in both knowledge and competency.


• I learnt a lot about teaching co-operative group skills, and good ways to use different co-operative activities in topic teaching.
  
  
  
  

Minus

• I did the post test too late. Some children seemed to have forgotten important information.
  
• I did an example of a 'good/bad' chart just before the post test, but doing some more beforehand would have been good.
  
• I didn't refer to the website enough. I realised too late certain things that needed doing. I will however know better when guiding the next teachers!
  

Interesting

• Although the poutama seemed linear, some children, at the end of the unit, could do the practitioner level but not the apprentice level. I had to use my own judgement as to where to score them.
  
• Exactly half of the students preferred group work to paired work. They were able to give me good reasons as to why, and also the good/bad points about working in pairs and groups.
  

School: St Francis de Sales School

Year Level: Middle Syndicate

Teachers: Jacinta, Nik, Marilyn, Lisa

Focus area: Managaing Self in Literacy (Writing)

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: Are students' learning outcomes in writing enhanced through using a rubric?

Question 2. Engagement: Do students use the rubric to assist their learning?

Question 3. Competency: Did the students use the rubrics effectively to increase their learning outcomes?

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert:

8. Proficient: Be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses when using a rubric, self reflect on this knowledge and use it to improve their own learning outcomes by setting their own goals andexpressing to others how this was determined and transferring skills to help others.

7. Beginning: Be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses when using a rubric, self reflect on this knowledge and use it to improve their own learning outcomes by setting their own goals.

Practitioner:

6. Proficient: Demonstrate the knowledge and the ability to use a rubric as a self assessment tool and to identify their next learning step.

5. Beginning: Is able to tell others of their positioning on the rubric identifying features to self assess against.

Apprentice:

4. Proficient: Has the knowledge and the ability to use the rubric as a self assessment tool and can identify their next step.

3. Beginning: Able to use rubric and can identify their next learning step.

Novice:

2. Proficient: Knows the rubric represents their level of skill and knowledge in writing and is used to set their next step in learning goals.

1. Beginning: Knows what the rubric is and attempts to use it to reflect on their goals.

Learning Story:

We got together and decided that the area of focus which we wanted to explore was the effect of using rubrics in literacy (writing).

We had previously written the asTTle assessment criteria (for descriptive writing) into rubrics to link with our self-regulated/self-management goal. Our intention was to use the rubrics with the students so that together we could identify where they were meeting literacy functions in writing and what area they needed to focus on. We conferenced with the students to identify their next learning step and shared this in three-way conferences. Through these conferences, we recognised that the rubric (information transferred from asTTle rubrics) were in 'teacher language' and therefore, the students had no control (lanugague barriers).

For our action research, we decided that it was necessary to further develop the rubrics based on these learning steps to make them more child-friendly.

Steps to Implementation:

1. Mid Syndicate Teachers refined existing rubric into ‘child-friendly’ language. This was a very difficult and lengthy process as teachers working at Level 2 needed to juggle between NZ Curriculum Writing Exemplars at Level 1iii and align to asTTle Level 2. There was also the difficulty of simplifying technical terms into 'child speak'.

2. Students' writing samples were gathered using a test topic created on asTTle with the focus being on 'description', (gathered wk 9 Term 2 so that we had data to became conferences straight back into the term).

3. Wk 1, Term 3 - Shared rubric with students using the suggested strategies we developed together:

□ Model by deconstructing exemplar against the rubric
□ Buddy read, deconstruct rubric together, come back with questions
□ Question students as to how they could use this rubric, where and when could it help with their learning etc.

3. Process of Implementation:

a. Using term 1 writing sample - revisit goal from Term 1

b. Students were given back writing sample – asked to self-assess against rubric

c. Teachers conferenced with individual children to analyse writing sample identifying positioning on rubric. This lead to co-construction of new goal by assessing writing sample together.

d. Every child has a copy of their own goal to readily access and implement.

In Reflection: Positives, Minuses, and Suggestions after Implementation:

Working with the Rubric:

Positives:

1. Students can see areas of ability/strengths/weaknesses

2. Tool for motivation

3. Most can identify next step easily

Negatives:

1. Some langauge barriers still/ambiguous areas

2. Time factor involved (3 weeks of guided writing instructional time dedicated to conferencing)

3. Steps between levels were unclear in some areas

4. Doesn't allow instructional writing to be taught - unable to feed-forward, feed-back

Suggestions:

1. Revisit some areas

2. Concentrate/focus on one writing function

3. Feedback on specific goal only

Conferencing with student:

Positivies:

1. Valuable 1:1 time

2. Able to identify child's abilities, informed to find next step

3. Creates class discussion = all students are involved

Minus:

1. Time factor involved

Suggestions:

1. Working together in groups with students who have the same goal and asking them to self/peer assess

Reporting: (writing up feedback)

Positives:
1. Many falling in same area - ability to transpose comments

2. Written feedback valuable to students and parents informed

Minus:
1. Time consuming
2. Editing - who??

Suggestions:

1. offer opportunity for parents to comment

2. Rubric to be sent home also, then child could share learning pathways with parents (all informed of criteria)

3. Release time should be given for added work-load

4. Standard formatting form should be developed to be used school wide (standardised)

INDIVIDUAL CLASS FEEDBACK:

Room 2:

In our Year 5/6 class, the students overall comments were positive.

Positives: (high rating overall)

'I learn faster and I like it" Yr 5 student

'Helps me to have a writing goal and shows me where I'm on the scale' Yr 6 student

'To make us better and to understand where we have to learn and achieve" Yr 6 student

"It helps us to see where you need to achieve and what we are good at" Yr 5 student

Minus: (4 comments in total)

'It goes too fast and is complicating sometimes" Yr 5 student

"So much information about what we need to work on" Yr 5 student

Suggestions:

"We could do it with someone with the same score"

"Could compare it with people and get some tips or learn how or what you can do"

Rm 3: Overall, there was a general feeling that students understood the purpose of using the rubric and still needed more guidance as to how to use it for managing their learning pathway.

Comments

"I found it cool. I never knew what I had to learn but now I have something that can direct me."

"I know now that I have different areas to work on."

"I can still see that I have areas to improve."

"I can see what I have to work on."

"I think it good. I can see what I need to include in my writing."

Room 1:
At first the students were nervous about using the rubrics to identify the strengths and weaknesses within their writing. Once it was explained to them most were able to use the rubric successfully, but some needed support to understand the format and the language used. It was used to identify the student's next learning step for their writing.

Comments.

"It allowed me to see what I could do (success criteria)."

"I showed me what to do next."

"I needed help to understand what it was."

Room 4

Some students said that they enjoyed highlighting where they were up to on the writing Rubric and others found this challenging. The students could clearly see their next learning steps in writing but commented that there were so many. Some were overcome with the amount of language that they had to process in order to complete the Rubric task. All students managed to self-assess using the Rubric either independently or with support. The students need to have easy access to these Rubrics and interaction with these regularly to become more familar with the process.

Outcome 1. Room 2 Engagement only: Do students use the rubric? (see above comments)

Room 2: SCALE: 1 = never, 2 = not very often, 3 = about half the time, 4 = often, 5 = always

Mean level of engagement of students ... Offered ideas - [3.0]
Asked questions - [3.2]
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - [4.3]
Used positive body language related to task - [4.2]
Persevered in order to enact related task - [4.1]
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - [3.5]
Showed interest in directing their own learning - [3.0]
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - [1.3]
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - [3.8]

Overall mean level of engagement of students = [3.8]

Outcome 2. Knowledge:
Number of students who were ..
8. Proficient experts - at start [#]; at end [#]
7. Beginning experts - at start [#]; at end [#]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start [#]; at end [#]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [#]; at end [#]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [#]; at end [#]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [#]; at end [#]
2. Proficient novices - at start [#]; at end [#]
1. Beginning novices - at start [#]; at end [
Knowledge effect size =

Standard error =

Outcome 3. Competency: Did the students use the rubric effectively to increase their learning outcomes?
Number of students who were:
8. Proficient experts - at start [0]; at end [0]
7. Beginning experts - at start [0]; at end [0]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start [0]; at end [0]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [0]; at end [2]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [0]; at end [3]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [0]; at end [16]
2. Proficient novices - at start [0]; at end [9]
1. Beginning novices - at start [31]; at end [0]

Competency effect size = 1.24

Standard error = 0.09

Conclusions:
Much of our conclusions can be drawn from the reflective comments above. We have come to the conclusion that the rubric is an essential tool which we will embed into our teaching and learning practice.

Without the rubric, students do not have personal access to their learning path. There are far more advantages to learning than disadvantages (as evident in data gathered).

Next Steps: we will implement our writing rubric into every text form explored - which means writing each asTTle text form rubric into child speak to provide our students with an essential tool for identifying their next steps leading to managing self in learning.







[outline conclusions to be drawn from the research here]

School:St Francis de Sales

Year Level: 7/8

Teacher: Louise & Denise
Focus area: Managing Self
Research Questions
Question 1. Implementation: How do you implement a senior webquest?
(A webquest is a research tool which has relevant links to safe sites to assist children in their search for information.)
Question 2. Engagement: Does a webquest provide all students with motivation to focus on their inquiry.
Question 3. Knowledge: To develop an understanding of the impact NZ natural disasters have had on people, communities and landscapes.
Success Criteria for Knowledge
Expert: Can independently use their knowledge to plan, create and generate a new learning experience .

Practitioner: Is aware of a range of NZ Disasters and
uses this knowledge in another context .

Apprentice: Can explain to others the effect a disaster has had on people, communities or landscapes.
Novice: Retrieves and reports information orally
Question 4. Competency: To be able to navigate a webquest effectively in order to interpret and present research results
Success Criteria for Competency
Expert:
Can independently create and explain their own webquest
Practitioner:
Uses knowledge of webquest navigating in another context
Apprentice: With support can complete a webquest task
Novice: Select relevant links for research
Learning Story:

Implementation:
We were interested in exploring options that would promote further learning for our senior students when using class sets of laptops, ICT and on line search engines.We decided to design a web quest that which would challenge the way our students usually researched i.e. not to rely on one site such as 'Wikipedia' or on one search engine such as 'Google.’ We were hoping that it would not only provide them with the most informative and direct links to a site but would give them the opportunity to contribute and understand what a web quest was.











Web quest Design:
Our web quest was designed using previous experience. We also sourced materials from the National Library, Christchurch City Libraries and Civil Defence New Zealand. It was important to us that our students had ownership of this web quest so we designed it in such a way that our students could participate and contribute to its effectiveness by adding their own success criteria and choosing their next learning step.

Teaching and Learning:
Children assessed themselves against a knowledge and competency rubric before beginning the web quest. They were then exposed to a variety of texts, video clips and speakers about NZ disasters to provide them with some base knowledge of NZ disasters. This gave them the ability to understand the impact that disasters have on communities and environments.

We then introduced the actual web quest learning and research tool which had been designed using power point. Teachers modelled to students how to navigate their way through the web quest by demonstrating some of the direct links. Other links were left unexplored which gave the students the opportunity to discover what they held without teacher modelling.

The students contributed their own thoughts on what they felt successful measures would be as a final result of their research, investigation and presentation and developed their own success criteria. This success criteria was integrated into the actual web quest design and students were made aware of how important it was to refer back to this during their research. Next, students were given the opportunity to explore and discuss the web quest before beginning their actual disaster inquiry.

Children developed their disaster reports using the links provided in the web quest and any additional resources they located themselves. These were presented to parents and the school community at the conclusion of the investigation.

Students then assessed themselves against the success criteria they had developed in the web quest. This assessment included self, peer, group and teacher feedback. Everyone was required to give specific feedback according to this success criteria and then students reflected on the feedback they had received.

We took this a step further and encouraged students to discuss with a buddy an area that they wanted to improve in their competency when working with a web quest and an area they would like to focus on when writing a report. Together they recorded how they thought they might achieve this.

Finally, students were given time to reflect on their feedback and re assess themselves against their own rubric.

Student Reflection:
We gave all students the opportunity to reflect on the pros and cons of their experiences when using a web quest. We were pleased with the feedback from our students and felt they had enjoyed this learning experience.
· “All the information is ready for you to stop you from using irrelevant info. Good visuals! Didn’t have to spend days researching.”
· “Some of the websites had all of NZ’s disasters and it was faster and easier to source information.”
· “It helped me to see what I had to do for my project.”
· “It helped because it had sites that I could use that gave really good information quicker, faster and had success criteria that we could follow.”

Student engagement:
We found the use of a web quest beneficial and highly motivational for all students. This was reflected not only in the student comments (see above), but in the positive body language that was evident throughout the investigative activity.

We felt there were very high levels of enthusiasm, interest and engagement. It is also clear that knowledge and competency increased considerably as a direct of the students’ engagement with the web quest.


Data Analyses:


Results:
Outcome 1. Engagement:
SCALE: 1 = never, 2 = not very often, 3 = about half the time, 4 = often, 5 = always
Mean level of engagement of students ...
Class One
Offered ideas - 3.4
Asked questions - 2.6
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 4.0
Used positive body language related to task - 4.8
Persevered in order to enact related task - 4.1
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time -
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 3.3
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.4
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 4.

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.8

Class two

Offered ideas - 3.3
Asked questions - 3.3
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 3.1
Used positive body language related to task - 3.1
Persevered in order to enact related task - 4.0
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 3.6
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 3.9
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.8
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 3.1

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.5

Outcome 2. Knowledge: N/A

Outcome 3. Competency:

Number of students who were ...
Class One:

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7. Beginning experts - at start 0; at end 0
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 2
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end 21
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 4
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 0; at end 1
2. Proficient novices - at start 1; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 27; at end 0

Competency effect size = 1.85
Standard error = 0.09

Class Two:

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7. Beginning experts - at start 0; at end 1
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 9
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end 17
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 2
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 3; at end 1
2. Proficient novices - at start 27; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Competency effect size = 1.57

Standard error = 0.07

Conclusions:
Our webquest proved to be a very effective learning tool for year 7 & 8 students. It is clear through the data that the competency of the students increased and engagement was high throughout the webquest. As a different way of challenging and motivating senior students we would definitely recommend giving this a go!

[outline conclusions to be drawn from the research here]

Peer Conferences Improve Quality of Writing

School: South Wellington Intermediate

Year Level: 7-8

Teachers: Kathryn Smith and Christine Sangster

Focus area: Student awareness of, and ability to use, key learning tools for their achievement level (e.g. organisational tools, process tools, thinking tools, learning habits, technology, presentation tools, etc)

Research Questions:

Implementation: How can we implement a successful writing programme, within our classrooms?

Engagement: How can we help students sustain motivation for writing throughout the process?

Knowledge: How can we increase student knowledge of how to assist their peers in the writing process?

Competency: How can we implement student driven assessment processes within the writing process?

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: Extensive knowledge of text type, conventions & language features; Tailors writing to specific audience and purpose
Practitioner: Sound knowledge of text type, conventions & language features; understands importance of audience & purpose and writes accordingly
Apprentice: Developing some knowledge of text type, conventions & language features; Developing some understanding of audience & purpose
Novice: Limited knowledge of text type, conventions & language features; Writes with limited understanding of audience or purpose

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: Uses the pair share model as a basis for their own in depth questioning; Can suggest own ideas for improvement
Practitioner: Independently run a pair share interview; Negotiates suggestions for improvement
Apprentice: Can explain how the pair share interview should take place; Can utilise suggestions for improvement
Novice: Can follow written instructions for pair share interview; Does what they are told.

Learning Story:

Our school professional development focus is literacy, with a focus on writing, so we sought a research topic that would support our learning in this area. We were keen to test the idea that students could work cooperatively with each other to apply their knowledge of success criteria in writing, and consequently improve the quality of their work, without the direct involvement of the teacher.

For our students to achieve success we realised that we not only needed to teach them what a good piece of writing looked like (in this case a personal recount) but we also needed to help them develop the interpersonal skills necessary to give and receive critical feedback. While we would be teaching our whole class to write a personal recount, we planned to work intensively with a small group of able students on developing the skills to provide a high level of peer support.
The actual implementation of our plan varied between the two rooms involved:

Room 12 – As there are a number of able students in this class, I selected 7 of the better writers to work with on this project, on the premise that once these students had been trained, they could then work on training other students in the class, providing a “trickle-down” effect and eventually having the whole class able to use this skill.

To get the selected group started, I drew up a PMI format (Plus/Minus/Improvement) for them to work with. This format was chosen because it was simple to explain and a positive form of feedback for the students. (Plus = the good things about the writing; Minus = the not-so-good things; Improvement = the things they could do to improve their writing the next time.) I then selected a piece of writing from a past student for them to read and critique, using the format to provide feedback. This was interesting as the writing was of a reasonably high quality, and the students had to think beyond their initial response of looking at surface features in order to be able to provide feedback. We discussed the writing and the comments from the students, including the difference between specific and generalized comments.

After teaching the personal recount format to the whole class, all students then wrote about an exciting event in their own lives. The group I was working with then swapped their recounts and used the PMI sheets to provide feedback about their buddy’s writing. They then met with their buddy to go through and elaborate on their suggestions/comments, and the PMI sheets were then stuck into their draft writing books for referral when we revisit the format in Term 2. Most of the feedback focused on surface features (punctuation, spelling, paragraphs…), as this seems to be the easiest aspect for students to provide feedback to others. I plan to work in more depth with them on how to focus on deeper features in their analysis of writing, using a simplified version of the relevant AsTTle indicators to help them, before getting them to start training the rest of the class.

Room 9 – I also chose to work with the most able writers in the class. After an initial session with the whole class discussing the features of a recount and the success criteria I met with the group. We discussed the importance of being positive, the need to give specific feedback and to offer suggestions. I reminded the group of the benefits of working with others and sharing our writing (we had previously talked about this in our poetry unit). We also talked about ownership. If students didn’t agree with their buddy, they were not expected to follow their advice or use their suggestions. The success criteria was on display and I had emphasized the opening hook as the one thing that I wanted the class to work on in this recount. Our model conference, therefore, focused on the opening hook. One student volunteered to be my ‘buddy’ and we modeled a peer conference to the group. The focus of this first peer conference was the recount introduction.

The conference….

1. Identify something that is good or that you like about the writing and be specific about why it is good. ”I really like the way you have used the word…… it makes me think/feel….”
   
2. Identify something that needs to be worked on. Words to be added, taken away or changed. “I think you need to use a more interesting word instead of nice, because nice…..”
   
3. Offer a suggestion or give an example of how to improve the phrase/sentence. “You could try using lovely instead of nice.”

Students then paired up and discussed their introductions.

The next time the group met we revised the purpose of peer conferences and how to give feedback. In this session students were focusing on paragraph organisation, and specifically looking for topic sentences. I gave the students ‘Post-It’ notes in the shape of hearts & stars to record their feedback comments for “What I really loved” & “I think this is stellar”, and square ‘Post-It notes for feedback comments about things to be improved. The students seemed to enjoy the ‘Post-It’ gimmick.

By this stage students were at different places with their recounts and were encouraged to have a peer conference when they needed them. Most of the group did this and so did some of the other students in the class.

The next step for peer conferences in room 9 is to provide students with scripts & guidelines for conducting peer conferences and organizers for them to record feedback on, as per our original research plan.

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement:

SCALE: 1 = never, 2 = not very often, 3 = about half the time, 4 = often, 5 = always

Mean level of engagement of students ...

Offered ideas – 3.6
Asked questions – 3.6
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully – 4.6
Used positive body language related to task – 3.4
Persevered in order to enact related task – 4.2
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time – 2.7
Showed interest in directing their own learning – 4.0
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning – 1.6
Show evidence of using what they have learnt – 1.3

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.8

Outcome 2. Knowledge:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7. Beginning experts - at start 2; at end 2
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 7
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 5; at end 3
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 6; at end 5
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 5; at end 0
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 1
1. Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Knowledge effect size = 0.42
Standard error = 0.12

Outcome 3. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7.Beginning experts - at start 0; at end 0
6.Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 1
5.Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end 9
4.Proficient apprentices - at start 5; at end 7
3.Beginning apprentices - at start 12; at end 0
2.Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 0
1.Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Competency effect size = 0.64
Standard error = 0.08

Conclusions:

Students increased their competency in conducting a peer conference. Most of their initial low competence is because they have had only limited opportunities to work in this way before. Some students had acted as peer tutors in the past, and were able to make links between their role as a tutor and their role in a peer conference.

At first students sought to discuss the surface features of the text. They had to be explicitly instructed to focus on the deeper features of text listed in the success criteria. It is difficult to establish how much competence increased as our judgements are dependent upon what students wrote. We expect that they gave better feedback verbally (than they recorded), but as we did not formally observe peer conferences to be sure.

The quality of student writing shows clear improvement when comparing first and second writing samples. Some of this increase may be due to the assistance recieved from peers, but we cannot attribute all improvement to the peer conference. It is likely that the teacher's directions to focus on the success criteria has helped students to improve their writing and that this alone would have led to improvements also. When the benefits of peer conferences were discussed with the Room 9 students, most were very positive and stated that the discussion helped them to write better. Others, however, did not find the peer conference useful. Of course there are likely to be a variety of explanations for this.

The Research Toolbelt

The actual Research Toolbelt being worn by an Expert

School: Berhampore

Year Level: 5-8

Teacher: Richard Goodyear (with help from Carly St. Laurent)

Focus areas:

Authentic Learning:
Student ability to prepare learning intentions for a programme of work

Managing Self:
Student understanding of what it means to be part of a learning community.
Student awareness of and ability to use key learning tools for their achievement level (e.g. organisational tools, process tools, thinking tools, learning habits, technology, presentation tools, etc)

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can students be supported to develop their ability to seek and present new information?

Question 2. Engagement: What impact can we have on student engagement using the symbol of a "Research Toolbelt"

Question 3. Competency: What impact does using the symbol of a "Research Toolbelt" have on student ability to seek and present information?

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert:

Can use all parts of the Research Toolbelt in their own research
Can work with others, including adults, to help them develop their toolbelt abilities
Be actively upskilling beyond the toolbelt in order to seek and present information in new ways e.g. learn interview skills
Is open to new ways of using the research tools

Practitioner:

Can use all parts of the Research Toolbelt in their own research
Confidently applies the tools
Demonstrate that they place importance on getting further guidance in the use of the Research Toolbelt

Apprentice:

Can describe what is in the Research Toolbelt
Knows where to go and who to go to, to increase their competency
Is confident in around half the research tools and is using them to seek and present information

Novice:

Is busy applying themselves to one or two of the research tools in order to seek/present information
Sees their next learning steps and is comfortable seeking guidance
Is using their current research tools to seek and present information

Learning Story

First some background...

This project is about children deciding what they learn, as they work on self-chosen, interest-based projects.

Why?

1) Amongst many valuable statements, Berhampore School's vision statement and Inquiry Learning model speaks of "children engaged in, and contributing to the learning process", and "children immersed in an environment of rich information".

2) SWELL has developed some priorities for the children of South Wellington. Two of the three areas of greatest developmental need are focused on children helping decide what they learn.

3) I work in a Montessori classroom. The Montessori approach is based on some key principles about children's learning. Some of those principles involve viewing the primary aged child (particularly ages 6-12) as in a stage of great intellectual growth. It is a time for logic and imagination and for using these tendencies to explore their world through its geology, history, biology etc.

There are around 70 children being educated through the Montessori method at Berhampore School and there are certain conditions we provide.

Independent Work (individual and small group)

Timelines e.g. the timeline of art, the timeline of humans using maths, the timeline of life on Earth

Kids working on their own interests (within limits!)

Specialized equipment

Freedom of movement

Anyway...

As a teacher embarking on some Action Research I looked at my class and reflected on what they needed as they go about these "self-chosen, interest-based research projects".

I realized that although the children in my class have many and varied interests, and they know they can follow them, sometimes there are hitches. In a nutshell, sometimes these interests get followed for a brief exciting moment and then fall flat.

I settled upon an approach:

1) Guiding children to set a shared purpose and learning intentions for a phase of work.

2) Facilitating lessons including peer teaching.

3) Creating an environment where practice is allowed at the child's own pace.

So we came together as a class and had three key class meetings over a week. I posed them a couple of questions at each meeting and the meetings ran as a Think-Pair-Share.

Here are the questions and a summary of the responses:

Session One:

What is research? What is it for?

Responses: Its useful, helps you get a job, know stuff, find new information, its about discovery and exploration.

Ok so far so good...

Session Two:

Can research be fun? When? How?

Resposes: Yes it can be fun. It can be fun when:

We use it to arrange fun things eg camp; share with people funny and interesting stuff and they like it (either casually or in a presentation); use it to explore amazing places and ideas; it is jaw-dropping and eye-popping; we find we have an urge or instinct for discovery; when we can say we have it is a job well done; it inspires us.

At this point I breathed a sigh of relief as the Action Research clearly had an authentic purpose.

I talked to them about the "wow" moment and they agreed it is both possible and worth aiming for.

Session Three:

Are there barriers in our classroom to the "wow" moment? What are they? What do we need to do as a class to lower these barriers?

They listed some problems they have in this kind of work. We prioritised a handful and turned them around into learning opportunities. They agreed they would need some new lessons and plenty of practice!

Here are the priorities our class identified:

Using the internet, using Microsoft Word, making it so our stuff doesn't get stuck on one computer, typing skills, getting information off a page without just copying it and general reading skills.

Next came some teacher reflection and some things to be organized e.g. loading Mavis Beacon on to all the computers (not as easy as it sounds!)

I thought about the discussions, and it seemed that what the kids needed was a toolkit. A research toolkit. No wait, a Research Toolbelt. This toolbelt could be symbolic but could contain all the basic research tools. It could run alongside things like graphic organizers and rich questioning techniques. It could be a symbol in our class. It could provide the kids with an easy and ongoing self-check of their current abilities in research and their next learning steps.

So what's in the Research Toolbelt?

1) Networked computers

2) A memory stick

3) Microsoft Word

4) Touch typing

5) Notetaking skills

6) Favourites folders on Safari (our internet browser)

7) Keywords to unlock information

8) Google skills

9) General reading skills

At this point we took the student pre-survey. The kids rated themselves on each of the tools in the toolbelt on a scale from 1-8. This was to fit into the SWELL poutama model.

I introduced the Research Toolbelt itself to the kids, they responded well and so we set to work upskilling everybody in its use.

That meant lots of timetabled lessons, some mandatory, some voluntary. It was also a time for plenty of practice.

Towards the end of the project we talked to the children about the idea of a directory of skills. We looked through the Yellow Pages and agreed that a small version could work in our classroom. Kids could advertise themselves in the directory. For instance they may be skilled in Microsoft Word and offer to help people in this area.

At the end of the term we took a post student survey and as teachers we evaluated as many children as we could in their competency at using the toolbelt.

Results:
Outcome: Competency:

On a scale of 1-8 how am I progressing in the use of the Research Toolbelt?

(16 respondents)...

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start [0]; at end [1]
7. Beginning experts - at start [2]; at end [3]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start [3]; at end [7]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [5]; at end [3]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [4]; at end [1]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [1]; at end [0]
2. Proficient novices - at start [0]; at end [1]
1. Beginning novices - at start [1]; at end [0]

Competency effect size = 0.33
Standard error = 0.61

As judged by the two teachers involved in the project (28 kids evaluated) how are the children progressing in the use of the Research Toolbelt?

8. Proficient experts - at start [0]; at end [0]
7. Beginning experts - at start [0]; at end [3]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start [3]; at end [6]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [5]; at end [4]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [3]; at end [2]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [4]; at end [4]
2. Proficient novices - at start [6]; at end [4]
1. Beginning novices - at start [7]; at end [5]

Competency effect size = 0.43
Standard error = 0.06

Conclusions:

The effect sizes in this Action Research are small as would be expected in such a short timeframe. However they are in the right direction and it was clear to the teachers involved that trends are emerging.

The children had developed a clear awareness of both the toolbelt itself, and how it could help them, as they attempt to access and share information that is personally fascinating to them. They were generally keen on new lessons on the toolbelt and we will be carrying them on over the next term.

• The kids have taken very well to the touch typing computer program and most are now regular users.
• Many children now wander round with memory sticks hanging from their neck
• Despite the teachers being unable to network the computers thus far, two children worked out how to do it and are currently teaching the other children

Question 1. Implementation: How can students be supported to develop their ability to seek and present new information?

By having a reason to do the work they do, by learning new skills and having the chance for mastery.

Question 2. Engagement: What impact can we have on student engagement using the symbol of a "Research Toolbelt"

The impact appears to be significant. The symbol itself was one the children could identify with. It was simple and humorous. The research tools themselves were generated by the children themselves, thus they wanted to learn how to use them.

Question 3. Competency: What impact does using the of a "Research Toolbelt" have on student ability to seek and present information?

The impact appears to be significant here also. The children can see clear pathways for their learning and the research tools themselves are directly useful to the children.

Ongoing elements:

In all the business of the project, we didn't sit down as a class and reflect: are the barriers to fun research lowering? We will though.

We will continue to build the symbol of the research toolbelt and the student directory of skills. The aim now is to weave them into the fabric of the class such that kids see that there are certain skills that will help them find those "wow" moments, and that they can find many places to seek help to attain them. It seems that this is happening already, for instance in how many children now wander around with their own memory stick. The aim is to have a "research savvy" group of learners. We have also developed a fortnightly presentation slot for their projects where previously they were presented on more of an ad hoc basis.