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.

Co-operative Strategies - Better Learning?

School: Houghton Valley

Year Level: Y6

Teacher: Peter Holmstead

Focus area: Co-operative Strategies - Participating and Contributing



To investigate ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute including:
- Student inter and intrapersonal skills
- Student ability to work cooperatively in a group
- Student ability to act on the outcome of their learning

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: Is implementing a wide range of co-operative strategies most effective or should students gain mastery of one or two?

Question 2. Engagement: In which co-operative strategies are the students most engaged?

Question 3. Knowledge: Which co-operative strategies significantly increase knowledge?

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: Student can select, discuss, justify, create, predict and improve their knowledge of marine environments
Practitioner: Student can translate, classify, apply and explain knowledge gained when studying marine environments
Apprentice: Student can predict, compare or clarify information on marine environments
Novice: Student can recall, describe or list facts about the marine environment

Question 4. Competency: How able are students to select an appropriate co-operative strategy to apply to a task?

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: can offer improvements on each co-operative strategy and justify their thinking
Practitioner: can choose which of the co-operative strategies to use depending on the task, and use it effectively
Apprentice: can describe how each of the co-operative strategies is organised and performed
Novice: can name, and participate in, the co-operative strategies/structures

Learning Story:

General Background
This action research project was chosen so we could develop and study students’ skills when participating and contributing. In 2008 Houghton Valley School undertook a year-long professional development based around the use of co-operative strategies. We decided as a school to learn about and develop a range of co-operative strategies and structures to assist students in developing thinking skills and group abilities.

Although there were dozens of strategies and structures at our disposal, we decided at a teacher-only day in February to focus on a ‘Top 8’ strategies and structures for 2009. These were chosen, through discussion, to be the most effective for a range of uses throughout the curriculum.

These would then be used regularly with students of all year levels, so that in future years they would become a normal part of everyday learning with the school day.
I am most interested in how well the students can master a range of strategies and then use them successfully by applying them to other learning areas. Can a student recognise when one strategy is a better choice than another? Can a student recognise when a strategy is not suitable for an activity? Which strategies best engage the students? Do any of our ‘Top 8’ need changing?

Project Implementation
It was decided to run this project over three terms, using three of the ‘Top 8’ strategies each term. In this way the students would use each strategy a number of times in close succession. I would be comparing the competencies of these students with those in other parts of the school who are using all the strategies spread across the whole year.

The initial part of this research was implemented within an Experiencing Marine Reserves (EMR) topic. EMR is a programme developed and funded by DOC to promote knowledge of the marine environment by getting students snorkeling within their local area and then comparing it to an established marine reserve, in our case Kapiti Marine Reserve. The Term Two topic will be another Science unit based around space exploration and technology, and the final Term Three topic will have a school production context of Social Science and Technology.




The three co-operative strategies chosen for Term One were:

• The Donut – two rings of face-to-face students share knowledge then rotate and repeat
  
• PMI (Plus/Minus/Interesting) – Groups analyse a subject into three categories
  
• Venn Diagram – Groups compare and contrast the similarities and differences between two subjects

To gauge the students’ competency with these three strategies, I gave them each a pretest and analysed their answers, placing them into a spreadsheet which I will add to over the next two terms. Each term’s three strategies will have an accompanying pretest. I will assess their competency shortly after the end of each unit.

The initial competency pretest results from the EMR topic are in the following chart. 23 of the students are at the novice stage. They have some experience of some of the strategies as they were used by staff during the professional development in 2008. At the time this blog was posted, the post test had not been administered.

Throughout the term I provided opportunities to use each of the three strategies. As well as within the EMR topic, I used them in other curriculum areas such as writing and reading groups, news sharing, analysing school events, maths and sport.

Already it is apparent that the students can organize themselves quickly into a donut to discuss a subject or to share news. The PMI has wide-ranging uses and most students find the discussions worthwhile and engaging. They have begun suggesting that we use them in a range of contexts. The Venn diagram has the most limited uses, but there are times when a Venn is the best choice. For example, we used them to compare skills and rules between two ball games and it was interesting for the students to see how similar many games are.

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 - 3.1
Asked questions - 2.9
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 3.5
Used positive body language related to task - 3.5
Persevered in order to enact related task - 3.4
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 2.9
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 3.2
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.8
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 3.5

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.1

Outcome 2. Knowledge (EMR context):

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end [#]
7. Beginning experts - at start 0; at end [#]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end [2]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 1; at end [6]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 3; at end [12]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 4; at end [7]
2. Proficient novices - at start 13; at end [2]
1. Beginning novices - at start 10; at end [2]

Knowledge effect size = 0.82
Standard error = 0.06

Outcome 3. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end [#]
7. Beginning experts - at start 0; at end [1]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end [0]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end [7]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 3; at end [14]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 5; at end [6]
2. Proficient novices - at start 13; at end [1]
1. Beginning novices - at start 10; at end [1]

Competency effect size = 0.95
Standard error = 0.08

Conclusions:

This blog has been updated on May 17 with the above end data. It is clear that both the knowledge and competency of the students has increased considerably, going by the effect sizes of 0.86 and 0.95. The Term 2 competency pretest has been administered and shows that the students start with a greater understanding of the term's co-operative strategies than those of Term 1. I therefore expect the effect sizes to be smaller for Term 2. Once the knowledge pretest on Space has been administered, I will update this blog with the competency and knowledge data. Stay tuned!

Explicit Teaching of Inquiry

School: Brooklyn

Year Level: 7/8

Teacher: Liz Rhodes

Focus area: Authentic Learning-To investigate ways to improve student capability to implement authentic learning with the inquiry process as per the Brooklyn School curriculum.

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can we develop student knowledge and awareness of the inquiry process in the Brooklyn School Curriculum?

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged were they during this process? How engaged were the students during this inquiry?

Question 3. Competency: How well do the student’s apply the inquiry process?
Can the student’s describe the steps in the inquiry process as per the Brooklyn School curriculum?
Can the student’s use the steps in the inquiry process as per the Brooklyn School curriculum?
How effective was this approach in assisting students to develop the capability to use the inquiry process?

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: I can independently define the steps of the inquiry process, I know my strengths and weaknesses and I have a plan to work on my areas of weakness.
Practitioner: I can define the steps of the inquiry process and I can use each of these steps.
Apprentice: I can define the steps of the inquiry process and I can represent this to someone else.
Novice: I can define the steps of the inquiry process.

Learning Story:

1. The inquiry process is part of the authentic learning pillar of the Brooklyn School Curriculum. The inquiry cycle we use is based on the Information Process Learning Overview (ILPO) which includes 6 steps -Defining, Locating, Selecting and Analysing, Organising and Synthesising, Creating and Presenting through to Evaluating the work and planning for next steps.The first step of this action research process was to define the inquiry process at Brooklyn School as a continuum from year 1-8 based on ILPO. This entailed creating a resource for teachers/students to refer to. This resource would then be used for explicit teaching of the inquiry process.

2. The next step involved establishing a clear understanding of the inquiry process with staff involved in this project using the resources developed. (ongoing PD)

3. Baseline data was then gathered through individual conferencing with students of their understanding of the inquiry process. Students rated their understanding of each of the 6 steps of the inquiry process using the poutama.

4. I then collated the interview information. The questions I asked the students:
a). Can you tell me the steps of the inquiry process at Brooklyn School?
b). (Show the inquiry cycle) What happens at the defining stage, locating etc?
c). If descriptions of the inquiry process and the steps are accurate then ask them to describe how you would use the inquiry process to learn or to help you learn.

This photo represents the questioning process where the students are actively taking part in defining their focus for learning.

5. The Teachers directed an inquiry using the above resource to model each step. (Brooklyn School inquiry poster, the steps at each stage and then the overview of the expectations). During this research the children inquired into a topic however the process of the inquiry is the teaching focus. This will achieved through explicit teaching and modelling of the inquiry process and the expectations for year 7/8 children. Each class had a different inquiry focus.

Each part of the inquiry process was broken down with the students.

Collating the end product.

6. The interviews were repeated to measure student’s understanding of the inquiry process.
Questions for the students:
a). Can you tell me the steps of the inquiry process at Brooklyn School?
b). (Show the inquiry cycle) What happens at the defining stage, locating etc?
c). If descriptions of the inquiry process and the steps are accurate then ask them to describe how you would use the inquiry process to learn or to help you learn. It is important at this stage to point out that I could not rate a student as a 7 or 8 as an expert. This was because I didn't ask them what their strengths of weaknesses were. The class teachers did address this in class.

7. Collate interview information.

8. Compare before and after information- note changes and challenges.

9. Feedback results to staff and students. Areas of focus to be targeted in term 2.

Results:

Outcome 1. 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 [40]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [0]; at end [17]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [0]; at end [5]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [2]; at end [2]
2. Proficient novices - at start [6]; at end [2]
1. Beginning novices - at start [60]; at end [0]

Competency effect size = 2.05

Standard error = 0.14

Conclusions:

My research questions focussed on developing student's competence in applying the inquiry process. In the initial interview 60/68 students couldn't recall the inquiry process at Brooklyn School at all. The questions I asked were:

1. Can you tell me the steps of the inquiry process at Brooklyn School?
2. (Show the inquiry cycle) What happens at the defining stage, locating etc?
3. If descriptions of the inquiry process and the steps are accurate then ask them to describe how you would use the inquiry process to learn or to help you learn.

I did not need to ask this question in the baseline data phase as the student's depth of knowledge wasn't there. After 4 weeks of explicit teaching of the inquiry process I found a huge difference in the student's knowledge and understanding of the inquiry process. This was due to the teacher's having a deeper understanding of the inquiry process themselves coupled with explicit teaching of each step of the process. The classes discussed and defined each step of the process, allowing the students to gain in their understandings.

Here are some comments from the students when asked to describe how they would use the inquiry process to learn or to help them learn.

• "Using the inquiry process can help you break down your inquiry into smaller parts so it is easier to find all your information. I think it was better to use the process so you can slowly got through the stages."
• "I would use it in everyday life. I would look at individual steps and use parts in everyday life. It helps you think about what you are doing in assignments. It breaks down what you should do in your head to help you understand better."

My research questions were:

Implementation: How can we develop student knowledge and awareness of the inquiry process in the Brooklyn School Curriculum?

This can be achieved through explicit teaching.

Engagement: How engaged were they during this process? How engaged were the students during this inquiry?

This information was anecdotal: the students were all really positive about their understanding of the inquiry process. One teacher wrote up the steps in a poutama which the students found useful as they were then aware of the expectations for an expert in the defining stage etc. This is just like setting out the learning intentions and success criteria for the task.

The students found this really useful as they could see what was expected of them and could then make changes to their inquiries as the expectations were really explicit.

Competency: How well do the student’s apply the inquiry process? Can the student’s describe the steps in the inquiry process as per the Brooklyn School curriculum? Can the student’s use the steps in the inquiry process as per the Brooklyn School curriculum? How effective was this approach in assisting students to develop the capability to use the inquiry process?

Again these questions were answered with the results. Each of the 3 classes showed a significant improvement in the students capability in using the inquiry process.

This video sums up one child's response to the process.

Developing Thinkers From Year 1

School: Newtown School

Year Level: Year 1

Teacher: Maria Whiting

Focus area: To investigate ways to improve student capability to manage self including: Student awareness of and ability to use key learning tools for their achievement level. We will be using De Bonos Thinking Hats as a thinking tool.

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can the use of a school wide Poutama promote and develop student ability to think?

Question 2.Knowledge: What impact does the use of a school wide Poutama have on student knowledge of traditions and cultures?

Question 3. Engagement: What impact does the use of a school wide Poutama have on student engagement?

Question 4.Competency: What impact does the use of a school wide Poutama have on student competency (ability) to use thinking hats to aid social inquiry?

Success Criteria for Knowledge. The school Knowledge Poutama for this topic was created by teachers. This report shows level one of the school wide poutama .

Expert: To be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses in their knowledge about a tradition in a culture and know that the next step is to explore 2 more traditions.
Practitioner: Be able to say why my tradition is important in my culture.
Apprentice: Be able to describe one or two facts about a tradition in my culture and tell someone else.
Novice: Be able to say one fact about a tradition in my culture / family.

Success Criteria for Competency The Competency Poutama was first introduced by the lead teachersin SWELL but has been further developed to include level four. This part shows Level one of the school wide poutama used.

Expert: Are aware of their strengths and weaknesses in using yellow, black and white hats and are aware that there are other hats to learn about to guide their thinking further.
Practitioner: Can apply yellow, black and white hats when directed to by the teacher (i.e. what are the black hat points).

Apprentice: Can describe what a yellow, black and white hats are used for (when asked).
Novice: Has used each hat in a whole class situation (practised and modelled)

Learning Story:

In the junior area we were learning to use De Bonos thinking hats as a tool to help us develop and to extend our thinking.

The aim for the junior children was to explore our topic of "Communities" and ask questions that reflected their culture, behaviours and values.

The broad aim was to understand how the past is important to people.

The key concepts were how customs of the past are reflected in peoples daily lives through cultural practices such as: behaviours, dress, art and food etc.

We started the research project by introducing the all the new entrant children to De Bonos thinking hats and taught the colours of each hat represented and how they could be used. Each teacher in all classes modelled the use of thinking hats. In the junior area we practised the use of De Bonos thinking hats in other curriculum areas such as maths, writing and art so children could see that the use of DeBonos thinking Hats could be used in variety of situations.

For example in reading we read a shared story called" This Leaf" ( a Ready to Read Reader) and we discussed as a group how a leaf that had been collected could be used in other creative ways. We went outside and wandered about the school and the park collecting different leaves that we found on our walk. We gathered the leaves and put them on a big tarpulin and sorted leaves into categories such as big, small, serated, smooth and rough (using our blue hats) etc. We decided as a class was 'what we wanted to learn was whether we could use the green thinking hat to think of creative ways to use our leaves in a creative collage'. The criteria was that each child had to think of something they could make and talk about and state what leaves they used in their creation?

We put on our green hats and brainstormed things we could do with the leaves that we had collected (new ideas). We wrote down our ideas. All the children were then given paper and were told to choose some leaves to explore and experiment with. They then glued on their leaves.

They made an assortment of things which they then bought back to the group to discuss and share while the teacher wrote up their other new ideas. Later we wrote stories using our pictures to give us inspiration.

We then spent the next 3 to 9 weeks practising up to four thinking hats and engaging in different ways to questioning our parents and grandparents about traditions and practices that they valued and shared with their families. This introduced our school wide topic of "Communities". The children were then to question their families weekly about traditional practices and cultural celebrations they as a family participated in. Then all the children were asked (through homework) to share their findings with the class orally and this lead to further parental involvement such as; parents came in to share some cultural practices that they wanted to share, such as 'Thanks giving', a Pacific Island dance, a talk on Chile and showing children and adults wearing different traditional costumes and how and when they are worn. Children used this information gathering to support their writing and for their reporting.

Big ideas:

Because our children are five years old and have recently started school so we decided our big ideas had to be personalised and realistic, therefore our questions had to reflect what they knew about the thinking hats.... this is what we our big ideas were:

What do I do that reflects my culture?

* That by asking deeper questions we can find out more information about our families cultural traditions and values.

What do we want our learners to understand by the end of this theme?

* That by using Debonos thinking hats we can develop our ideas about what we know about the past and present practices.

* Ideas about society:

* Understand that customs and traditions are part of cultural activities

* Know different cultural practices of other through behaviours and values

Results:

The results of our research project showed that all the junior children except one special needs child engaged and developed their thinking skills through the use DeBonos thinking hats. The children were all engaged in open discussion and were able to state what we used the thinking hats for and could give an example of how a particular hat could be used. The engagement strategy data shows the levels of improvement in the class from beginning to end.

We decided as a class that ' What we wanted to learn was whether we could use the green thinking hat to think of creative ways to use our leaves in a creative collage'. The criteria was that each child had to think of something they could make and talk about why they made and what leaves they used?

This is just an example of how the thinking hats was used in the class. There were opportunities every day to practice thinking hats but not all curriculum areas could be used all the time. In the junior area we focused on using De Bonos Thinking Hats or revising what we had used and practised, 3 or 4 times a week. the two New Entrant to year one classes worked together but the results shown today are only of one class.

Outcome 1. Engagement:

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

Offered ideas - 2.8
Asked questions - 3.1
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully -3.4
Used positive body language related to task - 3.2
Persevered in order to enact related task - 3.2
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 3.2
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 2.8
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 2.4
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 2.9

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.1

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 0
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 0; at end 0
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end 0
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 3
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 0; at end 3
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 6
1. Beginning novices - at start 13; at end 1

Knowledge effect size = 0.81
Standard error = 0.13

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

Competency effect size = 1.04
Standard error = 0.16

Conclusion

The use of DeBonos thinking hats opened a lot of new ideas to the children in room 14 as the children were able to state...

Why customs and traditions matter to them (in their own words)
eg; My family has a hangi on Xmas day. It's because we are Maori and that is how we have shared kai(food). We cook it in the ground.

Know that my cultural values are reflected in the way I behave.

eg; I wear this special top and pants when I pray on Fridays. This is because in our religion we all wear this special costume and only men and boys can wear it.

Know how people follow customs and traditions when they participate in cultural activities eg; Powhiri, Waiata a ringa etc

All the children were able to use at least two thinking hats appropriately and were able to answer how" I participate in my cultural practices" by being able to make statements about what they had learnt eg:

• the way I dress : "At weddings we dress up and wear our good clothes because a wedding is special and you have to be smart"!(Kawhena)
"At fancy dress parties you have to dress up. I will dress as batman because you won't be able to win a prize if you don't dress up. Kids that don't have special clothes can come in fancy stuff, like their going out clothes". (Beau)


• the food we eat: "We have boil up with pork bones and watercress because its yummy and because lots of Maori people eat it".( Angel)
" We eat pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving because its a tradition. My mum is from America and we have 'Thanksgiving". Pumpkin pie is nice.( Clemente)


• the way we celebrate occasions:" We get dressed up for halloween in costumes like spiderman so we can go trick or treating. Only some people do this. Not everybody".(Zac)
" My family have a umu at parties.We have lots of food. It's got yummy food and then we have dessert. (written as stated) (Ian)


• the way my family likes to do things:" My family always has Sunday roast and Grandma and Poppa come because it's family day and we get to see Grandma and Poppa".(Rae)
"My family always go to church. We dress up and we have a big feed after church. We always have to go because that's what we do together.
(Roxanne)

• the way my family spend their leisure time: "We always play soccer together when we are at the park. My family likes to spend time together doing family things" (Matt)

"We go out together to the shops. we go to the warehouse and we all get something. We always go together. I like going out with my family.(Julian)

All the children except one could answer all the questions posed to them as they had taken home the questions to share with their families and had answers to bring back to school to share. This is because all the children participated in the thinking up of questions we could ask our families and extended whanau and because all the children could talk about their personal experiences and they felt comfortable about answering questions.

Giving children the tool to explore their own choices and to develop their thinking strategies has helped some of the children open up and be less resistant to sharing cultural experiences. It has given Esol students something to share even though language is a barrier all the children have had some new experiences and have have had the time to research their questions. All the children have accepted each others answers and have had no problem accepting differences in one another.

The use of thinking hats has promoted cultural acceptance and made children question things they normally would just accept and has helped us to answer our school wide research questions ( see questions at the bottom of page).

The data collected proves that De Bonos Thinking Hats is a very useful learning tool and it has given Newtown School a Competency Poutama that we can use in all curriculum areas. This research project is just the beginning of what the school could continue to achieve if we practise skills and strategies.

With practice the children have the potential to progress up the skills (Competency Poutama) rapidly and will be able help make and decide a Knowledge Poutama that helps them to assess where they are and make goals for future understanding.

NB: Photos shown include photos taken of other classes as well as the junior year one class.