The Expert Jigsaw and the Four Forces of Flight

School: Houghton Valley School

Year Level: 2

Teacher: Hayden Ray

Focus area:
Participating and Contributing.

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation:
How can students be supported to develop their cooperative skills through the use of the human jigsaw (and other cooperative activities)?

Question 2. Engagement:
What impact does using the human jigsaw (and other cooperative activities) have on student engagement?

Question 3. Knowledge:
What impact does using the human jigsaw (and other cooperative activities) have on student understanding of the principles of flight?

Success Criteria for Knowledge
Expert:
I can carry out a PMI on my flying object in relation to the 4 forces of flight. Also, I can use my PMI to improve my flying object.
Practitioner:
I can use my understanding of the 4 forces of flight to create a flying object.
Apprentice:
I can describe the 4 forces in my own words.
Novice:
I can identify the 4 forces that affect an aeroplane.

Question 4. Competency:
What impact does using the human jigsaw have on the student’s cooperative skills?

Success Criteria for Competency
Expert:
I can identify individual and group pros and cons (goods and bads) and describe what to do next.
Practitioner:
I can describe how to use a human jigsaw in another context.
Apprentice:
I can carry out the role and describe the whole process of a human jigsaw.
Novice:
I can carry out a human jigsaw.


Learning Story:

Learning Story - In a Nut-Shell
During the first half of Term 3, Kowhai began to look at the 4 main forces (thrust, drag, lift and weight) that affect the movement of an object through the air (e.g. a paper plane.) Kowhai learnt from a variety of teacher directed learning and cooperative activities, specifically the ‘expert jigsaws’.

During the second half of Term 3, Kowhai applied their understanding of the 4 main forces of flight to create and improve a paper plane and a rocket. They then fair tested their flying objects and made changes using their knowledge of flight (thrust, drag, lift and weight).

Assessment: At the beginning and the end of the term, children’s knowledge and understanding of the 4 forces was assessed. We assumed that all children were novices with regard to the expert jigsaw and therefore only assessed this at the end of the term.


Learning Story - In more detail
I used a picture disclosure activity to initially hook the children into our Term’s work on flight. I got a photo of the world record paper plane throw (27.6 seconds in the air) and covered up most of the image. The children had to guess what the picture was of and post their ideas into a ‘post box’.

Children then sat a written pre test to assess their knowledge of the forces that affect an aeroplane in flight. The test was very difficult, and only a few children showed a small amount of prior knowledge and understanding about the four forces (thrust, drag, lift and weight).

None of my children had ever used the Expert Jigsaw, so I assumed that all children were a Novice - Level 1, with regard to the Competency Poutama.

Finding out about the Four Forces of Flight

We began our study of flight by looking at the four basic forces of flight (thrust, drag, lift and weight.) At the beginning of our unit, children were involved primarily in teacher directed learning to demonstrate and explore each of the four forces.

We then began to create paper planes in small groups with:

• Lots of weight and not much weight.
• Lots of drag and not much drag.
• Lots of lift and not much lift.

Still in small groups, children then discussed and predicted which planes would fly further, focussing on ‘essential small group skills’, like: listening to each to other and taking turns. We tested them to see which would fly the furthest and wrote statements about the four forces, and how they affect an aeroplane in flight.

I then introduced the children to the Knowledge Poutama, emphasising the different levels of achievement and the things I would be looking for during the rest of the Unit.

To introduce the children to the expert jigsaw, I setup an expert jigsaw activity that recapped information about Pablo Picasso. I found that the activity stretched most of the children to their limits, with regard to their: ability to follow instructions, cooperative skills and to ability to locate information from a text.

We then used the expert jigsaw to find out about ‘a very short history of flight’. We kept the cooperative focus on, listening to each to other and taking turns throughout all of the expert jigsaws.

As the children found the expert jigsaw challenging, and also because Year 2 children find it difficult to locate and understand new information, I decided to use the expert jigsaw as a way to recap information, and not to introduce new information. I also used the rally chart (taking turns to write/draw information) to recap information about flight.

These two cooperative activities were an excellent way to deliver information to children several times in several different ways, maximising the possibility of the children understanding and retaining the knowledge.

After a series of expert jigsaws, I asked the children to write a list of steps that you need to follow to carry out an expert jigsaw successfully. I used this piece of writing to place each child on the competency poutama. From the writing I was able to assess each child’s ability to describe the process of the Expert Jigsaw. I then asked several of the children who achieved highly a few questions to gauge if they were practitioners or even experts according to my competency poutama.

Once the children had demonstrated a basic understanding of the four forces of flight, we all made a number of paper planes, attempting to construct a plane that would fly the furthest. We then discussed how we could find out which one would fly the furthest and how we could make the test fair.

Once we had listed all the things we had to do to make our paper dart throwing a fair test, we got in our cooperative groups or 3 to test how far our planes would fly. First, each group had to measure an ‘air strip’ to test our planes on. They had to measure out 20 m using a metre ruler and chalk, making a mark for every metre.

They then had to help each other (each having a role in the group) to test fly their darts 3 times each. We found that it wasn’t a fair test because of the wind, and decided to test fly our planes in the hall.

This led onto the children working cooperatively in our groups of 3 to design and construct an ‘aerodynamic rocket’ using only a paper roll, card and tape.

Rocket Design and Creation
During the last 3 weeks of the Unit, children had to design 2 or 3 different rockets using a plastic bottle as the body.

They then analysed their designs in their small groups, discussing what make their rocket aerodynamic and which their best design. They then labelled their design, identifying the different parts of their rocket and what they needed to build them.

To build their rocket, children buddied up and helped each other to stick on wings, nose cones etc… Children then painted their rockets ready for fair testing.

Rocket Testing

Earlier in the term, a very talented parent build me a rocket launcher out of a bike pump and a stell pole that fit inside a plastic bottle. During the last week of term, our class measured out a 50 metre air strip on the field and tested our rockets.

After each test we made one change to our rockets that we thought would make them go further. At the end of the week we analysed our results and made conclusions about what made our rockets fly further. The changes we made to our rockets after the very first test flight, resulted in them flying 50% further (averaging 30 metres).

The furthest a child’s rocket flew was 55m. Mine went 60m and a parent made one that flew over 100m. Naturally, it was all very exciting.

Testing our Knowledge about flight

At the end of the Unit, children sat the same written test they did at the beginning of the term. Having found it very difficult at the beginning of the term, it was wonderful to see how much knowledge the children had retained and how eager they were to give detailed answers.

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement: (Teacher's opinion - not student self-assessment).

Mean level of engagement of students ...

Offered ideas - [3.4]
Asked questions - [2.8]
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - [3.4]
Used positive body language related to task - [3.9]
Persevered in order to enact related task - [4.0]
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - [3.8]
Showed interest in directing their own learning - [3.4]
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - [1.5]
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - [3.6]

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.5

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


Outcome 2. Knowledge: (Four Forces of Flight - thrust, drag, lift and weight).

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 [9]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [0]; at end [7]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [0]; at end [4]
2. Proficient novices - at start [2]; at end [1]
1. Beginning novices - at start [21]; at end [0]

The average knowledge for all students in the class at the beginning of the Unit was: 1.1
The average knowledge for all students in the class at the end of the Unit was: 4.3

Knowledge effect size = 1.61

These figures show that at the beginning of the Unit all students were at the Novice level, with only two students able to identify some of the forces that affect a flying object. Whereas, at the end of the Unit almost 50% of students were at the Apprentice Level, meaning they could describe the four forces and almost 50% of students were at the Practitioner Level, meaning they were able to they could describe the four forces and were beginning to be able to use their understanding to create a flying object.


Outcome 3. Competency: (The Expert Jigsaw)

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 [5]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [0]; at end [9]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [0]; at end [4]
2. Proficient novices - at start [0]; at end [4]
1. Beginning novices - at start [23]; at end [1]

The average competency for all students in the class at the beginning of the Unit was: 1.0
The average competency for all students in the class at the end of the Unit was: 3.6

Competency effect size = 1.28

These figures show that at the beginning of the Unit all students were at the Novice level, meaning they could not carry out the role in an Expert Jigsaw. Whereas, at the end of the Unit most students were at the Apprentice Level, meaning they were able to carry out the role and describe the whole process of an Expert Jigsaw. In addition, over 20% of students achieved the Practitioner Level, meaning they were beginning to understand the process at a higher level.

Conclusions:
The Expert Jigsaw and the Four Forces of Flight:

• The Expert Jigsaw was a good way to focus on taking turns and listening to others in a small group.


• The Expert Jigsaw is a very effective way to recap and re-deliver information in a different way to Year 2 children.


• The Expert Jigsaw is not very suitable to introduce new information to children in Year 2.


• Many of the Year 2 children needed a lot of support and modelling to successfully share information in small groups.


• Several children thrived in the Expert Jigsaw activity, being able to lead/guide their group to success.


• Students were highly engaged during all Expert Jigsaw activities. Also, students who are usually less engaged, tended to be more involved due to the increased accountability.
  
• The 'real leanring context' of making paper planes and rockets obviously increased engagment of students.


• The Expert Jigsaw provided excellent opportunities for children to verbalise their understanding of flight forces in non-threatening small groups.


• The Expert Jigsaw was also an excellent way to deliver information about flight because it forced children to see and/or hear the information a few different times in a short time frame.

"Chalk & Talk" versus "Cooperative-Expert Jigsaw"

SCHOOL: Houghton Valley

YEAR LEVEL: 5

TEACHER: Monica Mercury

FOCUS AREA: To investigate ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute; particularly student ability to work cooperatively.

'CHALK AND TALK'

To do this children learnt using a 'Chalk and Talk' approach:

• Teacher talks - children listen.
• A brief visual presentation.
• children read some text.
• Children do a follow-up activity about the text.
• Teacher and children have a brief discussion about what they did.

There is no social interaction amongst the students at all - they work independently.

COOPERATIVE 'EXPERT JIGSAW'

The 'Chalk and Talk' method was then compared to a 'Cooperative - Expert Jigsaw' method:

• Children form 'home' groups.
• They are given sheets of information on a topic.
• Children then form 'expert groups' with other students who have the same information as them.
• They read and discuss this information and make notes or draw diagrams to reinforce the new knowledge.
• Children then return to their 'home' groups and take turns sharing what they have learnt with the others.
• Teacher and children then discuss what they did and what they learnt.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

How much information can the students retain and record from using two different learning processes?

Do children learn more through the ‘Chalk and Talk’ method of attaining key information, or do they learn more via the ‘Cooperative - expert jigsaw’ method?

Can the children explain the process of both methods? Can the students say what the most effective method for them is and why?

SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR KNOWLEDGE:

Practitioner: I can take the information I have learnt and compare that country to New Zealand.
Apprentice: I can confidently recall the new knowledge I have learnt in detail.
Novice: I can listen to the information and record at least five facts about the topic.

SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR COMPETENCY:

(Cooperative 'Expert Jigsaw' only)

Practitioner: I can explain how to use an expert jigsaw to someone else and how to use it in another context.
Apprentice: I can listen to information and share what I have seen and heard with others.
Novice: I can listen to information and then record what I have learnt.

LEARNING STORY:

This ‘experiment’ was conducted during several sessions, over a period of two to three weeks.

I split my class into two groups based on an even gender and academic ability ratio - Roopu A and Roopu B.

PART A - "CHALK AND TALK"

In Week one of this project, I conducted a whole-class diagnostic assessment of the childrens’ knowledge of ‘Rwanda’. The initial and summative assessment were; an individual brainstorm with a venn diagram. The students used a different-coloured pen for the diagnostic assessment compared with the summative assessment.

The next step was to conduct, two separate ‘chalk and talk’ lessons. Roopu A started on Day One, (while Roopu B was out of the room), and Roopu B was on Day Two, (while Roopu A was out of the room).

Following that, there was a one-day space of time for the students to think about what they have learnt and then I revisited each group’s original diagnostic assessment separately (one group went out of the room and vice versa) and they added any new information they had learnt or retained. This assessed ‘Student Knowledge’.

PART B - "COOPERATIVE - EXPERT JIGSAW"

In the second week of this project, I conducted a whole-class diagnostic assessment of the childrens’ knowledge of ‘Romania’. The diagnostic and summative assessment was; an individual brainstorm with a venn diagram on the same page. The students used a different-coloured pen for the diagnostic assessment compared with the summative assessment.

The next step was to conduct, two separate ‘Cooperative - expert jigsaw’ lessons. Roopu A started on Day Three, (while Roopu B was out of the room), and Roopu B on Day Four, (while Roopu A was out of the room).

Following that, there was a one-day space of time for the students to think about what they had learnt and then I revisited each group’s original diagnostic assessment separately (one group went go out of the room and vice versa) and they added any new information they had learnt or retained. This assessed ‘Student Knowledge’ and with this method we also assessed ‘Student Competency’

PART C - ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

In the last week, there was an in-depth analysis and reflection component which evaluated what was done by the students and the teacher.

The class were asked to do a PMI for the ‘Chalk and talk method’ and a PMI the ‘Expert Jigsaw’ method. Conclusions were recorded about which method they felt was the most effective form of learning.

The students were also asked to write a recount of the steps used in the ‘Cooperative - expert jigsaw’ method, which was used to grade them according to the competency success criteria.

The teacher analysed the findings and reflected on what was done, how it was done and what could have been conducted better.

RESULTS:

In terms of knowledge, the following percentage of students demonstrated their knowledge at each of the three levels - Novice, Apprentice and Practitioner

Chalk and Talk: Novice 38%; Apprentice 38%; Practitioner 24%

Cooperative Expert-Jigsaw: Novice 37%; Apprentice 33%; Practitioner 30%

I also counted the amount of knowledge, (the different facts that were known by all the children), that students in each group demonstrated at the outset and at the end of each learning session. The following table shows the comparison:

Chalk and Talk: Beginning: - 57 End: - 140

Cooperative Expert-Jigsaw: Beginning: - 71 End: - 74

At the beginning and then at the end of the topic, I also assessed how many students were at Novice, Apprentice and Practitioner levels for the competency learning success criteria. The following table shows the numbers at each level.

Beginning: Novice: - 20, Apprentice: - 8, Practitioner - 1

End: Novice - 8, Apprentice: - 13, Practitioner: - 8

I also did a PMI with each group to find out what students thought of each teaching method.

Chalk and Talk

PLUS (+)
Really good, I found out heaps more stuff.
Fun! I learnt more about a new country.
I think you (the teacher) explained it really well.
It was very interesting and I learnt new information I didn’t know.
It was cool because we used the big-screen TV! It wouldn’t have been as interesting without the TV!
It was good because you knew nothing about it, but you got to learn.
I have seen Rwanda on a map – it was fun.
It was interesting having it on a TV – otherwise I wouldn’t get it.
I felt sad for the children who were abandoned.
It made me feel really lucky, not being in that situation.
Everyone listened
The presentation was good.
I liked the teacher reading it out.

MINUS (-)
There was not enough time to record information the second time.

INTERESTING
It is an interesting way to learn
It’s easier to remember stuff doing it straight away.
I like how we do the pre-test first, then we learn stuff and after that we did the post-test the next day.
I liked working by myself.
I feel a bit in the middle because it is a good way to learn, but then I was a bit frightened of not remembering.
I felt it was good information and quite fun.
It was exciting to learn about a new country.
It was good way of learning – I was concerned about having to work alone.

Cooperative Expert-Jigsaw

PLUS (+)
We had a continuum which had how much people know.
We had our own paper and information and we only had to remember some information.
This helped you remember information and we wrote it down
The ‘expert’ groups had to discuss things, which was good.
You could share your ideas with others.
We sat in groups to share our ideas.
Groups find out information from each other.
I liked the visual presentation.

MINUS (-)
You did not get as much information
It took longer.
It could be distracting and people could get off track.
Too long and a little boring
The information took too long to read.
We should have had a break in between.
I didn’t like that some people didn’t share properly.
We went from too many things – one to another.

INTERESTING
Some students preferred the traditional method (12 students)

(7 students) enjoyed working in with this method because they picked up more information by writing it down or doing a diagram – this helped them to remember things better.

(8 students) liked it when they were in groups – they felt they helped each other.

CONCLUSIONS:

Roopu A and Roopu B were able to retain and record more information from the ‘Chalk and Talk’ method.

Roopu A and Roopu B were able to record about the same amount of information as their prior knowledge from the ‘Cooperative – expert jigsaw’ method. There was only three more extra facts recorded during the post-test than there had been from the pre-test.

About half of each group preferred to work with the ‘Chalk and Talk’ method probably because they had the skills needed to work alone. The ‘Gifted and Talented’ students were all in this range.

The other half of each group preferred to work with the cooperative method because they enjoyed the social interaction and the ability to share ideas and information. All the children who have remeidal learning needs were in this category.

Using the methods and contexts, I can conclude that the 'Chalk and Talk' way of teaching proved more effective than the 'Cooperative - Expert Jigsaw' way of teaching, where the objective was for students to be able to retain and record the most knowledge and information.

However, this does not mean that the 'Cooperative - Expert Jigsaw' is a totally ineffective way of learning, but that it would be better utilised as a way to reinforce and embed knowledge already known and could be more effective in other contexts.

SIZE DOES MATTER

The students worked extremely well in smaller groups. Smaller class sizes make a difference.

Participating and Contributing at the Rocky Shore Part 2

School: Owhiro Bay

Year Level: Year 5/6

Teacher: Colin Thompson

Focus area: To investigate ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute including student ability to work cooperatively in a group.

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation:

Question for teachers: How can teachers and students co-construct anticipated knowledge for the theme ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?

Questions for students:

• What do you know already about Owhiro Bay beach?
• What skills do you already have that might help you in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’ beach?
• What attitudes or virtues do you already use or know you will use in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’ beach?
• What do you (the students) think will come out of this study? ie: Outcomes or Learning intentions and success criteria?
• What do you (the students) think you will learn in our work on caring for Owhiro Bay beach? ie: Outcomes or Learning intentions and success criteria?
• What will you know at the end of the study?
• What new knowledge will you gain?
• What skills will you learn or practice by the end?

Question 2. Engagement:

Teacher Question: How engaged are the students when they have decided on the knowledge outcomes for the theme ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?

Student Question:What do you want to learn in our work on Caring for Owhiro Bay beach?

Question 3. Knowledge:

Teacher Question: What is the growth of knowledge – beginning and end study?

Student Questions:

• What have you learnt in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?
• What new or different skills have you used or developed in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?

Success Criteria for Knowledge
Expert: Students will be able to ask "How good is my knowledge and what more do I need to find out?"
Practitioner: Students will be able to find out why there is not more life in the rock pools and at the beach at Owhiro Bay and use this knowledge to take action.
Apprentice: Students will be able to present what they have learnt back to someone.
Novice: Students will be able to find out about rock pools and the Owhiro Bay and the life in it.

Question 4. Competency:

Teacher Question: What is the growth of student capability to Participate and Contribute in a group?

Success Criteria for Competency
Expert: The student knows and can explain their strengths and weaknesses, and knows what they need to do to improve their group skills.
Practitioner: The student will use group skills and apply these in a range of contexts eg playground, classroom, sports field."How can you do this again?"
Apprentice: Students can engage in group activities and explain what this looks like and sounds like.“What do you know about?” “What will I see/hear?”
Novice: Students can engage (take part) in group activities.

Learning Story:

Owhiro Bay’s key competency is Participating and Contributing. Effective Teaching Strategies were weaved into the learning to enhance the participation and contribution. Through the pilot children used co-operative groups regularly and many Effective Teaching Strategies like share, pair, square and bus stops and one stay the rest stray.

This topic was proposed by the community because they felt the children from Owhiro Bay needed to learn about their own local environment. Initially we (teachers) had professional development from Victoria University to prepare us for the direction that we were taking and to increase our background knowledge base. For the children it was essential to build up their knowledge base so that they had enough background to make relevant and considered decisions and eventually take some action to enhance and sustain their community.

The Science focus was integrated into English with Information Reports. This enabled the children to display their findings in a coherent written manner.

The science learning sequence:

LI: To find out what lives in Owhiro Bay’s coastline

The children used brainstorms, donuts and finally a KWL to establish their prior knowledge about their local environment. They were not restricted to identifying Rocky Shore creatures; however that was the direction we ended up taking. The children identified many of the common creatures but were less than forthcoming with the less common creatures.

The children went for two visits to the Owhiro Bay rock pools. The first visit was where the children examined and held different creatures, with a lot of exploring of the rock pools.

The second visit was with DOC who discussed the new Marine Reserve. They also discussed habitats of many of the local creatures. The children also had a visit to the Island Bay Marine Education Centre. Whilst the children were able to view and touch many coastal creatures, the weather prevented us from visiting the Island Bay rocky shore with a local ‘expert’.

LI: to group/classify the different types of living organisms

The children were given access to books cds and the internet. In co-operative groups they set about discussing then grouping and classifying the different type of organisms. Their scientific vocabulary increased with the use of the different resources. They were also starting to make connections about the communities and not just thinking about creatures in isolation.

LI: to investigate the living organisms at Owhiro Bay Coastline

This Learning Intention provided more learning of knowledge, to enable the children to develop further links and understanding of the Owhiro Bay coastal communities.

LI: to select and investigate a living organism

Again the focus was to enhance the children’s knowledge, this time specifying a single creature at Owhiro Bay coast to analyse. This included the implications of their habitats, food and breeding. The children also touched on the environmental impact/situation of their creature.

LI: identifying that all creatures need certain things to stay alive

This LI started with what humans need to survive then the children transferred this knowledge to what plants and animals need to survive. This also introduced the adjustments required for tidal changes.

Results:

Outcome 1. Knowledge:

Number of students who were ...

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

Knowledge effect size = 0.56

Outcome 2. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

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

Competency effect size = 0.63

Conclusions:

This pilot was a big learning curve for us all. personally it was a little more difficult because I did not get the initial training at the beginning. We originally started off envisaging that our particular pilot would last up to one year. We changed this and significantly reduced our questions after some clarification. Through discussion we finally came to a workable understanding as to how to include our AtoL PD into the pilot. In retrospect the two dovetailed very well, however the initial overwhelming number of questions did cloud our perspective of both.

The use of Effective Teaching Strategies certainly enhanced the children’s participation and contribution. However, as I was relatively new to a lot of the strategies they were used tentatively. As the pilot went on I found that the success that the strategies produced encouraged me to use them more.

Taking Responsibility for the Environment

School: Ridgway

Year Level: Y6/7

Teacher: Rod Scott

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:

Question 1. Implementation: How students identify issues, concerns, and interests that could become the focus of learning.

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged are students when they are involved in identifying themes/topics for learning?

Question 3. Knowledge: What is the growth in knowledge that can be expected of students when they learn through a theme that they themselves have identified

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: Is aware of the consequences of their choices and plans to make more choices that have positive effects on the environment
Practitioner: Can analyse the effects on the environment and make choices accordingly
Apprentice: Can describe the positive or negative effects that their choices have on the environment
Novice: Can recognise that choices have positive or negative effects on the environment

Question 4. Competency: What capability can be expected of students to identify themes/topics for learning at the year 3 – 8 level

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: Use graphic organisers to sort information and then use it to decide on a required next step (Finding out or action.)
Practitioner: Use a graphic organiser to sort information
Apprentice: Can describe how to sort information on a graphic organiser
Novice: Can retrieve information off a graphic organiser

Learning Story:

This aspect of our focus on personal responsibility followed on from our work outlined in the last blog. This time the focus shifted to the deep understanding of:

“Taking personal responsibility for the natural environment will have positive effects for the future of our world”

The unit was run across the middle and senior school.

We began our programme around this understanding with these provocations:

“Do I really care about the environment?”

“Can I make a difference?”

The big ideas we used to facilitate this were:

“Can people make choices that have positive effects on the environment?”

“Can people make choices that have negative effects on the environment?”

“What do people need to live?”

“What is the Natural Environment?”

Assessment was managed through use of the student engagement survey using the endpoint from the first set of surveys as the startpoint for the next.

Student knowledge and competency was assessed by the students self assessing using the standard rubric and a justifying comment. I also did some teacher confirmations across a sample group who verbally explained their self assessment. The rubrics were a result of a cooperative effort across the middle and senior school teachers.




We began the unit with a tuning in phase to try and engage the children. We used a variety of activities to achieve this such as:

If the world was an apple
Pressure on our world
First ideas brainstorm (What do you do that you show that you care about the earth)
Unpacking the big understanding and big ideas
Initial placement on rubric
The web of life
Rubbish Stock take around the school

We came to shared understandings around our big ideas through a variety of small group actions that brainstormed the questions, ordered the degree of effect, and reported back to the class the outcomes. This provided some hearty discussion and disagreement, but we eventually came to a landing on what we thought the big ideas meant.

After this we entered into our finding out phase which centred on two key aspects:

Science Fair
Take Action for Water

Ridgway School has over the past couple of years been encouraging the children to get involved in the Science Fair competition. This year we used it as a vehicle for the children to find out about the environment and the effects peoples actions had on it. The criteria was that any experiments the children undertook were related to the deep understanding and the big ideas.



As a consequence there were some excellent projects undertaken that explored many aspects of the deep understanding and big ideas. They provided a good discussion point and were on the whole very informative pieces of work. They also provided a great lead in to the “What do we do about it?” phase.



The final aspect to our finding out was the Take Action for Water unit run in conjunction with the Wellington Regional Council. It was interesting to note however that the idea of a field trip to study streams and factors affecting water quality met with considerable resistance from the children. The feedback from the children was that for a significant proportion of them, the whole “environment” thing had been over done and they were tired of it. This of course ran counter to our aim of increasing student engagement!

Whist the end engagement data wasn't where we'd hoped it didn't reflect this feeling in the class. The Take Action trip itself eventually proved to be a real motivator in driving the children to take action and possibly diluted the lethargy evident in the class.



At this point it was take action time.

As a result of this trip and the follow up activities the class decided on creating compost bins as an action we could take that would have a positive impact on our environment. To achieve this the children undertook some research into bin design and in cooperative groups went about using this knowledge to design a set of bins for the school.

Presentations were made by each group outlining how their bin met all the criteria a good compost bin should have and the whole class then decided on the winning design.

At the time of posting the bin was under construction.

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement:

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

Mean level of engangement of students ...


Offered ideas- at start 3.2; at end 3.3
Asked questions - at start 2.9; at end 3.4
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - at start 3.7; at end 3.8
Used positive body language related to task - at start 3.7; at end3.7
Perservered in order to enact related task - at start 4.1; at end 3.9
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - at start 2.0; at end 2.1
Showed interest in directing their own learning - at start 3.9; at end 3.7
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - at start 1.8; at end 1.8
Show evidence of using what they have learnt - at start 3.9; at end 3.7

Outcome 2. Knowledge:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7. Beginning experts - at start 6; at end 6
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 1; at end 8
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 11; at end 9
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 8; at end 5
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 4; at end 2
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Outcome 3. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 1; at end 2
7. Beginning experts - at start 8; at end 10
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 14; at end 16
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 8; at end 3
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 0
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 0; at end 0
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Conclusions:

As can be seen in the results there was an upward trend in the students self asssessment regarding their knowledge of the effects their choices had on the environment.

Competency in the use of Graphic organisers was already relatively high so the changes, whilst trending higher were not great.

The most interesting point was the student engagement. As stated engagement waned as the topic went on for a number of reasons.The most significant was the length of time we spent on the environment. Our idea to integrate it into the school curriculm activiies for the whole year proved to be counter productive in terms of student engagement. The intention was to focus on different aspect in different terms but this seemed to be too protracted to hold the children's interest and engagement.


Anecdotal evidence suggests that the "take action" phase did act to rekindled some interest. The children were animated and proactive in their efforts to "sell" their bin design and many were seen researching and designing through lunch and morning tea time. However when it came to the final engagement survey these observations were not borne out in their answers.


As a result our first 2009 Inquiry topic will be run over a shorter time frame and without the multiple phases we attempted this time.

Learning to Manage Ourselves from the Bottom Up

School: Island Bay

Year Level: 5/6

Teacher: Dianne Lee

Focus area: Managing Self - Student awareness of and ability to use key learning tools for their achievement level - organisational tools and thinking tools

Context: Managing self & Thinking
Related to work being done using Habit of MInd THINKING ABOUT OUR THINKING and strengthening weaknesses identified when tested with Gardiner’s Multiple Intelligences as part of their Inquiry Learning understandings

HoM: THINKING ABOUT OUR THINKING (METACOGNITION):
To investigate our ability to plan a strategy for producing what information is needed, to be conscious of our own steps and strategies during the act of problem solving, and to reflect on and evaluate the productiveness of our own thinking. Develop a plan of action, maintaining that plan in mind over time, then reflecting back on and evaluating the plan upon its completion.

Research Questions:

Inquiry Learning Deep Understandings:

By managing myself effectively I can develop my personal integrity to respect, contribute and adapt to the many environments I’m part of.

Question 1. Implementation:

Can students ...

A. Show improvements in their ability to self manage & plan a learning experience over time
B. Be conscious of their own steps and strategies used during the act of problem solving, &
C. Reflect on and evaluate the productiveness of their own thinking in an area of personal weakness?

Question 2. Engagement:

What growth in personal responsibility can be expected of students when they are involved in planning their own learning experiences around weakness identified from testing of Gardiner’s Multiple Intelligences in conjunction with the use of HoM – Thinking about our Thinking?

Question 3. Knowledge:

What applied competencies (ability/effort) and self knowledge can be expected of students facing learning challenges, and coming to terms with and understanding self more as a learner?

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: Shows genuine love of learning even in areas not so interested or competent in. Is aware of own strengths and weaknesses in their research and adjusts planning to improve/redirect learning as need arises. Can select own thinking tools independently and use them correctly. Reflects on and sets new goals as required

Practitioner: Shows interest in carrying out research of topics not so interested in. Plans topic with some degree of complexity and carries through plans according to direction set. Is aware of own strengths and weaknesses in research work and can alter planning if required. Uses a small range of thinking tools. Reflect on their goals.

Apprentice: Has some idea of the things that are of interest to them in areas they are weaker at. Is able to construct simple goals independently & decide on an activity to do. Can write a few sentences about what they did in a diary entry.

Novice: Shows interest in learning things that appeal to them. Can set simple goals, and carry out an activity with help as required.

Learning Story:

This research unit grew out of the topic we developed with Trudy (Inquiry consultant) at the beginning of the year. A further rubric was constructed initially by me for my guidance in this research, then a second one co-constructed by the children a week or two into our learning round. The rubric was constructed around the new curriculum & key competency - Managing Self, inconjunction with the HoM outlined above.

The children here at IBS have reasonable familiarity with using rubrics, but need to be reminded to refer back to them to assess their progress and to think about moving to a different level of performance. The rubric was primarily designed to assess themselves in terms of the degree of engagement and personal responsibility in performance shown around self selected learning goals.

The children worked on their goals both in class and at home over a period of 5 weeks. They had about half to three quarters of an and hour – once a week at school and the rest they did sometimes at home. During discussions on progress to date and areas of concern, a reasonably large number of children expressed the fact that they realised they were a little lost or their learning lacked real depth, and did not really have a clear pathway to follow beyond their goals and success criteria. A lot of them were not using any sort of thinking tool, and were merely writing in diary entries around progress to date and what they did that day. Most were just reacting to what took their fancy and their learning was really going nowhere.

We decided at this point it was time to assess what tools we needed if we were to really be successful self managing learners. We brainstormed this issue and found a number of things were absent for the greater majority – including a well thought out plan to follow. A point of interest was that most children indicated that they were competent, confident planners – see SWELL checklists, and thought that they would be able to cope with the goals and learning easily, but reality did not match. This did not prove to be the case because as we got further into the learning sessions, issues started to emerge. We set about co-constructing a planning format that would map their way forward more positively in order to meet their success criteria and expected outcomes. We decided that we would trial this planner and adjust it if and when we found it wanting.

Many children adjusted their thinking once they realised they needed to plan more thoroughly and attempted to develop a planning schedule of their own to trial. The knowledge and experience they gained from this exposure helped when we created the class planning model.
Throughout the learning journey, their ideas, thoughts, understandings, pictures, thinking tools and the like were written up in their learning journals. By this stage we were close to assessing the progress they had made on their learning journeys, so held the planning off until the next learning round.

Results:

At the end of the term the children looked at the work they had done during this five week period, and the way they managed themselves, their learning and what they had done & written up in their learning journals. They assessed their progress with a buddy against the rubric criteria. A few children found it hard to be subjective and honest about where they fitted in against the rubric objectives, (either over or under) so we decided peer review was perhaps the best way to approach this.

Conclusions:

Implementation:

Can students ...

A. Show improvements in their ability to self manage & plan a learning experience over time
B. Be conscious of their own steps and strategies used during the act of problem solving, &
C. Reflect on and evaluate the productiveness of their own thinking in an area of personal weakness?

It took time for the children to connect completely with what was expected of them around undertaking, managing & developing their learning, as related to the rubric requirements and their individual SMART goals. We needed to talk about, connect and reconnect these foci frequently in small groups, pairs and class to embed what was required. The use of learning journals enabled me to gain insight into individual thinking, issues and track changes in progress. It provided me with the means to redirect my time, resources and attention and provide new learning cycles designed towards improving their understanding & engagement with the deep understandings. It also enabled me to improve my knowledge of the child's learning capability and specific learning needs at an individual level. Reviewing and assessing their progress on the matrix (as an indicator of progress), it clearly showed an increase in the children's complex performance as related to the three key deep understandings.

Engagement: 2. What growth in personal responsibility can be expected of students when they are involved in planning their own learning experiences around weakness identified from testing of Gardiner’s Multiple Intelligences in conjunction with the use of HoM – Thinking about our Thinking?

It would be expected that most children would show growth in personal responsibility for their learning, when involved in planning and undertaking learning tasks of personal choice - "Independent Learning is that learning in which the learner, in conjunction with relevant others, can make the decisions necessary to meet the learner's own learning needs." (Kesten, 1987, p. 3). In this process, independent learners develop the values, attitudes, knowledge and skills needed to make responsible decisions and take actions dealing with their own learning. Independent learning is fostered by creating the opportunities and experiences which encourage student motivation, curiosity, self-confidence, self-reliance and positive self-concept; it is based on student understanding of their own interests and a valuing of learning for its own sake.

The use of learning journals together with the matrix provided a basis through which to show improvement and engagement. Over the weeks the children developed an awareness of their own strengths and needs, thought about what they needed to do to progress further, and took on individual responsibility to overcome perceived/identified weaknesses in their learning styles, habits and journeys. Because the children were expected to justify their position on the matrix, it tended to galvanise and increase engagement with their goals of the majority. Regular referrals to the matrix, and deep understanding of the self-set goals kept their interest and understanding of moving forward to the fore front.

Knowledge: 3. What applied competencies (ability/effort) and self knowledge can be expected of students facing learning challenges, and coming to terms with and understanding self more as a learner?

It was not easy for me to predict the ‘expected’ growth patterns per se of each child, but it was hoped that all children would move a stage on the matrix and most did. However, all children gained some idea of their individual strengths and weaknesses and where they need to apply themselves in the future, to become better self-managing learners. As this is part of an ongoing theme for the year, the class will be re-engaged in the same foci over the next two terms as part of their SMART goal requirement for profiles. I will be interested to see how we grow as a learning community and how they progress as self –aware, self-managing, independent learners over time.