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.

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.

Co-constructing success criteria in a new entrant - year one class

School: Owhiro Bay School

Year Level: Year One/New Entrant

Teacher: Deanne Daysh

Focus area:

Authentic Learning: to investigate ways to improve student ability to develop assessment criteria for key learning intentions.

Managing Self: to investigate ways to improve student capability to mange self, particularly their ability to use Learning Poutama.

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can year 1 students be supported to learn how to use Poutama to develop independence within the classroom through the establishment of class expectations and routines at the beginning year?

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged were students as they developed and started to use a Poutama when establishing expectations and routines at the beginning of the year?

Question 3. Knowledge: For this research project the focus is mainly on engagement and the competency of managing self. However the students will need to have knowledge of the language of using a Poutama. So the knowledge question is ... Can Students use the language of a Learning Poutama?

Question 4. Competency: What impact does establishment of expectations and routines at the beginning of the year have on student competency to develop and use Poutama for self assessment?

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: I am helpful and can help others do their jobs.I can listen to the teacher and do what the teacher says straight away.
Practitioner: I practice doing what the teacher says. I can do most things on my own with only a little help.
Apprentice: I listen to the teacher and do what the teacher says most of the time.
Novice: I do what they want and not what the teacher says.I am not helpful to others

Learning Story:

One of the main focuses for our school professional development for the year is for the staff and students to learn to use Poutama/ Rubric's to plan and assess with in their classrooms. Also for the staff and students to learn to use Poutama to self assess and plan next steps in the classrooms and for these Poutama to be co-constructed with the children.
So I wanted to 'give it a go' and see how effective the use of Poutama is in a class of New Entrant (five year old) children.

It was important to use a context that was relevant to both the students and the learning in the classroom for our first Poutama.

We chose to use the context of setting up routines and expectations in the classroom at the start of the year.

So what did we do?

In weeks 1 and 2 of term one we discussed with the students the class rules, expectations and routines. This lead to the creation of a class treaty.

Following on from this and also coming out of this discussion of expectations and routines was a list of “Things we need to do in our class to be good managers of self” so that we could get on to the task of learning.

The children came up with a list of four main things they need to do in the classroom to be independent learners who are ready to learn.

They were:
*Listen to the teacher
*Do what the teacher says
*Unpack/ pack your own bag
*Put away your reading book

At this stage I wanted to introduce the Poutama. However I was aware, having collected some baseline data using a questionaire, that none of the students had ever had any experiences with a Poutama before and had no knowledge of the meaning of the words associated with one e.g. they didn’t know what an Expert did, or a Novice, Apprentice or Practitioner. See the section below about data collection to see this data. So this became my starting point.

For a week I started using these words in the everyday tasks we did in class. Saying things like “You are such an expert at forming the letter ‘O’ from the top”, “You are a great Practitioner when you are pointing to the words in your reading book”.

Later that week I worked with the class to co-construct our first Poutama. After discussion,
these are the words that the students came up with:

I was excited and very happy as the students now seemed to have a good understanding of this.
The students were then able to self assess and place them selves on the Poutama.

As a class we were able to use this information to establish next steps for each child to work on.

We also referred back to the Poutama on a regular basis (and do so on going as well) to remind ourselves what we had to do to be an independent learner in Room 5.

The next step was to co-construct knowledge Poutama for our science focus – ‘Treasure or waste’.

Data Collection:

As I got started on this research journey I was aware that these New Entrant students had no knowledge of what a Poutama was. They also had a very limited understanding of what the ‘Poutama vocabulary’ was. So one of the first things I needed to do was to teach those words and vocabulary to them.

We developed an assessment form to assess their knowledge of this language.

The first assessment was done in Week one of the term.
This was done as a ‘Thumbs up/thumbs down activity”

The followng table records the number of students out of a class of 11 that knew what these words are/mean.

Questionnaire:
I know what a Poutama is… 0
I know what a novice is… 1
I know what an apprentice is…0
I know what a practitioner is… 0
I know what an expert is… 2
I know how to use a Poutama ... 0

We then assessed the students again two weeks later after they had been exposed to the language on a regular basis in the classroom.

Again we did this using a 'Thumbs up/ thumbs down' activity. The results were much different:
Out of the 11 students the following knew what they were/meant:

Questionnaire:
I know what a Poutama is… 11
I know what a novice is… 11
I know what an apprentice is…11
I know what a practitioner is… 11
I know what an expert is… 10
I know how to use a Poutama 11

A teacher assessment of the students engagement was also carried out at the beginning and at the end of the research. The data for this is included below.


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 - 2.9
Asked questions - 2.9
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 2.8
Used positive body language related to task - 3.2
Persevered in order to enact related task - 2.4
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 1.4
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 1.0
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.2
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 1.5

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 2.6

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

Competency effect size = 1.36
Standard error = 0.29

Conclusions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can year 1 students be supported to learn how to use Poutama to develop independence within the classroom through the establishment of class expectations and routines at the beginning year?

The regular use of the language associated with a Poutama in the classroom through many different curriculum areas e.g. handwriting, writing, reading has been most effective in establishing a culture of 'using a Poutama' in the classroom. Initially using a relevant context such as the class routines was an important aspect of the success of the research. The students could relate to this and found it easy to then put in their own words what they needed to do. What the expectations of them were.

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged were students as they developed and started to use a Poutama when establishing expectations and routines at the beginning of the year?

The engagement of students definitely increased once the students knowledge of what a Poutama was and the other associated language e.g. expert, apprentice, practitioner, novice was understood. The co-construction of the Poutama with the students absolutely helped to increase their engagment. After the co-construction the students understood what each stage was and were able to quite quickly place themselves on the Poutama and identify the next step for themselves.

Question 3. Knowledge: Can Students use the language of a Poutama?

This was vital to being able to carry out the project. Spending time developing, using and extending their knowledge of the Poutama language and then of how they could then rank themselves using a Poutama was very important. This needed to be done on a daily basis over the weeks and will need to continue daily to keep this knowledge current and relevant, especially as the class continues to grow with new entrant students arriving each week.

Question 4. Competency: What impact does establishment of expectations and routines at the beginning of the year have on student competency to develop and use Poutama for self assessment?

Having completed the research I have realised the impotance of having a context for the students to use (especially for the first time they use a Poutama) that is relevant to them and one they could quite easily relate to and be able to use each day. Choosing to use the expectations and routines of the classroom was a great choice of context as this was easily reinforced to the students through out each day they were at school. It became part of what we did and talked about each day. This made self assessing much easier for the students and they were also familiar with the Poutama by the time they did this assessment. The class are now ready to co-construct a Poutama for our next topic.

Using 'Fishbone' Organisers in our School Production

School: St. Bernard's School

Year Level: 2,3,4

Teacher: Philippa Rogers

Focus area: Managing Self: 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 e.g. organisational and thinking tools

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can students be supported to develop their ability to use a ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser through repetitive use in the class writing programme?

Question 2. Engagement: What impact does using the ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser have on student engagement?

Question 3. Knowledge: What impact does using the ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser have on the student knowledge of the various components of a school production?

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: Be aware of strengths and weaknesses of components of a production and have a plan to improve this knowledge.
Practitioner: Be able to use the knowledge about components of a production and to help run a production.
Apprentice: Be able to organise knowledge about components of a production and represent this as a report.
Novice: Be able to retrieve information on components of a production.

Question 4. Competency: What impact does using ‘fishbone’ graphic organisers repetitively in the language programme have on student competency to use the tool in other knowledge areas?

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: Be aware of strengths and weaknesses of a ‘fishbone’ organiser and develop a plan to improve their ability to use a fishbone.
Practitioner: Be able to analyse when to use a ‘fishbone’ organiser and apply it to help them learn.
Apprentice: Be able to describe the characteristics of a ‘fishbone’ to someone else.
Novice: Be able to use a ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser as a thinking tool.

Learning Story:

The students began with using an ‘information web’ organiser to brainstorm ideas on what they know about what is involved in putting on a production.

The second task was to present to the class a blank ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser (the students had not used one of these before) and without prior teaching, allow the students to organize their ideas around a recent school event. At the outset not many students knew how to use this type of thinking tool and most could not complete it successfully in the time allocated.

(19 children out of 22 were recorded as Novices from the intial task)

The ‘Learning Poutama’ rubric was explained and displayed on the whiteboard.( I used a blank Poutama and copied and pasted in my Knowledge and Competency success criteria from my 'Action Research Planning template' - I think it is important that our children too can learn and speak the language we are using as teachers).

Next learning steps were discussed and how they could achieve or progress to each stage.

During the writing programme, ‘fishbone’ organisers were used on various topics of work, e.g. visits from outside speakers, personal views, current events, etc. This process helped to increase the students understanding of how to use this thinking tool.

During this action research, our school production was in full swing and lots of discussion centered around the many components of managing a show. Each notice that went home asking for help with either costumes, sound, props, lighting, makeup,etc were talked about and analysed. The children worked in co-operative groups to brainstorm ideas on what needs to be organised for the different components of a school production.

At the end of the research, students created a report on their knowledge about components of a production. They were required to use a fishbone thinking tool to help them write this report independently.

I interviewed the students as they were completing their ‘fishbone’ about the strengths and weaknesses of using this tool ('expert' level).

From their report, I could assess what stage they had reached (not expecting 'practitioner' level as the school production was not their own).

However, soon after the class got the opportunity to write how they would run a class play and what components they would need to consider – this was a great way to assess whether they were a practitioner or an expert.

Students also completed an ‘engagement’ questionnaire after we had finished our topic.

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 - 3.3
Asked questions - 2.7
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 3.9
Used positive body language related to task - 3.8
Persevered in order to enact related task - 4.0
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 2.7
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 3.4
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.7
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 3.5

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.4

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 [9]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [0]; at end [7]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [0]; at end [5]
2. Proficient novices - at start [8]; at end [2]
1. Beginning novices - at start [15]; at end [0]

Knowledge effect size = 1.33
Standard error =0.09

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

Competency effect size = 1.54
Standard error =0.16

Conclusions:

Question 1. Implementation: How can students be supported to develop their ability to use a ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser through repetitive use in the class writing programme?

Once the students had used a 'fishbone' organiser initially, we discussed as a class how it could be effectively used to record their ideas. We looked at different samples of the children's work and made class 'fishbones' during our language programme.We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using this graphic organsier. The process helped immensely with the understanding of this great thinking tool.

Question 2. Engagement: What impact does using the ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser have on student engagement?

It certainly focuses the students on their work and their ideas were a lot more specific than in previous brainstorming activities. As the 'fishbone' organiser was used more frequently, the students settled quickly to the task assigned to them - the children were very engaged and interested in their learning.

Question 3. Knowledge: What impact does using the ‘fishbone’ graphic organiser have on the student knowledge of the various components of a school production?

This was a great topic to link into 'fishbone' graphic organisers as it was able to be broken into the different components quite easily. After unpacking the various aspects of a production in co-operative groups, most students could readily transfer this information onto a 'fishbone' organsier.

Question 4. Competency: What impact does using ‘fishbone’ graphic organisers repetitively in the language programme have on student competency to use the tool in other knowledge areas?

After using this thinking tool in their writing programme, I gave them other opportunities to use the 'fishbone' organiser, i.e. in the Health programme, Religious Education activities and in homework tasks ( here they also had to explain to their parents the characteristics of a 'fishbone', reinforcing the 'apprentice' stage).Co-operative group activities,using an enlarged 'fishbone' template,worked well and was very successful.

Final comment

The competency data shows that at the beginning of the unit 86% of students were at the novice level. They had limited ability or knowledge on how to use a ‘fishbone’ thinking tool effectively. By the end of the Term 68% of the class had become practitioners or experts.

The students’ knowledge about components of a production was also limited at the start (all at the Novice level), but this increased as our school production and lots of discussion took place during the unit. As the show was basically run by teachers it did not allow the opportunity for the children to become experts, but nearly 40% of students achieved at the practitioner level.

The children were highly engaged and enthusiastic throughout this unit and were very motivated to run a production of their own – unfortunately time did not allow this to happen, but would have been great to carry the activity through on another occasion.

Laptops as key learning tools

School:St Frances de Sales

Year Level: Whole School Focus

Teacher: Joan, Lisa, Louise

Focus area: Managing Self

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How effective is an interactive book as a tool for presenting students' knowledge?

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged are students when interacting with classroom laptops?

Question 3. Knowledge: (only at junior level) What makes a good park?

Question 4. Competency: How effective was the unit in developing student competency to create interactive books?

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: An expert can recall, describe, retrieve, create, learn and explore through another learning area using the knowledge they have gained. They are aware of their strengths and weaknesses.
Practitioner: A practitioner can recall, describe, retrieve and create from their knowledge.
Apprentice: An apprentice can recall and describe the experience and give some detailed information that elaborates on its characteristics from one of the domains .
Novice: A novice can name, recall and label their experience with some clarity.

Learning Story:

COWS FOR RESEARCH

With the arrival of two COWS (computers on wheels) we took the opportunity to investigate the best ways we could integrate ICT and the use of these twenty laptops, into our school wide inquiry practice. A major component of this was our focus on Managing Self as our Key Competency. 'Student awareness of and ability to use key learning tools for their achievement level (eg organisation tools, process tools, thinking tools, learning habits, technology, presentation tools, etc)'

The school has also employed a digital media facilitator, who is experienced in using ICT with children, to work in the school two days per week.

During Term 1, all syndicates were involved in EOTC experiences. The students were asked to identify an area of personal interest or curiosity that resulted from their experiences during EOTC exploration. Success criteria was developed with the students so that they were aware of the ways that they could present their findings. A student rubric for creating an interactive book was then developed.

To measure student knowledge and competency at the middle and senior level, students were asked to identify themselves on this rubric. Children at these levels had a range of abilities within the four aspects (text, sound, toolbars, content) of an interactive book that we choose to focus on. At middle and senior level, all students retained their rubric so they could refer to it as success criteria and to help them identify their next steps.

At junior level, data on individual student ability was gathered using teacher observation. This identification of student abilities gave teachers data to work from and to be able to deliver a targeted digital media facilitated programme.

As part of self management and self regulative learning, the rubric and observation allowed students to select skills they needed to develop to be successful and achieve against the set levels in the rubric.

Year 2 Class

The year 2 class were studying "Our Community" and used a visit to the local park as a context for this unit. The unit involved the following sessions

• Session 1
  Discuss with students what they know about Shorland Park
  Introduce flash cards with - who what when where why how
  Gather baseline information on children’s knowledge of the park Children draw or write their own ideas about what they know about Shorland Park.
  On the back of the page teacher records child’s ideas
  Create class chart of ideas about Shorland Park before visit
  Create wall display with class chart and word cards
  
• Session 2 Visit to park
  Prior to visit tell children that they will need to visit all areas of the park and find out the names of things they do not know
  At park divide class into small groups – each group lead by an adult will visit all activities at the park
  
• Session 3
  Using photos from park visit classify into different areas of the park
  Children choose a photo that represents the park and write a caption for the photo
  
• Session 4
  Show children how to insert a photo into PowerPoint page and add text
  Support children in finding a photo and inserting it into their page
  Children add text to the photo
  
• Session 5 (assess competency)
  children find their photo
  add their text to their photo
  share the presentation with others
  
• Session 6 (knowledge assessment task)
  Recall what children remember about the Park
  Children design their own ideal park
  Provide art resources for children to create their own ideal park or park activity
  
• Session 7
  Children share their designs with other students in the school.

At the Year 2 level children were scaffolded by creating a template page for students to place their picture and text into, allowing time for them to explore finding and inserting pictures, and allowing time for them to explore working with text. A high adult to student ratio of 1:8
was used. At this level one presentation was created by the whole class with individual students contributing one page each.

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement:

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

Junior

Mean level of engagement of students ...

Offered ideas - 3.3
Asked questions - 3.2
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 3.3
Used positive body language related to task - 3.7
Persevered in order to enact related task - 3.8
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 3.0
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 2.3
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.2
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 2.3

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.3

Year 5 /6

Mean level of engagement of students ...

Offered ideas - 3.0
Asked questions - 2.9
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 3.4
Used positive body language related to task - 4.5
Persevered in order to enact related task - 4.9
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - 3.8
Showed interest in directing their own learning - 4.1
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.7
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt -4.9

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 4

Year 7/8

Mean level of engagement of students ...

Offered ideas - 3.4
Asked questions - 2.6
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - 4.0
Used positive body language related to task -4.8

Persevered in order to enact related task - 4.1
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time -2.9
Showed interest in directing their own learning -3.3
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - 1.4
Showed evidence of using what they have learnt - 4.0

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.8

Overall school mean level of engagement of students = 3.7

Outcome 2. Knowledge

24 year 2 students were assessed against 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 3
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 0; at end 2
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 17
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 0; at end 2
2. Proficient novices - at start 7; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 17; at end 0

Knowledge effect size = 1.48

Standard error = 0.09

Outcome 3. Competency:

Year 7/8 students

Number of students who were ...

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

Competency effect size = 0.79

Standard error = 0.15

Year 5/6 students

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 [3]

5. Beginning practitioners - at start [3]; at end [13]

4. Proficient apprentices - at start [4]; at end [7]

3. Beginning apprentices - at start [7]; at end [6]

2. Proficient novices - at start [16]; at end [1]

1. Beginning novices - at start [0]; at end [0]

Competency effect size = 0.8

Standard error = o.09

Conclusions:

Question 1. Implementation: How effective is an interactive book as a tool for presenting students' knowledge?

All students successfully shared their work with peers and with an audience. The school held an open morning where parents and caregivers along with classes were invited to come along and view the students final pieces of work. It was observed that this opportunity gave children who were reluctant to speak in front of an audience a positive experience in sharing their newly acquired knowledge and work. Having the opportunity to present visually meant that the audience was captured immediately with sound, graphics, moving images etc.

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged are students when interacting with classroom laptops?

Effect size shows that this was an effective tool in all areas of the school. Student engagement was very high throughout all levels. An observer could walk into any level of classroom that was using laptops and see all students fully engaged with their inquiry. Other factors that contributed to the effectiveness were:

• a new technology in the school


• an ICT facilitator


• easy and immediate access to instant research through www

Question 3. Knowledge: (only at junior level) What makes a good park?

At this level, student knowledge was enhanced by visiting and taking photos at a local park. The experience of viewing photos and working to create a page on a PowerPoint proved to be a powerful tool in helping to make students aware of the elements that could be found in parks. This then provided them with the motivation to design their own ideal park.

Question 4. Competency: How effective was the unit in developing student competency to create interactive books?

Data from students' self assessment sheets and teacher observation showed a notable increase in student competency in creating an interactive book. The level of ability changed at the different levels of the school. The junior students still required support but were able to carry out some steps independently.

At year 5/6 the children put a lot of time into researching their chosen area. This meant that there was time spent learning how to research and the time spent in developing skills for the interactive book was limited. In future leaning experiences more time would be allocated to developing the knowledge on how to create an interactive book.

Students in year 7/8 had a higher level of knowledge when using both ICT and research skills. This meant that they had the opportunity to explore more of the components in the student rubric either independently or with the support of the ICT facilitator. Some students chose to develop their competency in one specific area eg: text, sound, tool bars or content while others worked across a number of areas in the rubric.

Managing Self

The use of ICT proved to be an effective tool for teachers to observe students self managing. It was easy to see that children were engaged in their learning, for example, questioning each other and discussing how they could take their next step.