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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results:

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

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 4.2

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

Knowledge effect size = 1.3

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

Competency effect size = 1.5


Conclusions: PMI

Plus:

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


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


• Children were very engaged during activities.


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


• The increase in knowledge was pleasing.


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


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


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

Minus

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

Interesting

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

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.

Co-operative Strategies - Better Learning?

School: Houghton Valley

Year Level: Y6

Teacher: Peter Holmstead

Focus area: Co-operative Strategies - Participating and Contributing



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

Research Questions:

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

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

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

Success Criteria for Knowledge

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

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

Success Criteria for Competency

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

Learning Story:

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement:

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

Mean level of engagement of students ...

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

Overall mean level of engagement of students = 3.1

Outcome 2. Knowledge (EMR context):

Number of students who were ...

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

Knowledge effect size = 0.82
Standard error = 0.06

Outcome 3. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

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

Competency effect size = 0.95
Standard error = 0.08

Conclusions:

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

Learning to Follow Instructions When Writing

School: St Anne’s

Year Level: Years 2 – 6

Teacher: Jillian Porter & Peggy Bruce

Focus area:

Participating and Contributing: To investigate ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute including Intrapersonal Skill -Independently follow Instructions to Complete Writing Tasks:

• Listen to the instructions given
• Be able to repeat instructions
• Remain seated at desk/table/mat
• Work independently on the required task
• Complete the writing task

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: What Strategies are needed to support children to follow instructions and complete the task given?

Question 2. Engagement: Are the children able to follow instructions and complete the task given at the beginning of the project?

Question 3. Knowledge: What impact does this have on their knowledge? What changes in knowledge have occurred as a result of the strategies used to support children to independently follow instructions and complete set writing tasks?

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Recounts – Year 2/3 (Both Observations) Year 5/6 (Final Observation):

Expert: Selects thoughts feelings and ideas that are personally meaningful in relation to an experience, beginning to add some detail and comments, as well as sequencing most ideas logically, linking events to indicate the passage of time
Practitioner: Selects thoughts feelings and ideas that are personally meaningful in relation to an experience. Demonstrates the use of some detail, and sequencing
Apprentice: Forms ideas about an experience and expresses these using mainly simple sentences and some compound sentences
Novice: Forms ideas and attempts to express these using simple sentences

Question 4. Competency: What changes have occurred in the children’s ability to independently follow instructions and complete set writing tasks?

Success Criteria for Competency:

Expert: I know what I need to do in order to complete a writing task, and am able to change what I do in order to improve my writing
Practitioner: : I know what will help me to complete a writing task, and am able to use this to help me finish the writing task
Apprentice: I can describe what I need to do in order to complete a writing task and can tell someone else what is expected
Novice: I am able to follow the criteria given in order to complete a writing task

Learning Story:

General Background: For this action research project we decided to work together as we both wanted to focus on ‘Participating and Contributing’, and link this within a writing context, as writing is our school wide focus for Professional Development.

Our reasoning behind the choice of ‘Participating and Contributing’ relates to a school wide concern that our children find managing themselves difficult in a general sense, and this has an enormous effect on their ability to ‘Participate and Contribute’ in their learning across all areas of school life.

Choice of Children: We chose three children from Year 2/3 and three from Year 5/6 who were of concern, to be our focus children for the project. The small number of children chosen was due to the short period of time in which to carry out this piece of research.

There were different reasons for the choice of ‘focus’ children within the two levels.

Year 2/3:

• Children in this age group ‘generally’ are learning about how to participate and contribute within the classroom setting.
  
• The specific children were finding this more difficult than their peers

Year 5/6:

• Concerns about children who were seen as fitting within the ‘tail end’ and what kinds of support we need to provide them in order for their learning to move forward
• The types of behaviour which they display; specifically - avoidance behaviour which each child is and has been exhibiting
• The belief that we need to be more explicit when working with these particular children in order to support their learning.

Background on the Children Chosen in Year 2/3:

• Two are year 3, age 7 years (Samoan, Assyrian)
  
• One is year 2, age 6 years (Samoan)


• Two year 2 children are both ex Reading Recovery children


• The other child has difficulty articulating and has various illnesses which have kept him home extensively last year
  
• All three children have difficulty concentrating, understanding and following instructions and consequently do not finish allocated tasks


• Reading and writing is at approximately 1-2 years behind their peers for all three children
  
• Orally all three children have difficulty articulating themselves, do not understand tenses, pronouns etc., and cannot repeat or follow a simple instruction without it made explicit.

Background on the Children Chosen in Year 5/6:

• Two children are Year 5, age 8.10 and 8.11 (African, Samoan)


• One child is Year 6, age 9.09 (African)


• One child (Year 5) has had Reading Recovery
  
• All three children have English as their Second Language
  
• In reading and writing the children are working between 2 -4 years behind their peers


• All three children display avoidance behaviour in all aspects of their learning
  
• Orally the children have difficulty articulating themselves and find it particularly difficult to listen to, repeat and follow instructions and require additional support in all situations

The Goals and Expectations for this Research Project: The goals and expectations were focused around investigating ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute within the context of writing.

The main goal was to support the children with their ability to:
Independently follow instructions to complete writing tasks under the following criteria:

• Listen to the instructions given
  
• Be able to repeat instructions
  
• Remain seated at desk/table/mat while engaging in the writing task
  
• Work independently on the required task
  
• Complete the writing task

The expectation was that there would be a shift in their ability to do this for themselves following specific support structures.

The Programme: The Year 2/3 programme involved the classroom teacher working with the three children during writing time.

The Year 5/6 programme varied slightly from the Year 2/3 programme in its delivery. The children worked with two teachers for the duration of the programme. One teacher introduced the activities to a small group of children (of which the three target children were a part) prior to the writing session each day. The same activity was then repeated within the classroom setting at the beginning of writing time by the classroom teacher. This included the whole class.

The logic behind this variation was to investigate whether the use of double doses would support the children in their ability to understand what was expected of them at writing time, and to provide them with further opportunities to practice those expectations.

Programme Outline:

Week 5 – Monday 2nd March
Initial Brainstorm – What do we do to manage ourselves during writing time?

Week 5: Tuesday 3rd March
Introduce the knowledge criteria:

1. Listen to the instructions given
   
2. Be able to repeat instructions
   
3. Complete the writing task
   
4. Remain seated at desk/table/mat while engaging in the writing task


5. Work independently on the writing task

Focus on specific criteria for each writing session beginning with no.1

Week 5: Wednesday 4th & Thursday 5th March
Criteria 1: Listen to the instruction given using the following process:

1. Discussion – introduce the specific criteria
   
2. Chinese Whispers


3. Play act – listening to instructions


4. Verbal word play – introduce Acrostic Poem

L - Look
I - I face the person speaking
S - Sit still
T - Take notice of what is being said
E - Expect to understand what is being asked
N - Need to ask questions when I am unsure

Week 5: Friday 7th March & Week 6: Monday 9th March
Criteria 2: Be able to repeat instructions

1. Revisit previous criteria (1)


2. Discussion – introduce criteria 2
   
3. Play act – give instructions or phrases for children to repeat


4. Play follow the leader – take turns giving instructions
   
5. Play Simon says

Week 6: Tuesday 10th & Wednesday 11th March:
Criteria 3: Remain seated at the desk/table/ mat while engaging in the writing task Revisit previous criteria (1 – 3)

1. Discussion – introduce criteria 4


2. Play act – give scenario’s for children to act out
   
3. Problem solving – What will I do if…..
   E.g. my pencil breaks; something is bothering me; something else is happening in the classroom; I don’t know what to do; if someone else tells me to do something etc

Week 6: Thursday 12th & Friday 13th March:
Criteria 4: Work independently on the required task

1. Revisit previous criteria (1 -4)


2. Discussion – introduce criteria 5
   
3. Problem solving – What will I do if…. I don’t know what to do


4. I know that I can complete the task because …… I will ask myself “What are the steps I need to take?” (Criteria 1 – 4) …. And if I am unsure I will ask the teacher to explain the writing task again

Observations: Observations took place over a period of three days at the beginning and the end of the project. Each observation lasted for 20 minutes during the writing session and was broken into two sections.

• Ten minutes during modeling time


• Ten minutes during independent writing

Following each observation a photocopy was taken of the children’s writing after ten minutes.



Following the observations the data was transferred onto excel for analysis.




Results:
Outcome 1. 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 [1]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [0]; at end [1]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [3]; at end [1]
2. Proficient novices - at start [3]; at end [3]
1. Beginning novices - at start [0]; at end [0]

Knowledge effect size = 0.25
Standard error = 0.17

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

Competency effect size = 0.42
Standard error = 0.15

Conclusions:

Question 1 -Implementation: The question we asked was: ‘What Strategies are needed to support children to follow instructions and complete the task given?’

We established that the strategies needed to be clear and very explicit in order for the children to gain a greater understanding of what the instructions were in order to complete the task given.

The programme was structured in order that the learning was delivered in small and manageable chunks. The criterion was delivered so that the children were able to build up their knowledge in relation to one aspect at a time. This then was linked together again at the end of the programme.

Question 2 - Engagement: The question we asked was: Are the children able to follow instructions and complete the task given at the beginning of the project?
The initial observations showed that:

Competency – Modeling:

• One child was a beginning novice (Year 5)
  
• Two children were proficient novices (Year 6, Year 2)


• Three children were beginning apprentices (Year 5, Year 3 x 2)

Knowledge – Independent Writing:

• Three children were proficient novices (Year 6, Year 5, Year 2)


• Three children were beginning apprentices (Year 5, Year 3 x 2)

The classroom teachers found that as they observed the children it became more and more apparent as to the extent to which they avoided participating within the writing programme. This was seen in both the modeling session as well as the independent writing session. The ways in which the children avoided participating varied from overt avoidance to very subtle ways which were not obviously seen.

In discussion it was agreed that all teachers felt that the children were not avoiding the work on purpose, but rather that the children had developed strategies to deal with continually not understanding what was expected of them. The result was a strategy of - continued avoidance of work.

Question 3 - Competency (Modeling): The question we asked was: What changes have occurred in the children’s ability to independently follow instructions and complete set writing tasks?

The results show that changes did occur in the two groups in both modeling (competency) and independent writing (knowledge). These changes are relatively small, however given the time frame it is evident that the programme did support the children to participate and contribute to a greater extent.



In order to have a greater effect it would beneficial to give more time to the implementation of the programme in order to greater support the children’s ability to participate and contribute during writing. In doing this we would need to further develop the activities within the programme, as this would allow for more opportunities for the children to practice and consolidate their learning.

Final Conclusions:

The results indicate that the strategies used within the programme were useful and allowed the children to build their knowledge. However, it became apparent that the project would need to be extended in order for greater gains to occur, and for the children to consolidate their knowledge and understanding.

Overall the children showed increased confidence in their ability to talk about what they were doing and in their attempts to write independently for themselves. There also was a shift in their enjoyment when writing and when talking with their peers, or if asking for assistance. This would indicate that their engagement is definitely greater when they fully understand the task given them.

Next Steps:

• Continue the action research project in Terms 2 - 4 in order to consolidate the children’s knowledge and extend their learning with regard to participating and contributing.
  
• Introduce the action research project as a whole school focus with all classroom teachers participating. The project will continue to focus on three target children; however the whole class will participate in the programme. This project will run for the duration of Term 2 – 4.
  
• Following this the aim will be to deepen the children’s competency and knowledge in relation to the writing process. This will link into our Professional Development in Writing. This project will begin in Term One of 2010.
  

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.