In each of the following sub-sections the action research project developed by Tina is discussed first with that of Janine following.
Planning and choice of topic
Tina identified that a group of five of her children appeared, from observation and assessment, reluctant to take risks during written language. She wanted to lessen their dependence on the teacher to guide their production of words and sentences. Importantly, she wanted to discover if it was she, as the class teacher, who was a barrier to the children taking risks. Before deciding on intervention strategies for Cycle 1 of her project, Tina consulted a reference article (Robertson, 2001) which presented ideas on how to assist learners who were considered to be strategy inefficient.
Part of Tina’s intervention was to develop individual learning intentions for her target, and other children. These were based on individual need and each child was asked before they began their writing the question, “What do you need to remember today?” The child then referred to their individual learning intention. Examples of a learning intention included making a space between words, beginning with a capital letter or finishing a sentence with a full stop.
Janine
Task orientation and staying on task were concerns for Janine. She identified a group of four boys who exhibited task avoidance strategies, both at the beginning of a task and during its execution. She considered that these behaviours were preventing the boys from effectively learning and achieving. The question she wanted answered was whether there was an effective method for motivating students to begin a task and to remain on it for a longer period. As with Tina, this teacher was particularly concerned about written language tasks.
Intervention
Tina
The action research plan devised by Tina was a combination of elements including; teacher modelling, placement of children to facilitate peer modelling, choosing a time of day that best suits written language tasks, use of “brain food” prior to the lesson, use of exercise prior to the lesson, encouraging the children to know when and where to seek appropriate help and careful daily monitoring of the target group of children’s progress. Prior to intervention Tina was advised to
vary some of the elements, e.g. brain food and exercise, so that she might be able to determine which one might be having an effect.
During the first intervention stage changes were made to the plan as a result of the teacher’s observations and ongoing assessment. For example, Tina introduced mind mapping and key words as scaffolds for the target children. In her Cycle 2 a major change occurred in the intervention plan as a result of teacher reflection and discussion. Peer tutors were trained and placed alongside the target children. The rationale for this change was that previous research has suggested that peer tutoring is a successful method of assisting children who struggle with written language (Medcalf, Glynn & Moore, 2004). Peer support is also viewed by writers in the field as being a technique that promotes inclusion in the class programme because, whilst it focuses on an individual’s need, it focuses on the participation of individuals within the whole class programme (Cameron, 2002; Hardin & Hardin, 2002).
A further change implemented in Cycle 2 of her research was that she re-located some of her students. In Cycle 1 the students were grouped according to ability in written language. Tina observed that the target students who were all in the same group tended to prevent one another from completing their tasks by unproductive behaviour. Tina dispersed the target children amongst other groups. Janine
The method that Janine chose for her teacher research was to divide written language task into discrete tasks. Following the introduction and discussion phase of the lesson the teacher broke the rest of the lesson time into thinking, writing or rest periods. The periods were delineated by the use of a liquid egg timer. This written language intervention was performed three to four times per week with the whole class. By having discrete periods the teacher believed that she would be able to more effectively monitor which tasks were giving her target group the most challenge.
Once a week the children completed a “free” written language task during which, following an introductory discussion no further help was given. The teacher then timed how long it took the four target children to begin the task of writing, how
long they stayed on-task and recorded the number of occasions they were off-task. A running record for each target child was kept in which off-task episodes were noted. Over the cycle these data were averaged out.
The intervention plan for Cycle 2 contained some changes. The liquid timer was replaced by a stop watch because the teacher noticed that many children were watching the liquid egg timer slowly empty which took their attention from their writing task. During Cycle 2 the target children were seated together. The teacher did this because she considered that the competition between the targets might have encouraged them to stay on task longer. It also afforded the teacher a better opportunity to assess the children’s progress because she had a reduced field of vision in which to scan the target children more frequently (c.f. Tina’s approach). This flexibility to make change is a feature of action research.
In both cycles the whole class performed the free written language activity but with only the target children’s task behaviours being specifically monitored. All of the children had their writing output assessed by the teacher at the end of writing session, usually after school. The teacher reported that she used verbal prompts during the intervention sessions with the target children at what she considered was a higher rate than with the rest of the class.
Reflection and evaluation
At the completion of each cycle the teachers reflected and evaluated on their project using a template. The purpose of the template was to give some direction to the reporting of findings and to lead the teachers into some reflective behaviour. At the conclusion of the two cycles of their action research project the teachers also completed a template which guided reflection and evaluation around the use of action research to conduct research in the classroom. The purpose of this final task was so that the teachers could feed back to me their thoughts about the usefulness of action research in the classroom environment, how it helped them meet the needs of children and whether they might use it in the future.
Data Analysis
Student observation, teacher rating and the child’s progress against a pre- intervention baseline were the major data collected by the teachers.
Tina
Tina had both quantitative and qualitative data to examine. The quantitative data related to the children’s knowledge of alphabet and basic sight words using pre and post intervention results. The children were also rated on a criterion scale against the stage of writing that they had reached (see Appendix P). To do this Tina took several samples of recent writing at the close of each cycle and compared them against the criterion. The children were compared against their learning intentions and success criteria.
Janine
In her research Janine analysed her data in terms of the increase in productivity or the decrease in ‘off-task’ time that the children engaged in. She used a simple comparison of the results at the end of each cycle with the previous results.