"A team is not a group of people who work together. A team is a group of people who trust each other."
- Simon Sinek
- Simon Sinek
Overview
Through my needs assessment, I noted that it is the peer to peer support that is lacking in my classroom. In Phase I, I wanted to provide them with the opportunity to engage with each other as students were working on finishing their novels.
After many conversations with my own peers and mentors, I came to understand that finding support in your work and asking for feedback is not just about finding smart people and talking to them. There is an element to asking for feedback that involves being around people who will push you to move forward. Just as important is your willingness to listen to what they have to say and actually make the changes needed.
Through my literature review, I discovered that peer review is a necessary and beneficial part of the writing process. My research and needs assessment, as well as the input from my team of supporters, has pointed me to one foundational aspect of small-group community that is currently missing: trust. This is where I needed to start if I were to expect my students to participate in peer revisions, and has become a guiding force in my phase one action plan.
I designed the first phase of my action research to work towards this goal of building trust in my classroom so that peer review could become purposeful and useful to all students.
After many conversations with my own peers and mentors, I came to understand that finding support in your work and asking for feedback is not just about finding smart people and talking to them. There is an element to asking for feedback that involves being around people who will push you to move forward. Just as important is your willingness to listen to what they have to say and actually make the changes needed.
Through my literature review, I discovered that peer review is a necessary and beneficial part of the writing process. My research and needs assessment, as well as the input from my team of supporters, has pointed me to one foundational aspect of small-group community that is currently missing: trust. This is where I needed to start if I were to expect my students to participate in peer revisions, and has become a guiding force in my phase one action plan.
I designed the first phase of my action research to work towards this goal of building trust in my classroom so that peer review could become purposeful and useful to all students.
Action Plan
At the time of this phase, students are just over 30% through the month-long project, having been writing for ten days, with an average of about 3,000 words written per student thus far. Much of our class time has been spent individual writing, or practicing new skills for writing, such as using dialogue, action words, or incorporating subplots. It has been a very individual process, much as writing often is, and it was difficult at that point to get to every student and give the kind of individualized feedback they need or want, and it was difficult to expect them to even want to work with each other when they have such an intense process to work through.
Phase One began with small group creation and trust-building within those groups. As determined by my literature review, it important for students to have both on- and off-topic conversations to develop community. Small activities will be used to allow students to become more familiar with each other and begin to
As we move forward, a peer review protocol will be introduced to students.
Cycle 1:
Cycle 1 of this phase is to be conducted over three days. The goal for this cycle is for my students to meet the peers they will be working with as they progress through their writing, and to begin to build trust in those people before we even begin to talk about peer review protocols.
At the beginning of the first day, I had students move to new seats in which they were put in groups of three. These groups will be heterogeneous groupings in which two higher-level students are placed with one lower-level student. Throughout those three days, students will participate in a series of short activities to get to know each other, both academically and socially. While some students may already know each other, my intent is to go beyond simply knowing names and small facts about one another. Instead, I provided opportunities for engagement that are beyond normal expectations and do not always require a specific academic outcome. Sometimes, these activities may seem juvenile, or silly, but they are essential to the process of building trust. These icebreaker activities pushed them beyond our academic work and encouraged students to engage with each other.
Adapting activities from Open to Outcome (Jacobson & Ruddy, 2004) and No Props (Collard, 2005), as well as my own experiences, I began with simple get-to-know-you activities. Part of the peer revision research found in my literature review cites role-play as an ingredient for student response success. I began by asking students to role-play as complete strangers, who have happened to meet for the first time. I will ask a volunteer to model this with me.
Other activities will act as short breaks between writing sprints over the course of the three days. (We do 10 minute writing sprints each day to help students focus on writing rather than editing, to learn that writing can always be revised and reworked later.) This will include such activities as: thumb wrestling, sharing positive experiences from their day, and creating stories one word at a time.
On the last day, to begin to think about working together in the writing process specifically, students will be asked to share a brief summary of the novel they are writing with their group. In response, both group members will be asked to share one thing they like about the story so far, and one piece of encouragement for the writer, as it will be a Friday, and in this project students are expected to write every day (including the weekend!)
Cycle 2:
Based on the results of Cycle 1, I developed the following Cycle 2 plan.
Because we are not yet specifically into the revision/editing process of NaNoWriMo, the focus of the second cycle will not be on taking what students have written and revising it to make it better. Instead, peer workshops were designed to help students to clarify and brainstorm in order to move forward in their own writing with suggestions and input from their team, much like I use my own team to clarify and move forward with Action Research. I planned for my students to begin to have a firm understanding of the stories that their group-mates are writing, and be able to discuss different aspects of their writing together.
Students remained in their groups of three as we continued through this phase (and into the next one as well). I asked them to present an overview of their story thus far, and read a portion of it to their group.
On the first day of this cycle, I asked students to take one minute each to give their group members a summary of their story as they have written it or have it planned. They were not required to read any of their writing just yet, as I wanted them to become familiar with each others' stories and comfortable talking about them as a whole. After their minute is up, the other members of the group have three minutes to ask questions of their partners. I provided frames for the kind of questions students might ask of one another, focusing on clarifying ideas.
On a following day, I asked students to write down two questions or concerns that they have about their own stories. I gave them some frames to use as examples of ways that they could express their concerns. These examples included questions and concerns that might look like this:
I want my character to ______, but I'm not sure how to make that happen.
I don't think I have enough detail about my [conflict/protagonist/supporting character/etc].
I'm having a hard time adding a subplot to my story because…
What would be a good way to transition from _______ to ________?
How can I add more drama to this situation?
Much like the first day in the cycle, students worked in groups to speak to each other about their novels, though this day was focused on brainstorming problems that were occurring in their writing process and brainstorming different ways to solve them. I again had students present their questions/concerns to their group. With a specified time for each person in the group to get feedback, the goal was to provide as many possible avenues for the writer as they continued working with their characters/plot.
Once this occurred, students were given more in-class writing time to continue moving forward with their novels. With brainstorming, they needed the time to work on meeting their word count goals, and applying some of the ideas that they generated together.
Cycle 3:
After two days focused on writing individually, cycle 3 was implemented. Similar to the second cycle, students were to discuss and brainstorm together, except that it was more focused on students sharing their writing, rather than a summary, as I wanted them to practice owning their story and their words. Students are wary of sharing their writing, and my hope is that after the small-group activities we have done and the summaries they have shared, students will be more prepared to share their writing and feedback with one another.
It will be completely student-led, without modeling from myself. I worked to model this in the first cycle, and I wanted students to take what they have practiced and apply it to their groups. In this way I could help specific groups that I knew needed more direct instruction and help with the process. Much of what my class already does is very student-centered in that I speak for very short amounts of time so that students can focus on learning and I can focus on meeting them where they need, and this project will allow for a little bit more of a gradual release of responsibility as I teach them how to work with each other and talk about their writing.
My plan is that at this point, I will introduce a formal peer review protocol. Students will choose a piece of writing from their novel, around 2-3 pages in length (they are writing on smaller, book-sized pages in Google Drive (5x8 inches)). Students will read the excerpt, and their group members will offer feedback while the reader listens. Those offering feedback will be asked to each share one thing that they liked, one wish that they had for the excerpt, and one question they are left with after hearing the excerpt. The reader will be asked to not respond, but listen and take notes accordingly. This will be timed 3-5 minutes for students to read their excerpt, and 7-10 minutes for group members to offer feedback.
Phase One began with small group creation and trust-building within those groups. As determined by my literature review, it important for students to have both on- and off-topic conversations to develop community. Small activities will be used to allow students to become more familiar with each other and begin to
As we move forward, a peer review protocol will be introduced to students.
Cycle 1:
Cycle 1 of this phase is to be conducted over three days. The goal for this cycle is for my students to meet the peers they will be working with as they progress through their writing, and to begin to build trust in those people before we even begin to talk about peer review protocols.
At the beginning of the first day, I had students move to new seats in which they were put in groups of three. These groups will be heterogeneous groupings in which two higher-level students are placed with one lower-level student. Throughout those three days, students will participate in a series of short activities to get to know each other, both academically and socially. While some students may already know each other, my intent is to go beyond simply knowing names and small facts about one another. Instead, I provided opportunities for engagement that are beyond normal expectations and do not always require a specific academic outcome. Sometimes, these activities may seem juvenile, or silly, but they are essential to the process of building trust. These icebreaker activities pushed them beyond our academic work and encouraged students to engage with each other.
Adapting activities from Open to Outcome (Jacobson & Ruddy, 2004) and No Props (Collard, 2005), as well as my own experiences, I began with simple get-to-know-you activities. Part of the peer revision research found in my literature review cites role-play as an ingredient for student response success. I began by asking students to role-play as complete strangers, who have happened to meet for the first time. I will ask a volunteer to model this with me.
Other activities will act as short breaks between writing sprints over the course of the three days. (We do 10 minute writing sprints each day to help students focus on writing rather than editing, to learn that writing can always be revised and reworked later.) This will include such activities as: thumb wrestling, sharing positive experiences from their day, and creating stories one word at a time.
On the last day, to begin to think about working together in the writing process specifically, students will be asked to share a brief summary of the novel they are writing with their group. In response, both group members will be asked to share one thing they like about the story so far, and one piece of encouragement for the writer, as it will be a Friday, and in this project students are expected to write every day (including the weekend!)
Cycle 2:
Based on the results of Cycle 1, I developed the following Cycle 2 plan.
Because we are not yet specifically into the revision/editing process of NaNoWriMo, the focus of the second cycle will not be on taking what students have written and revising it to make it better. Instead, peer workshops were designed to help students to clarify and brainstorm in order to move forward in their own writing with suggestions and input from their team, much like I use my own team to clarify and move forward with Action Research. I planned for my students to begin to have a firm understanding of the stories that their group-mates are writing, and be able to discuss different aspects of their writing together.
Students remained in their groups of three as we continued through this phase (and into the next one as well). I asked them to present an overview of their story thus far, and read a portion of it to their group.
On the first day of this cycle, I asked students to take one minute each to give their group members a summary of their story as they have written it or have it planned. They were not required to read any of their writing just yet, as I wanted them to become familiar with each others' stories and comfortable talking about them as a whole. After their minute is up, the other members of the group have three minutes to ask questions of their partners. I provided frames for the kind of questions students might ask of one another, focusing on clarifying ideas.
On a following day, I asked students to write down two questions or concerns that they have about their own stories. I gave them some frames to use as examples of ways that they could express their concerns. These examples included questions and concerns that might look like this:
I want my character to ______, but I'm not sure how to make that happen.
I don't think I have enough detail about my [conflict/protagonist/supporting character/etc].
I'm having a hard time adding a subplot to my story because…
What would be a good way to transition from _______ to ________?
How can I add more drama to this situation?
Much like the first day in the cycle, students worked in groups to speak to each other about their novels, though this day was focused on brainstorming problems that were occurring in their writing process and brainstorming different ways to solve them. I again had students present their questions/concerns to their group. With a specified time for each person in the group to get feedback, the goal was to provide as many possible avenues for the writer as they continued working with their characters/plot.
Once this occurred, students were given more in-class writing time to continue moving forward with their novels. With brainstorming, they needed the time to work on meeting their word count goals, and applying some of the ideas that they generated together.
Cycle 3:
After two days focused on writing individually, cycle 3 was implemented. Similar to the second cycle, students were to discuss and brainstorm together, except that it was more focused on students sharing their writing, rather than a summary, as I wanted them to practice owning their story and their words. Students are wary of sharing their writing, and my hope is that after the small-group activities we have done and the summaries they have shared, students will be more prepared to share their writing and feedback with one another.
It will be completely student-led, without modeling from myself. I worked to model this in the first cycle, and I wanted students to take what they have practiced and apply it to their groups. In this way I could help specific groups that I knew needed more direct instruction and help with the process. Much of what my class already does is very student-centered in that I speak for very short amounts of time so that students can focus on learning and I can focus on meeting them where they need, and this project will allow for a little bit more of a gradual release of responsibility as I teach them how to work with each other and talk about their writing.
My plan is that at this point, I will introduce a formal peer review protocol. Students will choose a piece of writing from their novel, around 2-3 pages in length (they are writing on smaller, book-sized pages in Google Drive (5x8 inches)). Students will read the excerpt, and their group members will offer feedback while the reader listens. Those offering feedback will be asked to each share one thing that they liked, one wish that they had for the excerpt, and one question they are left with after hearing the excerpt. The reader will be asked to not respond, but listen and take notes accordingly. This will be timed 3-5 minutes for students to read their excerpt, and 7-10 minutes for group members to offer feedback.
Assessment Plan
My data collection tools were developed to assess my students’ growth according to my AR question, as well as my own growth in facilitating these kinds of interactions. Through these collection tools, I will be observing changes in how my students interact and communicate with one another, as well as their own perceptions of how they view the peer revision process. I plan to use three major forms of assessment: teacher observations, feedback forms, and focus group interviews.
|
Feedback forms
Before the beginning of NaNoWriMo, I asked my students to evaluate themselves according to the following likert scale questions, knowing that my first phase would involve peer revision. Along with each likert scale, students were asked to provide their reasoning for choosing the number that they chose. This set of questions would be reintroduced at the end of my research to note if there are changes over time:
Teacher observations Throughout this process, I will be keeping a journal of daily reflections in which I will record my observations of student behavior and engagement. What attitudes am I seeing my students exhibit as the cycles progress? Are there changes? Is there anything particular about an occurrence that day that can be built upon or modified in the next days? In answering these questions, I will reflect on my own method of delivery, and the ways in which I am presenting activities and information to students. I will record what was successful, unsuccessful, and/or improvements that might be made, taking into account the feedback given to me by students, my cooperating teacher, and other mentors. In addition, much of the work to be done throughout these cycles is student-driven via small groups. I will note, in my journal, comments that students make about the process. I will also have a modified seating chart with me in which I will keep a tally of students who are not participating or are off-task |
Focus Group Interviews
I will ask for 5-6 volunteers to informally conference with me about the work we are doing in our class. In these conferences, I am looking for student opinions on the process, and what they feel they are gaining from working closely with a small group of people.
The following questions will be used to guide our conversations, though I will allow the conversation to deviate where necessary or helpful.
I will ask for 5-6 volunteers to informally conference with me about the work we are doing in our class. In these conferences, I am looking for student opinions on the process, and what they feel they are gaining from working closely with a small group of people.
The following questions will be used to guide our conversations, though I will allow the conversation to deviate where necessary or helpful.
- What do you think about working in small groups to present and share feedback about your novels?
- What do you believe is necessary to make group revision successful?
- What have you gained from working with this group?
- How can we make peer feedback more effective?
- What could I, as your teacher, do better to help you with this process?
- Do you trust the people you are working with to give you honest and valuable feedback? Why or why not?