Implementation
The structure implemented in this phase allowed for a gradual release of responsibility as I introduced the format we would use for peer feedback. I have learned with my students before beginning this action research that they do not respond well when we analyze a piece of writing that they believe I wrote because they are afraid of telling me I’m wrong. This is why it was important to me that we use a student example and that I model helping that student improve as we looked at it together. My students see me as an authority, as the person that gives feedback, so I wanted to help students to practice giving it as well. It didn’t help to have them do it and to receive feedback, because I wasn’t teaching them how to give it. I knew that I needed to focus on teaching them how to give feedback.
This is not something I had thought about until I was planning this phase, and I believe that this subtle shift in the way in which I perceived modeling as a strategy drastically improved my ability to employ the strategy. I found that I had structured the lesson far better than I had in previous attempts to show student work and model identifying good things about it and things that could be improved.
Cycle 1:
The hurdle that I faced on the first day of the first cycle was this: I needed to spend more time teaching students what to look for when employing the praise/question/wish strategy. After I read the prompt and listened to students struggle through identifying what they wanted to say about the excerpt, I realized that I needed to spend time looking at exactly what the literary element was and what it required of the writer. I turned out that I used an excerpt that was being used as an example for indirect characterization. When students returned to me after having a chance to speak in their groups, they were not able to articulate
Instead of moving on, we stopped and talked about the literary element itself.
Me: “We know that this writer wants to indirectly characterize their character. What does that mean?”
S1: “That they can’t just tell us about the character.”
Me: “Why?”
S2: “That’s direct characterization.”
S3: “You have to show that the character is energetic.”
Me: “Okay. How can a writer do that?
S2: “By, like, having the character run a lot or something?
At this point we made a list of characteristics of the character that the writer wanted to show, and worked to identify ways that the writer was able or unable to use indirect characterization in the example according to those characteristics. It was here that we moved back to using the praise/question/wish strategy, and I asked students to form their thoughts using the sentence frames provided wherever possible.
After we did that, we took the excerpt and began to make additions to the writing as a class. Students presented ideas, and I wrote what they told me.
When we were finished, the excerpt had doubled in length, and we looked at ways in which the paragraphs had gotten even better.
Due to the nature of what we were doing, and the difficulty students had identifying what it was that they were looking for according to the literary element, I decided to do this again the following day before beginning cycle two.
For the second day, I chose an excerpt based on a literary element that I found students as a whole struggled with, hoping that as a class we could clarify some misunderstandings that they could apply in their own groups and their own writings. We went through similar steps as the previous day. The literary excerpt we did was a description of a setting that creates a mood. We made a list of things that this device requires (i.e. a specific mood that the reader feels, details about a room/place, few or no characters doing actions, etc.), Then I read an excerpt and had students participate in a think/pair/share using the praise/question/wish method that was introduced yesterday.
Cycle 2/3:
Over the next two days (plus two days the following week, for cycle 3), each group of three followed the same protocol with their groups. Each student chose a particular excerpt that they felt they needed to improve, and students worked within their groups using the same protocol and praise/question/wish method of providing feedback. With three people in the group
The first time the groups did this on their own, in cycle 2, was a little bit of a train wreck. Students complained that their group wasn’t helpful, that no one was listening. Or they didn’t read it out loud. Or they thought the excerpt was perfect and didn’t know what else to do with it. Or they got distracted and didn’t make very much progress. They didn't monitor the time well because they were so focussed
Because of the difficulties, on the second day, I focused more on timing each piece for students. It worked for those that were having difficulty with it before, and those that didn’t need it were able to keep working. There were still some problems, but I did see an improvement. That may have been because I was stricter with timing, though it may have also been because they were able to apply what they learned in their attempt on the previous day.
Providing this kind of time structure made Cycle 3, the second round of small group feedback/revision, much smoother. Monitoring the time became easier, speaking to one another became less stressful, and the stress of having to provide feedback to more than one student in a class period and to make sure it all fit could be eliminated. I think we were able to work out some of the kinks as a class, and the groups found their own rhythm as well. I structured it so that Cycle three took three days, and one student in each group would present and ask for feedback each day. This way, students could focus on one person at a time each day, and be able to continue working on their own projects for the second half of class. The process remained the same.
This is not something I had thought about until I was planning this phase, and I believe that this subtle shift in the way in which I perceived modeling as a strategy drastically improved my ability to employ the strategy. I found that I had structured the lesson far better than I had in previous attempts to show student work and model identifying good things about it and things that could be improved.
Cycle 1:
The hurdle that I faced on the first day of the first cycle was this: I needed to spend more time teaching students what to look for when employing the praise/question/wish strategy. After I read the prompt and listened to students struggle through identifying what they wanted to say about the excerpt, I realized that I needed to spend time looking at exactly what the literary element was and what it required of the writer. I turned out that I used an excerpt that was being used as an example for indirect characterization. When students returned to me after having a chance to speak in their groups, they were not able to articulate
Instead of moving on, we stopped and talked about the literary element itself.
Me: “We know that this writer wants to indirectly characterize their character. What does that mean?”
S1: “That they can’t just tell us about the character.”
Me: “Why?”
S2: “That’s direct characterization.”
S3: “You have to show that the character is energetic.”
Me: “Okay. How can a writer do that?
S2: “By, like, having the character run a lot or something?
At this point we made a list of characteristics of the character that the writer wanted to show, and worked to identify ways that the writer was able or unable to use indirect characterization in the example according to those characteristics. It was here that we moved back to using the praise/question/wish strategy, and I asked students to form their thoughts using the sentence frames provided wherever possible.
After we did that, we took the excerpt and began to make additions to the writing as a class. Students presented ideas, and I wrote what they told me.
When we were finished, the excerpt had doubled in length, and we looked at ways in which the paragraphs had gotten even better.
Due to the nature of what we were doing, and the difficulty students had identifying what it was that they were looking for according to the literary element, I decided to do this again the following day before beginning cycle two.
For the second day, I chose an excerpt based on a literary element that I found students as a whole struggled with, hoping that as a class we could clarify some misunderstandings that they could apply in their own groups and their own writings. We went through similar steps as the previous day. The literary excerpt we did was a description of a setting that creates a mood. We made a list of things that this device requires (i.e. a specific mood that the reader feels, details about a room/place, few or no characters doing actions, etc.), Then I read an excerpt and had students participate in a think/pair/share using the praise/question/wish method that was introduced yesterday.
Cycle 2/3:
Over the next two days (plus two days the following week, for cycle 3), each group of three followed the same protocol with their groups. Each student chose a particular excerpt that they felt they needed to improve, and students worked within their groups using the same protocol and praise/question/wish method of providing feedback. With three people in the group
The first time the groups did this on their own, in cycle 2, was a little bit of a train wreck. Students complained that their group wasn’t helpful, that no one was listening. Or they didn’t read it out loud. Or they thought the excerpt was perfect and didn’t know what else to do with it. Or they got distracted and didn’t make very much progress. They didn't monitor the time well because they were so focussed
Because of the difficulties, on the second day, I focused more on timing each piece for students. It worked for those that were having difficulty with it before, and those that didn’t need it were able to keep working. There were still some problems, but I did see an improvement. That may have been because I was stricter with timing, though it may have also been because they were able to apply what they learned in their attempt on the previous day.
Providing this kind of time structure made Cycle 3, the second round of small group feedback/revision, much smoother. Monitoring the time became easier, speaking to one another became less stressful, and the stress of having to provide feedback to more than one student in a class period and to make sure it all fit could be eliminated. I think we were able to work out some of the kinks as a class, and the groups found their own rhythm as well. I structured it so that Cycle three took three days, and one student in each group would present and ask for feedback each day. This way, students could focus on one person at a time each day, and be able to continue working on their own projects for the second half of class. The process remained the same.
Phase 2 Findings and Reflections
Some of the most common comments I received from students over the course of this phase included:
I observed that because students had to work in individual places (according to where they were in their revision process), it was sometimes difficult to know where to start to explicitly teach them how to give each other the proper feedback. This is not to say that it wasn't possible. I think I needed to be more proactive about choosing a specific thing for everyone to practice, such as clarifying or asking a specific type of question.
I also took a look at student responses to the same questions I asked at the beginning of my action research process. Here are some of the graphs:
- difficulty finding things to change.
- more focus on grammar than ideas
- Appreciation of the praise
- not always knowing what question to ask
- being able to look at other's closely helped them with their own writing.
I observed that because students had to work in individual places (according to where they were in their revision process), it was sometimes difficult to know where to start to explicitly teach them how to give each other the proper feedback. This is not to say that it wasn't possible. I think I needed to be more proactive about choosing a specific thing for everyone to practice, such as clarifying or asking a specific type of question.
I also took a look at student responses to the same questions I asked at the beginning of my action research process. Here are some of the graphs:
What I find most interesting about these graphs is that students didn't decide that they absolutely love talking with peers; in fact fewer students rated this statement at a 5 than had originally. As much as I want students to love having other people read their writing, It is more important to me that after going through this process, they do not see it as a completely negative aspect of their growth. The amount of students who chose "1"s on these likert scales effectively halved, and to me that is a significant change.
In a way, I think it is more reflective of human work flow that students are gravitating towards the middle-ground on their likert-scale rankings of peer feedback and group work. While in an ideal world students will want to work collaboratively and have everyone read and respond to everything, I can understand that sometimes it just doesn't work as we want it to. It is fair to say that sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn't, and I respect that that majority of my students chose a three on a scale of five.
Focus Group Interviews
My focus group had some really interesting comments that confirmed the ideas and responses noted above.
"I felt bad for groups that didn't know what to say to each other"
"I thought I didn't know what to say, but by the second round, I felt more confident"
"We were way more comfortable with these people than we would have been"
"I think I like group work more [than before], but it depends on how the teacher makes it"
Overall, my focus group became more confident in telling me what they felt about the process, and were pretty positive about the experience overall, while expressing the disappointment in certain people that wouldn't engage with them or offer them feedback. They left me with a lot to think about in terms of providing what students need in order to have conversations they want to have, but don't quite know how to have.
Expanding upon that problem, my focus group also had mediocre feelings about the "praise/question/wish" protocol. They found that sometimes they were falling back on the same questions, or just repeated the same things so that they would have something to say. They weren't opposed to it, but also weren't sure how they could make it more useful.
I am finding that as much as students are beginning to see each other as people they might be able to work with and learn from, I am not teaching them how to do it quite as well as I want to.
The following are the larger themes that characterize my phase 2 progress:
Peer feedback is incomplete until students are able to apply the feedback to their writing.
Unless my students get the opportunity to make real-time changes to their writing after getting feedback from their peers, they don’t make the kind of significant changes that improve their writing.
In lessons previous to this research, I have asked students to provide feedback, and then later they were given the opportunity to go back and make improvements. I rarely saw any sort of change in my students’ writing. They would listen to the praise and advice, but never actively put in effort to change anything. I found that in this series of lessons, I was able to connect the two.
In asking the groups to work together to improve one person’s writing, I found that the task was less daunting for students. Students who were not strong writers were getting feedback that required them to make improvements to their writing immediately, and in looking at the writing of their peers and trying to help make additions, they were critically engaging with writing at different academic levels. To me, it was more important to be able to work together to make improvements than to force students to do everything on their own. Whether looking at their own document, or that of their peer, they were required to actively participate.
Of course, there were students disinterested in the activity, which brings me to my next lesson.
I am much more successful managing the classroom when I can sit down and actively work with students/groups who are disengaged, rather than simply telling them to get back to work.
In my classroom there is always a lot going on, at different speeds, at different academic levels, and at different levels of enjoyment. I try not to speak in front of the class for more that 5-10 minutes before students are actively working by themselves or in groups. When they are working, I have to monitor, engage with, and stop students when they are misinterpreting directions or not working at all. I think what I have been able to do throughout this research is learn how to identify who needs me and for how long. I have learned to differentiate (mostly) students that are struggling, off-task, or misunderstanding what is going on much quicker.
As much as I want students to trust each other, I have learned to trust that if I am engaged with a student for any length of time, others in the classroom are still working on the task at hand. Of course, they aren’t always working on the task at hand, but as I have sat down at tables and worked on activities with my students, they have begun to see me as someone that is there to help, not manage. They know that I’m not going to come over to them and yell at them if they are not following directions exactly, or are talking about the football game after school.
While I don’t think I’m perfect at being able to manage my own time with the students who need me, I do think I am getting better at it, and their willingness to work is improving because of it.
Peer feedback requires knowing what needs to be improved, and students struggle to articulate what exactly is good/bad or what they like/dislike about a piece of writing.
I think that we had very specific literary elements to look for in this project, which helped tremendously with this problem, but I also think I need to be better about being focused in what we are looking for when we give feedback to someone else’s writing. Part of this means spending more time clarifying content, but I also think there is an element to deepening academic conversations that was missing. This might mean students don't know what questions to ask each other, or how to extend their explanation. It may be necessary to focus on these kinds of interactions so that students feel more confident making the attempt at articulating something to the people around them.