"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
In Phase I, things didn't always go as planned in my classroom. However, I love that aspect of teaching. It throws curveballs, and it's always entertaining (read: stressful until it's funny in hindsight) trying to figure out how to adapt or move forward.
I figured out rather quickly that I wanted too much to happen in Phase One, but that’s okay. As I figured this out, I was able to make changes to support student needs rather than my own.
I figured out rather quickly that I wanted too much to happen in Phase One, but that’s okay. As I figured this out, I was able to make changes to support student needs rather than my own.
Cycle 1
In this cycle, students met their new small group members and participated in non-academic small group activities so that they might begin to build trusting academic relationships with each other as they are challenged to all participate in speaking/listening activities.
Implementation: Day 1
I started this day by giving my students new seats. This is a regular happening in this class, and was not a complete surprise to anyone. While my students get new seats at least once a week, they will be remaining in these new seats for the next two weeks, if not longer. I have placed them so that they are in groups of 3, heterogeneously with two higher-level students and 1 lower. I tried to create groups that were diverse. More importantly, I tried to create groups that were not entirely made of my students who are quieter/don’t talk to other students.
After some writing time for their novels, I asked them to simply introduce themselves to one another first, as if they had never met. I modeled this with one of my students, introducing myself, shaking his hand, and asking for his name.
It took them a minute to get on board, but soon there was a little bit of chatter, though it died rather quickly. I jumped to my next question for them, a small get to know you question that could give them a little bit of off-subject discussion: If you could have dinner with anyone, alive or dead, who would you have dinner with and why? While my students are in groups of 3-4, the desks are arranged in sixes. I noticed that one of the six groups of desks was silent. They wouldn’t make eye contact. And I noticed that the students at this table were many of the students who I have struggled to have conversations with in the past, and were of the more quiet, introverted students in the classroom. Unfortunately, due to absences, the people at that table who are more talkative, energetic, were missing. While this is no excuse, I struggled to figure out a way to get them to talk to each other.
On some level, I wonder if my interference caused the problem. Possibly due to the fact that they had computers in front of them, I saw that they just continued looking at what was on their screen rather than having an extended conversation.
Agenda for the day:
Implementation: Day 2 and 3
I designed these days so that there were a couple different opportunities for students to talk with each other among their groups, because I needed to continue working with students to involve speaking as a routine, safe aspect of our class. I started class (after reading) with the non-academic activity. I wanted to get them talking before I needed them to speak about academic work. Due to what happened yesterday (where students would talk to each other with a free prompt), I wanted something in which the activity is entirely driven by student input. Having them “write” a story one-word at a time meant that students did not need to have prepared an answer or really need to be self-conscious about what they were saying. I did notice that they did in fact feel a bit self-conscious because they felt like they had to say the right word.
We continued with the day by looking at examples of direct and indirect characterization. I had students look at two passages about the same character (one direct and one indirect) and identify differences that they saw. Working with the same small groups,
Findings and Reflection
Day 1:
Based on my observation, one exceptionally brief example of one of the conversations on this day looked like this:
Student A: I think I would invite... What's the name of the guy in The Outsiders? Ponyboy!
Student B: I would pick Michael Jackson.
Student C: I don't know... Taylor Swift.
*Silence* *Staring at computers.* *I walk up to join them.*
Me: How is it going over here? Who would you guys invite?
Student B: I said Michael Jackson.
Student C: We all answered.
*Continued silence.*
I have not quite taught them (or figured out how to teach them) how to maintain a conversation, and I probably need to spend more time developing questions or activities that elicit the kind of discussion that does not falter after an overly short amount of time.
When I noticed that one group of students had not said more than two words to each other, I felt obligated to encourage them. “How can I help you guys feel more comfortable around each other so that you can talk?” I asked. I don’t know if this was exactly the approach I should have taken. One girl sheepishly smiles whenever I ask her to speak. I attempted to move the issue beyond speaking, and invited them to thumb-wrestle instead. They know I like random things like this, and it was a suggestion for a small activity to do that my content mentor teacher had brought up as a way to take a break and break some of those boundaries between between students. It didn't particularly work. As all of this progressed, I was left with some thoughts:
Day 2/3:
In Day 2 & 3, according to my observational notes, I did far less modeling than I should have. I should have asked for a volunteer to demonstrate, and given them better instructions (such as ‘just say the first word that comes to your mind because it should move fast.) I also realize that I did not instruct students to keep going until I asked them to stop (I could have set a timer for the activity. I SHOULD have). I found that a few tables finished a sentence and then decided they were done. While they had enthusiastic people at the table who encouraged them to move forward, the class is quick to quiet. I think a lot of the issue comes from me. As enthusiastic as they know I am, and as great as our conversations can be, it is usually after that first class that I figure out how my instruction needs to be adjusted to have more engaged students later in the day. Much of the work I need to do is thinking through the outcome more.
A couple students stopped me toward the end of class, and we had the following informal conversation:
Student A: Are we going to do that again tomorrow?
Student B: Yeah! That was fun.
Me: Why did you think it was fun?
Student B: I don't know. It was different. I didn't have to think so hard.
Student A: It made me more relaxed when we had to do the other stuff.
Me: Why do you think that is?
Student A: Because... we were allowed to talk about anything? Like. I didn't have to worry so much.
From this conversation, I began to see how my students would perceive activities that weren't directly tied to literacy content (though my ulterior motives push me to hope that they'll gain more confident speaking skills in the process, beyond my specific research questions and goals.)
Focus Group Discussion
In the focus group discussion, I had 6 students remain in my class at lunch after this cycle. They were volunteers that were willing to have an honest discussion about their opinions about the activities we do and the needs they have for the class. This was the first time I had interviewed my students, and though I found myself doing more talking than I would have liked, there were a number of thoughts and suggestions that helped me develop and refine the next cycle. I began with the questions I had outlined.
In addition, I asked students as a whole their anonymous thoughts about what we were doing and how they felt about it through the feedback forms.
The following are themes of their reflections shared with me throughout the interviews and from the feedback forms.
1. Students valued the group activities throughout the week and want more.
"They're a way to share things and get opinions."
"It makes it less awkward. We usually know each other's names, but people talk too fast just to get it over."
"It's getting better. I like getting to know a few people that I work with. It makes me more comfortable talking
to them."
"I'm way more comfortable with this group now than the other groups I've had."
"I get frustrated that one person in my group won't talk at all. I want to try to work with them!"
From these and similar responses, I learned that my students know how difficult it is to get to know someone, but they like the opportunity to do so. Though they did not know my complete intention behind the activities, they recognized that over the course of the week, talking to the people around them got marginally easier over time. They were generally positive about the activities, and wanted them to continue. Some students expressed frustration with specific situations, like that certain people refused to talk at all (which I noted in my own observations are generally my ELLs (English Language Learners) or overly shy students), or some students who were being really negative. They even offered a few suggestions.
"You could pick three people to share something good about their day every day."
"Help people find commonalities"
"Do highs and lows. Like once a week everyone at the table share one high and one low..."
There was a definite interest in more frequent community-building activities, and specific value placed in building trust with those people. They told me that they would be more comfortable sharing their work with these people than in other groups, and that they felt more comfortable doing that at the end of the week than at the beginning of the week.
2. Students are sometimes confused by my directions (though this is a mixed review)
"Sometimes I don't understand how you want me to do something."
"Usually the blog is pretty clear, but not everyone reads it."
"I think the people that are the most confused are not listening."
Okay, so this is one of my biggest struggles, and it's interesting how varying the responses I get are. There is a noticeable difference, I think, in my ability to give directions between the first and second period of the day, and it gets exponentially better. I am working on this project more closely with my first class, and it was interesting to note that many of them did not see a whole lot that was super confusing. They mostly just thought that it took a little extra time to wrap their heads around what it is that I was asking of them, but that it was usually simple once they figured it out.
As positive as they were with me about this, I know that it still means I need a lot of work in this area. I know that I tend to think in the abstract, and it makes it difficult articulate specifics sometimes, so I find myself writing too much, or speaking unclearly. I know I'll be working on this daily for the foreseeable future. Simply being conscious of it has greatly improved my ability to reflect in action, in the moment and adjust as necessary, but I do stumble over my own directions more often than I'd like.
Implementation: Day 1
I started this day by giving my students new seats. This is a regular happening in this class, and was not a complete surprise to anyone. While my students get new seats at least once a week, they will be remaining in these new seats for the next two weeks, if not longer. I have placed them so that they are in groups of 3, heterogeneously with two higher-level students and 1 lower. I tried to create groups that were diverse. More importantly, I tried to create groups that were not entirely made of my students who are quieter/don’t talk to other students.
After some writing time for their novels, I asked them to simply introduce themselves to one another first, as if they had never met. I modeled this with one of my students, introducing myself, shaking his hand, and asking for his name.
It took them a minute to get on board, but soon there was a little bit of chatter, though it died rather quickly. I jumped to my next question for them, a small get to know you question that could give them a little bit of off-subject discussion: If you could have dinner with anyone, alive or dead, who would you have dinner with and why? While my students are in groups of 3-4, the desks are arranged in sixes. I noticed that one of the six groups of desks was silent. They wouldn’t make eye contact. And I noticed that the students at this table were many of the students who I have struggled to have conversations with in the past, and were of the more quiet, introverted students in the classroom. Unfortunately, due to absences, the people at that table who are more talkative, energetic, were missing. While this is no excuse, I struggled to figure out a way to get them to talk to each other.
On some level, I wonder if my interference caused the problem. Possibly due to the fact that they had computers in front of them, I saw that they just continued looking at what was on their screen rather than having an extended conversation.
Agenda for the day:
- Walk in/get netbook/find new seats (students are being given a new seating chart)
- read (we read everyday)
- ten to twelve minutes to work on writing for NaNoWriMo
- take a break/stretch
- introduce the new three-person groups they will be working with (and why!)
- ask them to introduce themselves to each other, give them “get to know you question.” purposefully non-academic. ask to speak to each other.
- If you could have dinner with anyone (alive, dead, or fictional), who would you invite? - provide bridge back to writing - “dare” students to include their answer in their novel
- ten minute writing sprint
- update word count/ shut computers down
Implementation: Day 2 and 3
I designed these days so that there were a couple different opportunities for students to talk with each other among their groups, because I needed to continue working with students to involve speaking as a routine, safe aspect of our class. I started class (after reading) with the non-academic activity. I wanted to get them talking before I needed them to speak about academic work. Due to what happened yesterday (where students would talk to each other with a free prompt), I wanted something in which the activity is entirely driven by student input. Having them “write” a story one-word at a time meant that students did not need to have prepared an answer or really need to be self-conscious about what they were saying. I did notice that they did in fact feel a bit self-conscious because they felt like they had to say the right word.
We continued with the day by looking at examples of direct and indirect characterization. I had students look at two passages about the same character (one direct and one indirect) and identify differences that they saw. Working with the same small groups,
Findings and Reflection
Day 1:
Based on my observation, one exceptionally brief example of one of the conversations on this day looked like this:
Student A: I think I would invite... What's the name of the guy in The Outsiders? Ponyboy!
Student B: I would pick Michael Jackson.
Student C: I don't know... Taylor Swift.
*Silence* *Staring at computers.* *I walk up to join them.*
Me: How is it going over here? Who would you guys invite?
Student B: I said Michael Jackson.
Student C: We all answered.
*Continued silence.*
I have not quite taught them (or figured out how to teach them) how to maintain a conversation, and I probably need to spend more time developing questions or activities that elicit the kind of discussion that does not falter after an overly short amount of time.
When I noticed that one group of students had not said more than two words to each other, I felt obligated to encourage them. “How can I help you guys feel more comfortable around each other so that you can talk?” I asked. I don’t know if this was exactly the approach I should have taken. One girl sheepishly smiles whenever I ask her to speak. I attempted to move the issue beyond speaking, and invited them to thumb-wrestle instead. They know I like random things like this, and it was a suggestion for a small activity to do that my content mentor teacher had brought up as a way to take a break and break some of those boundaries between between students. It didn't particularly work. As all of this progressed, I was left with some thoughts:
- I talk too much at students who already don’t talk, which doesn’t provide them the space to do that.
- I need to be able to set up a space in which students feel prepared to speak, such as writing something down first. I asked them to speak on their feet about a topic that was not serious, but for those that already don’t want to talk to each other at all, this didn’t give them a way into that conversation that they felt comfortable with. It was my hope that not focusing on academics, they would feel more confident, but I think I could create a better situation for that.
Day 2/3:
In Day 2 & 3, according to my observational notes, I did far less modeling than I should have. I should have asked for a volunteer to demonstrate, and given them better instructions (such as ‘just say the first word that comes to your mind because it should move fast.) I also realize that I did not instruct students to keep going until I asked them to stop (I could have set a timer for the activity. I SHOULD have). I found that a few tables finished a sentence and then decided they were done. While they had enthusiastic people at the table who encouraged them to move forward, the class is quick to quiet. I think a lot of the issue comes from me. As enthusiastic as they know I am, and as great as our conversations can be, it is usually after that first class that I figure out how my instruction needs to be adjusted to have more engaged students later in the day. Much of the work I need to do is thinking through the outcome more.
A couple students stopped me toward the end of class, and we had the following informal conversation:
Student A: Are we going to do that again tomorrow?
Student B: Yeah! That was fun.
Me: Why did you think it was fun?
Student B: I don't know. It was different. I didn't have to think so hard.
Student A: It made me more relaxed when we had to do the other stuff.
Me: Why do you think that is?
Student A: Because... we were allowed to talk about anything? Like. I didn't have to worry so much.
From this conversation, I began to see how my students would perceive activities that weren't directly tied to literacy content (though my ulterior motives push me to hope that they'll gain more confident speaking skills in the process, beyond my specific research questions and goals.)
Focus Group Discussion
In the focus group discussion, I had 6 students remain in my class at lunch after this cycle. They were volunteers that were willing to have an honest discussion about their opinions about the activities we do and the needs they have for the class. This was the first time I had interviewed my students, and though I found myself doing more talking than I would have liked, there were a number of thoughts and suggestions that helped me develop and refine the next cycle. I began with the questions I had outlined.
In addition, I asked students as a whole their anonymous thoughts about what we were doing and how they felt about it through the feedback forms.
The following are themes of their reflections shared with me throughout the interviews and from the feedback forms.
1. Students valued the group activities throughout the week and want more.
"They're a way to share things and get opinions."
"It makes it less awkward. We usually know each other's names, but people talk too fast just to get it over."
"It's getting better. I like getting to know a few people that I work with. It makes me more comfortable talking
to them."
"I'm way more comfortable with this group now than the other groups I've had."
"I get frustrated that one person in my group won't talk at all. I want to try to work with them!"
From these and similar responses, I learned that my students know how difficult it is to get to know someone, but they like the opportunity to do so. Though they did not know my complete intention behind the activities, they recognized that over the course of the week, talking to the people around them got marginally easier over time. They were generally positive about the activities, and wanted them to continue. Some students expressed frustration with specific situations, like that certain people refused to talk at all (which I noted in my own observations are generally my ELLs (English Language Learners) or overly shy students), or some students who were being really negative. They even offered a few suggestions.
"You could pick three people to share something good about their day every day."
"Help people find commonalities"
"Do highs and lows. Like once a week everyone at the table share one high and one low..."
There was a definite interest in more frequent community-building activities, and specific value placed in building trust with those people. They told me that they would be more comfortable sharing their work with these people than in other groups, and that they felt more comfortable doing that at the end of the week than at the beginning of the week.
2. Students are sometimes confused by my directions (though this is a mixed review)
"Sometimes I don't understand how you want me to do something."
"Usually the blog is pretty clear, but not everyone reads it."
"I think the people that are the most confused are not listening."
Okay, so this is one of my biggest struggles, and it's interesting how varying the responses I get are. There is a noticeable difference, I think, in my ability to give directions between the first and second period of the day, and it gets exponentially better. I am working on this project more closely with my first class, and it was interesting to note that many of them did not see a whole lot that was super confusing. They mostly just thought that it took a little extra time to wrap their heads around what it is that I was asking of them, but that it was usually simple once they figured it out.
As positive as they were with me about this, I know that it still means I need a lot of work in this area. I know that I tend to think in the abstract, and it makes it difficult articulate specifics sometimes, so I find myself writing too much, or speaking unclearly. I know I'll be working on this daily for the foreseeable future. Simply being conscious of it has greatly improved my ability to reflect in action, in the moment and adjust as necessary, but I do stumble over my own directions more often than I'd like.
Cycle 2
Due to the feedback I received from my students, both inside and outside of class, I decided that my second cycle need to be focused on creating regular opportunities for students to interact and share their ideas. I was already heading in this direction from my original plan, as I wanted students to focus on talking about their writing with each other, and it feels like an obvious need in any classroom that values collaboration, but I realized that I wasn't being as effective at implementing it as I wanted to be.
Implementation For the second cycle, I began by borrowing from the suggestions of my focus group. Almost daily, I asked students to share one good thing that happened to them in the last 24 hours. This was not specifically related to talking about writing, but I wanted to keep the routine of students speaking to one another as a consistent aspect of our class. It could be anything, even something as simple as "I finally finished that project I was working on," or "I remembered to feed my fish." Students shared with their group and were given a couple minutes to talk and discuss. I wish I had taken the time in this phase to have students share out some of their accomplishments. I don't know if it was time or just plain forgetfulness, or a combination, that caused this to not happen, but I'd like to experiment in the future with varied ways of sharing highs/lows/announcements in my classroom. There were multiple days over the course of the next seven school days that I ask them to do a different kind of activity, though. Wanting to move towards the sharing and building upon ideas to give informal feedback, I asked my students on multiple occasions to share a brief summary of where they were at and brainstorm next steps. |
|
The first time, they only needed to share a summary of their story and its overall plot, without asking anything in return. Many worked from a previous piece of writing in which I had asked them to write a "book blurb" about their book (the kind of book blurb that you would read on the back of a novel). This was a timed activity. Students were given 2 minutes to explain their book to those in their groups, rotating until everyone had a chance to share. They were then given extra time to ask each other questions that they might have.
The second time, I asked them to develop one or two questions that they had about their plot (in regards to a character, a plot point, or any specific thing that they felt they needed to add to or make more clear. They were given one minute to remind their group of their story, and ask their question.
I asked them to fill out a form in this process to see how they perceived these interactions. (Pictured above).
Findings and Reflection
I think the most interesting piece of data that I collected during this time period was that as my students felt more comfortable with each other, they did not necessarily feel more comfortable with the content. Student academic ability did not make giant gains during this time. Writing improved because of the sheer amount they were required to do, but few indicated that their writing greatly improved because of their group. They did indicate that they felt the groups helped them in the process.
The second time, I asked them to develop one or two questions that they had about their plot (in regards to a character, a plot point, or any specific thing that they felt they needed to add to or make more clear. They were given one minute to remind their group of their story, and ask their question.
I asked them to fill out a form in this process to see how they perceived these interactions. (Pictured above).
Findings and Reflection
I think the most interesting piece of data that I collected during this time period was that as my students felt more comfortable with each other, they did not necessarily feel more comfortable with the content. Student academic ability did not make giant gains during this time. Writing improved because of the sheer amount they were required to do, but few indicated that their writing greatly improved because of their group. They did indicate that they felt the groups helped them in the process.
Positive comments (grammar mistakes and all) from the feedback forms and student interviews included:
According to the feedback forms, most students who found they did not appreciate these activities indicated that some of the people in their group wouldn't talk, and it created some difficulties for the group as a whole. Some of the improvements students are looking for look like this:
- "Yes I would like [to continue peer discussion] because it help me a great amount of work and they can tell me what is there opinion of my work and what I need to improve"
- "It is kind of a better, interesting way to get students to share their writing by the funny activities you made us do and it helped a lot during my writing."
- "I like hearing about positive things from my group. We all
- "When began writing in my novel, I had pretty much every detail all planned in my head, and when I shared with my peers, it gave my ideas knew perspective."
- "Group activities are so much better and easier to work with. So many more ideas are shared rather than if you were alone and your own ideas were the only things helping you finish the activity."
According to the feedback forms, most students who found they did not appreciate these activities indicated that some of the people in their group wouldn't talk, and it created some difficulties for the group as a whole. Some of the improvements students are looking for look like this:
- "Yes [I like group activities] but i want them to talk more."
- "well sometimes we all talk at the same time all at once we should take turns."
- "I didn't really talk to my group mates. They didnt talk to me so next time we have to talk more."
- "I would prefer if there was a way that each group could become more isolated from other groups, but that's nearly impossible."
- "Sometimes they try to tell me to fix something but it doesn't fit with my story."
- "I can't always think of what to tell them."
Cycle 3
Implementation
It was somewhere in the middle of cycle two that I realized I could not yet formalize the peer review protocol that I originally wanted to use with my students in Cycle 3. I had already begun to deviate from my original plan, as I began to realize that this phase needed to remain focused on how I could better facilitate small group community within my classroom.
My original intention was to have students formally share their writing with each other. Students would read a few pages of their text to their group members, and after having a discussion about how to respond to text, group members would offer their thoughts/criticism/questions to the reader, which they could apply to their writing moving forward. Based on what I was seeing, Cycle 3 became kind of an extension of Cycle 2. Because students were indicating to me that they felt like they needed to finish their stories before their peers asked too many questions.
Students were again asked to write down one or two questions they had for their writing, which they shared at the beginning of the activity.
In addition, I still wanted them to read portions of their writing to their peers, so that all students would practice reading their writing out loud and sharing it with their peers. Even if they were only using it to ask questions or share a bit of insight, I wanted all students to talk in some form, as full participation seems to be the largest hurdle for some groups. I also implemented timers. Students were asked pick a place to read, and read from their story for two minutes. I timed them because I was less concerned with how much or how fast they read, but that they took the time to read continuously while their peers listened.
Afterwards, students received four minutes so that the other two members could offer one piece of praise for the reader and, if possible, try to answer the question that the reader presented before they read from their story.
Emphasis was placed on listening and providing positive comments and encouragement.
Findings and Reflection
In my observation, a majority of students who are very quiet worked really hard to participate. They were able to say and do more with those groups than I had seen so far that year. This was not a universal success, but I did see some of these positive outcomes.
My focus group yielded many of the same comments as the previous focus group interview. I asked the students if they noticed any changes between the the last interview and the current one. I pointedly asked about trust in this interview though: what it meant, how it affects groups, and whether or not they trust their groups and why. Most overwhelmingly, I had students tell me that they felt much more comfortable talking about their stories than they thought they would be. Most were still convinced that their stories were dreadful, due to the fact that they had such little time to write so much, but were more willing to talk about it.
"Trust means like... not having to worry about what they're going to say."
"I trust my group to listen to what I'm saying and give me real feedback."
"I don't like talking, but having the same people who I've gotten to know makes it easier."
"I think my group is great because we all get to share good things with each other."
Of course, I also got the following:
"I'm tired of my group because they don't help me."
"It's not fun if (name of student) won't talk to us."
"I could use that time for writing."
I shared with this group that I had wanted to incorporate a feedback protocol where, after reading, group members would offer constructive criticism in the form of praise, questions, and wishes. They were adamant that it was a good decision not to do that yet, because they weren't done with their novels and they didn't feel like they were in a place where criticism, constructive or otherwise, would help them move forward in their writing.
The majority of the focus group students were interested and hopeful that they would be able to do that later, though. They shared that it could be incredibly helpful, but that they wanted to do that after they had finished writing, when they were in the revision process. A couple students were a little more hesitant about wanting to participate in that kind of interaction, but agreed with the other students when they said it would be helpful later.
It was somewhere in the middle of cycle two that I realized I could not yet formalize the peer review protocol that I originally wanted to use with my students in Cycle 3. I had already begun to deviate from my original plan, as I began to realize that this phase needed to remain focused on how I could better facilitate small group community within my classroom.
My original intention was to have students formally share their writing with each other. Students would read a few pages of their text to their group members, and after having a discussion about how to respond to text, group members would offer their thoughts/criticism/questions to the reader, which they could apply to their writing moving forward. Based on what I was seeing, Cycle 3 became kind of an extension of Cycle 2. Because students were indicating to me that they felt like they needed to finish their stories before their peers asked too many questions.
Students were again asked to write down one or two questions they had for their writing, which they shared at the beginning of the activity.
In addition, I still wanted them to read portions of their writing to their peers, so that all students would practice reading their writing out loud and sharing it with their peers. Even if they were only using it to ask questions or share a bit of insight, I wanted all students to talk in some form, as full participation seems to be the largest hurdle for some groups. I also implemented timers. Students were asked pick a place to read, and read from their story for two minutes. I timed them because I was less concerned with how much or how fast they read, but that they took the time to read continuously while their peers listened.
Afterwards, students received four minutes so that the other two members could offer one piece of praise for the reader and, if possible, try to answer the question that the reader presented before they read from their story.
Emphasis was placed on listening and providing positive comments and encouragement.
Findings and Reflection
In my observation, a majority of students who are very quiet worked really hard to participate. They were able to say and do more with those groups than I had seen so far that year. This was not a universal success, but I did see some of these positive outcomes.
My focus group yielded many of the same comments as the previous focus group interview. I asked the students if they noticed any changes between the the last interview and the current one. I pointedly asked about trust in this interview though: what it meant, how it affects groups, and whether or not they trust their groups and why. Most overwhelmingly, I had students tell me that they felt much more comfortable talking about their stories than they thought they would be. Most were still convinced that their stories were dreadful, due to the fact that they had such little time to write so much, but were more willing to talk about it.
"Trust means like... not having to worry about what they're going to say."
"I trust my group to listen to what I'm saying and give me real feedback."
"I don't like talking, but having the same people who I've gotten to know makes it easier."
"I think my group is great because we all get to share good things with each other."
Of course, I also got the following:
"I'm tired of my group because they don't help me."
"It's not fun if (name of student) won't talk to us."
"I could use that time for writing."
I shared with this group that I had wanted to incorporate a feedback protocol where, after reading, group members would offer constructive criticism in the form of praise, questions, and wishes. They were adamant that it was a good decision not to do that yet, because they weren't done with their novels and they didn't feel like they were in a place where criticism, constructive or otherwise, would help them move forward in their writing.
The majority of the focus group students were interested and hopeful that they would be able to do that later, though. They shared that it could be incredibly helpful, but that they wanted to do that after they had finished writing, when they were in the revision process. A couple students were a little more hesitant about wanting to participate in that kind of interaction, but agreed with the other students when they said it would be helpful later.
Phase 1 Reflection and Learning
As much as I was able to feel successful throughout this phase, most of that feeling derives from what I learned about myself and my students, not from a perfectly-planned phase. It certainly wasn't that. What was intended to be a phase where students worked with an unchanging group of three to get to know each other and provide feedback, quickly became a phase of learning how to provide a space where students had the time to get to know each other and build trust so that they could share their stories and brainstorm. The formalized feedback, where students read a portion of their novel to their peers and students worked to provide constructive criticism and help identify problem areas, needed to wait. That is not to say that feedback was ignored entirely; it simply took a less formal format.
As I reflected on these findings, I began to make sense of the all the findings in terms of the following themes:
The inclusion of non-academic discussion has an overall positive effect in the classroom.
A couple things happened over the course of this phase in relation to this. First, my students genuinely told me that they liked incorporating non-academic discussions into the structure of the classroom. In most of my conversations, students indicated that it not only made it easier to talk to people they didn't know or normally talk to, but it made talking about academic work easier, too. I found that simple think-pair-share activities because more productive, and even I found myself more comfortable asking them to participate in think-pair-shares, as I began to figure out the kind of questions I needed to ask and the way that I needed to ask them.
My students appreciate and value the chance to work with a select group of students over time.
It's true that there were some groups that were less than ideal. It is common for me to have discussions with other teachers about how there is never a perfect seating chart. Part of the reason I moved them a lot at the beginning of the year was to see how they interacted with different people in the classroom, so that I could form groups that be both beneficial and challenging for one another. I know that I will be changing their groupings again after this project, or perhaps even within this project, but I think that as a class we have looked at how we might balance working with people we know and learning how to work with people that we don't interact with regularly. My students indicated, in general, that they felt more comfortable working with the same students about their writing. That they didn’t have to continuously reexplain their stories was a positive for them, and once they shared it once, they were less self-conscious about what they were talking about.
Clear, direct instructions are key.
Feedback from my master teacher, my students, and my own reflections reveal that I sometimes don't make it exactly clear what I want from my students on any given day. Additional feedback reveals that I am usually able to figure out the right way to ask for what I want as the day goes on, as a trial and error kind of progression. I will continue to work on creating clear directions that are simple enough for my students, yet academically rigorous. It's that balance that I haven't quite found yet.
My questioning skills are still far less developed than I'd like them to be, as well. I find that I reword questions a lot, and I think this has a lot to do with attempting to give multiple avenues into the question, but I've found that it confuses them. I need to be able to ask the question, and explain what that means, rather than give the same question four different ways. It does not aid in the clearness of my instruction.
I have a tendency to expect a lot to happen very quickly.
This was evident to me on the first day of my implementation, when I went to a group that wasn’t talking and tried to insert myself into their group to get them to talk. This took away from the ability to organically build their speaking skills.
This is a patience issue. I've worked in groups. I know how difficult it can be to feel as if everyone is pulling their weight, even if I know them. I also know that the ability to feel confident in speaking/working in groups is not universally acquired at a specific speed. I want them to feel comfortable enough and trusting enough to try, but I can't expect that to happen immediately either. As much as I have garnered the trust of my students as their teacher, I cannot expect them to be ready to jump into any situation full throttle.
I think I speak and think very broadly, and part of my learning will continue to be slowing myself down and focusing content for students.
Short, repeated activities are more valuable than isolated ones.
This may be a personal opinion related to my own teaching style, but I do believe that there is value in routine or, at the very least, consistency. As difficult as it is for me to create routine in my own life, I have realized through this project that I can and should do what I can to provide consistency for them.
This is not to say that it must be followed at all times. I notice that sometimes a deviation from routine makes that deviation more powerful, and avoids some of the tedium that goes along with routine. Mostly, I can't expect a change after only one lesson, activity, statement related to that change.
As I reflected on these findings, I began to make sense of the all the findings in terms of the following themes:
The inclusion of non-academic discussion has an overall positive effect in the classroom.
A couple things happened over the course of this phase in relation to this. First, my students genuinely told me that they liked incorporating non-academic discussions into the structure of the classroom. In most of my conversations, students indicated that it not only made it easier to talk to people they didn't know or normally talk to, but it made talking about academic work easier, too. I found that simple think-pair-share activities because more productive, and even I found myself more comfortable asking them to participate in think-pair-shares, as I began to figure out the kind of questions I needed to ask and the way that I needed to ask them.
My students appreciate and value the chance to work with a select group of students over time.
It's true that there were some groups that were less than ideal. It is common for me to have discussions with other teachers about how there is never a perfect seating chart. Part of the reason I moved them a lot at the beginning of the year was to see how they interacted with different people in the classroom, so that I could form groups that be both beneficial and challenging for one another. I know that I will be changing their groupings again after this project, or perhaps even within this project, but I think that as a class we have looked at how we might balance working with people we know and learning how to work with people that we don't interact with regularly. My students indicated, in general, that they felt more comfortable working with the same students about their writing. That they didn’t have to continuously reexplain their stories was a positive for them, and once they shared it once, they were less self-conscious about what they were talking about.
Clear, direct instructions are key.
Feedback from my master teacher, my students, and my own reflections reveal that I sometimes don't make it exactly clear what I want from my students on any given day. Additional feedback reveals that I am usually able to figure out the right way to ask for what I want as the day goes on, as a trial and error kind of progression. I will continue to work on creating clear directions that are simple enough for my students, yet academically rigorous. It's that balance that I haven't quite found yet.
My questioning skills are still far less developed than I'd like them to be, as well. I find that I reword questions a lot, and I think this has a lot to do with attempting to give multiple avenues into the question, but I've found that it confuses them. I need to be able to ask the question, and explain what that means, rather than give the same question four different ways. It does not aid in the clearness of my instruction.
I have a tendency to expect a lot to happen very quickly.
This was evident to me on the first day of my implementation, when I went to a group that wasn’t talking and tried to insert myself into their group to get them to talk. This took away from the ability to organically build their speaking skills.
This is a patience issue. I've worked in groups. I know how difficult it can be to feel as if everyone is pulling their weight, even if I know them. I also know that the ability to feel confident in speaking/working in groups is not universally acquired at a specific speed. I want them to feel comfortable enough and trusting enough to try, but I can't expect that to happen immediately either. As much as I have garnered the trust of my students as their teacher, I cannot expect them to be ready to jump into any situation full throttle.
I think I speak and think very broadly, and part of my learning will continue to be slowing myself down and focusing content for students.
Short, repeated activities are more valuable than isolated ones.
This may be a personal opinion related to my own teaching style, but I do believe that there is value in routine or, at the very least, consistency. As difficult as it is for me to create routine in my own life, I have realized through this project that I can and should do what I can to provide consistency for them.
This is not to say that it must be followed at all times. I notice that sometimes a deviation from routine makes that deviation more powerful, and avoids some of the tedium that goes along with routine. Mostly, I can't expect a change after only one lesson, activity, statement related to that change.
Moving Forward
Because of where I stopped in this phase, I planned to continue my work with creating small group communities and keep my original research question, but move forward with the second half of what I had originally hoped to explore with my students: giving and receiving helpful, honest feedback, and applying it to one's writing. They will soon complete the writing portion of their novel creation process, and move into the revision and editing portion. It is during this time in December that I planned to implement more formalized peer review protocol.
In this phase I learned that taking time to help students begin to build trust is a beneficial aspect of collaborative work. I also learned that doing this doesn't always mean that students will automatically begin to work together or show improvement, or feel that they are able to do so. Many indicated that they needed everyone to participate, and those that didn't participate found it more difficult.
In Phase 2, I will be building in a feedback protocol that will ask students to read, reflect, and improve on their writing with the help of those in their group in order for students to practice talking about their writing in a detailed, formal way. My hope is that as much as my students are finding that they trust and respect the people they are working with more, they will be able to apply their skills in helping each other create stronger pieces of writing.
Phase 2 will take place during the revision process of NaNoWriMo, as students begin to identify excerpts from their novels that exhibit specific elements I taught before and during the writing process. They will work in groups to share, provide feedback, and revise these excerpts with their groups.
In this phase I learned that taking time to help students begin to build trust is a beneficial aspect of collaborative work. I also learned that doing this doesn't always mean that students will automatically begin to work together or show improvement, or feel that they are able to do so. Many indicated that they needed everyone to participate, and those that didn't participate found it more difficult.
In Phase 2, I will be building in a feedback protocol that will ask students to read, reflect, and improve on their writing with the help of those in their group in order for students to practice talking about their writing in a detailed, formal way. My hope is that as much as my students are finding that they trust and respect the people they are working with more, they will be able to apply their skills in helping each other create stronger pieces of writing.
Phase 2 will take place during the revision process of NaNoWriMo, as students begin to identify excerpts from their novels that exhibit specific elements I taught before and during the writing process. They will work in groups to share, provide feedback, and revise these excerpts with their groups.