The Increase in Comfort and Trust Between My Students and Me Initiated a "Spiral
of Learning"
Linking my phase one finding of building a sense of community, I found that an increase in comfort and trust the students began to show initiated a “Spiral of Learning” (Cox, 1997) that began with opening an avenue of discussion and communication which was extended by empowering them through choosing their own personal responses. I gave them more writing freedom where they could explore their needs and interests. The students and I became more responsive to our ideas and sentiments shared within the dialectical journals which guided our actions to improve and reflect.
Throughout this process, the students learned the nature of personal response as they used insightful questions to draw out more of a connection with their teacher. A great example of this is the question asked by the aforementioned student about how I felt about leaving my school placement. Whether I was wrapped of in a combination of student-teaching and night school or something else, I had not thought about my own feelings about leaving these same students which I had spent the majority of my time the last 6 months. It really allowed me to step back and realize that I should enjoy the last couple weeks with them because chances are I will probably never hear from them unless they are a part of my future classes.
Based on the data concerning grade distributions, evidence suggests that non-ELL students were able to make more sustainable improvement in their overall grades. Both D's and F's declined after phases 1+2. Incrementally, it appears F's change to D's and D's improved to C's after the conclusion of each phase.
What is interesting to note is that the non-ELL grade distributions form a bell curve at the end of phase 2 which was not present before. In purely mathematical terms, it "normalized" the grades. As an action researcher I do not want to think of terms of "normal" or "abnormal", just that a combination of factors present in the last few months of school led to a rise in grades for my class. 25% of the non-ELL students liked phase 2 more. That number jumps to 42% if the students who claimed to be neutral are added in.
Throughout this process, the students learned the nature of personal response as they used insightful questions to draw out more of a connection with their teacher. A great example of this is the question asked by the aforementioned student about how I felt about leaving my school placement. Whether I was wrapped of in a combination of student-teaching and night school or something else, I had not thought about my own feelings about leaving these same students which I had spent the majority of my time the last 6 months. It really allowed me to step back and realize that I should enjoy the last couple weeks with them because chances are I will probably never hear from them unless they are a part of my future classes.
Based on the data concerning grade distributions, evidence suggests that non-ELL students were able to make more sustainable improvement in their overall grades. Both D's and F's declined after phases 1+2. Incrementally, it appears F's change to D's and D's improved to C's after the conclusion of each phase.
What is interesting to note is that the non-ELL grade distributions form a bell curve at the end of phase 2 which was not present before. In purely mathematical terms, it "normalized" the grades. As an action researcher I do not want to think of terms of "normal" or "abnormal", just that a combination of factors present in the last few months of school led to a rise in grades for my class. 25% of the non-ELL students liked phase 2 more. That number jumps to 42% if the students who claimed to be neutral are added in.
Lack of Structured Dialogue for ELL Students Coincides With Drop of Productivity and Class Assignments
It was unfortunate to see a decrease in productive behavior and class assignments, which in turn lowered the overall grade of my ELL students. Starting around 6/5/13 there was a downward spiral in the on task behavior of my ELL students. Coupled with the lack of completeness 60% of ELL students had with phase 2, the drop in WIN scores suggests that ELL students engage and interact more when prompts are given to them in dialectical journals. Even though non-ELL students experienced a dip in WIN assignment grades, their productivity during class stayed high and their overall grades improved.
ELL students did experience a surge in grade improvement. Baseline data tells me that 80% (8 out of 10) were failing. At the conclusion of phase 1, 50% (4 out of 8) of the F's improved to D's. This is significant because before AR implemenation there was no middle ground, an ELL student either had a C or an F. Data suggests that after the implementation of phase 1 a middle category of D's was created. However, at the end of phase 2 50% (2 out of 4) of D's reverted back to F's.
A possible explanation for this decline can be that 83% of the ELL students claim they did not like the phase 2 dynamic where they directed the conversation. This lack of engagement and interest could have been enough for two students to revert back to their baseline grade of an F. An analogy that comes to mind most parents or older siblings might understand is that of teaching a child to ride a bike. Imagine the parent or sibling's hand guiding the child's bike as scaffolds that the prompts served as with phase 1. The hope is that once this hand is removed the child will continue to pedal and keep balance on their own accord as was my hope my ELL students would do with our dialectical journals. Regrettably, I learned just as a parent who let go of the bike to soon, that it was too soon to remove these scaffolds (journal prompts).
ELL students did experience a surge in grade improvement. Baseline data tells me that 80% (8 out of 10) were failing. At the conclusion of phase 1, 50% (4 out of 8) of the F's improved to D's. This is significant because before AR implemenation there was no middle ground, an ELL student either had a C or an F. Data suggests that after the implementation of phase 1 a middle category of D's was created. However, at the end of phase 2 50% (2 out of 4) of D's reverted back to F's.
A possible explanation for this decline can be that 83% of the ELL students claim they did not like the phase 2 dynamic where they directed the conversation. This lack of engagement and interest could have been enough for two students to revert back to their baseline grade of an F. An analogy that comes to mind most parents or older siblings might understand is that of teaching a child to ride a bike. Imagine the parent or sibling's hand guiding the child's bike as scaffolds that the prompts served as with phase 1. The hope is that once this hand is removed the child will continue to pedal and keep balance on their own accord as was my hope my ELL students would do with our dialectical journals. Regrettably, I learned just as a parent who let go of the bike to soon, that it was too soon to remove these scaffolds (journal prompts).
Potential Phase 3
If time allowed, a reversion to phase 1 dynamics might be more beneficial to in sustaining productivity and overall class performance. As evidenced by exit slip #2, 50% (9 out of 18) preferred to be asked prompts for them to respond to as compared with 28% (5 out of 18) who would rather direct the conversation. 11% (2 out of 18) answered they were neutral and the remaining 11% were dissatisfied with both phases.
Referring back to the literature review, the consensus among the authors is that students learn more and "buy in" when they are part of the decision making/learning process. When incorporating the aforementioned consensus and the results of phase 1, one can only come to the conclusion that a reversion or something similar to it should take place to continue student success.
Referring back to the literature review, the consensus among the authors is that students learn more and "buy in" when they are part of the decision making/learning process. When incorporating the aforementioned consensus and the results of phase 1, one can only come to the conclusion that a reversion or something similar to it should take place to continue student success.