Data Collection & Analysis
A lot of the Implementation section was drawn from my teacher journal, but the student feedback forms and observation guides provided equally insightful data. Here I will analyze my data, addressing each question individually.
How is student motivation to revise affected?
Throughout Phase 1 I saw an increase in student motivation to revise, exhibited in their willingness to share with peers, in order to receive feedback on how to improve their play. When I asked one student how she helped her peer she responded:
By actually writing something that can get feedback, even if it’s just word vomit
Some students’ desire to write was driven by the need to receive feedback with which to revise their play. There was also a connection between increasing collaboration and motivation to revise, as students explained:
We talked about what we thought of the play and a new direction we might want to take it in.
We talked about ideas on how to fix our play.
Students began to recognize the need to revise, which was brought about by discussions with their partner and possibly my position as writer, as I encouraged increasing peer interaction, regularly provided constructive feedback.
I was also encouraged by student progress during week three, as students developed their written responses following the Socratic seminar, expanding upon initial ideas and incorporating their peers’ findings.
The student feedback form measured the type of challenges students faced throughout Phase 1. I coded their responses into four categories; academic, collaboration, focusing, and none.
How is student motivation to revise affected?
Throughout Phase 1 I saw an increase in student motivation to revise, exhibited in their willingness to share with peers, in order to receive feedback on how to improve their play. When I asked one student how she helped her peer she responded:
By actually writing something that can get feedback, even if it’s just word vomit
Some students’ desire to write was driven by the need to receive feedback with which to revise their play. There was also a connection between increasing collaboration and motivation to revise, as students explained:
We talked about what we thought of the play and a new direction we might want to take it in.
We talked about ideas on how to fix our play.
Students began to recognize the need to revise, which was brought about by discussions with their partner and possibly my position as writer, as I encouraged increasing peer interaction, regularly provided constructive feedback.
I was also encouraged by student progress during week three, as students developed their written responses following the Socratic seminar, expanding upon initial ideas and incorporating their peers’ findings.
The student feedback form measured the type of challenges students faced throughout Phase 1. I coded their responses into four categories; academic, collaboration, focusing, and none.
Students reported increasing academic and collaboration challenges, with academic challenges including writer’s block, character and plot development, producing realistic dialogue, incorporating Spanish, and memorizing lines. One interpretation of this data is that as students’ motivation to revise increased, they became more aware of the hurdles they needed to overcome, such as the academic ability to revise and the need to collaborate effectively.
How is student ability to revise affected?
As seen in Figure 1 above, each category saw a shift in numbers as students encountered and overcame a challenge in week 1, then became aware of a new challenge in week 2. Of those who were aware of a challenge, 74% proposed a solution or stated they had overcome it in their response, increasing to 84% in the second feedback form. Many of their responses focused on how they overcame the challenge of revising:
I found it very difficult to write dialogue that sounded natural. I overcame this challenge by viewing other plays that have been written in the past, as well as talk to group members/peers for tips and critique.
Making the plot interesting was difficult. We tried to overcome this challenge by adding more conflict and making it realistic so that the audience could relate. We also added a few twists to keep the audience on their toes. Hopefully it worked.
I struggled to memorize my lines, perfect my Spanish accent so that it sounded authentic and mime in the last scene. I overcame these challenges through lots of practice and working with our language consultant.
As students’ motivation to revise increased, their need to find a solution also increased. Their ability to do so was drawn from their peers and teacher’s input, with the majority of feedback being positive, and constructive. I noted that the feedback was similar to the type I was providing, and they were beginning to ask questions of each other. Examples of student feedback include:
Try making dialogue smoother by reading it aloud to yourself.
Suspense is nicely built up through character, dialogue, and vocal projection.
Keep audience engaged through use of humor.
Try improving the flow of your play. Think of a driving force to the plot and give each character a motivation.
Careful with flashbacks, it could get confusing.
Show don’t tell.
The latter was one of the mantras I had been espousing all week, and the variety of feedback was encouraging, particularly those who offered solutions as well as identifying a weakness. Peer feedback led to students focusing on areas of revision such as:
Character development. We altered the story line of our play to accommodate more background from characters
Major script revision, changing the conflict focus from external to internal.
Even if they didn’t possess the ability to revise, the majority of students recognized what they needed to do to acquire these skills:
Write more, have longer plays, have more acting our of scenes to ensure realistic plot.
Stay more focused during school hours. I would have started writing the scripts over Spring Break, so that we would’ve had multiple drafts before the final.
Better communication, definitely. It would have saved us a lot of time and effort.
I would make sure to leave time for more critiques of our script. Getting more opinions about it would help to improve the story.
The last quote shows how students placed an increasing value on peer feedback and collaboration.
How is student collaboration affected?
This increasing value on collaboration was perfectly captured in my observation guide:
How is student ability to revise affected?
As seen in Figure 1 above, each category saw a shift in numbers as students encountered and overcame a challenge in week 1, then became aware of a new challenge in week 2. Of those who were aware of a challenge, 74% proposed a solution or stated they had overcome it in their response, increasing to 84% in the second feedback form. Many of their responses focused on how they overcame the challenge of revising:
I found it very difficult to write dialogue that sounded natural. I overcame this challenge by viewing other plays that have been written in the past, as well as talk to group members/peers for tips and critique.
Making the plot interesting was difficult. We tried to overcome this challenge by adding more conflict and making it realistic so that the audience could relate. We also added a few twists to keep the audience on their toes. Hopefully it worked.
I struggled to memorize my lines, perfect my Spanish accent so that it sounded authentic and mime in the last scene. I overcame these challenges through lots of practice and working with our language consultant.
As students’ motivation to revise increased, their need to find a solution also increased. Their ability to do so was drawn from their peers and teacher’s input, with the majority of feedback being positive, and constructive. I noted that the feedback was similar to the type I was providing, and they were beginning to ask questions of each other. Examples of student feedback include:
Try making dialogue smoother by reading it aloud to yourself.
Suspense is nicely built up through character, dialogue, and vocal projection.
Keep audience engaged through use of humor.
Try improving the flow of your play. Think of a driving force to the plot and give each character a motivation.
Careful with flashbacks, it could get confusing.
Show don’t tell.
The latter was one of the mantras I had been espousing all week, and the variety of feedback was encouraging, particularly those who offered solutions as well as identifying a weakness. Peer feedback led to students focusing on areas of revision such as:
Character development. We altered the story line of our play to accommodate more background from characters
Major script revision, changing the conflict focus from external to internal.
Even if they didn’t possess the ability to revise, the majority of students recognized what they needed to do to acquire these skills:
Write more, have longer plays, have more acting our of scenes to ensure realistic plot.
Stay more focused during school hours. I would have started writing the scripts over Spring Break, so that we would’ve had multiple drafts before the final.
Better communication, definitely. It would have saved us a lot of time and effort.
I would make sure to leave time for more critiques of our script. Getting more opinions about it would help to improve the story.
The last quote shows how students placed an increasing value on peer feedback and collaboration.
How is student collaboration affected?
This increasing value on collaboration was perfectly captured in my observation guide:
Here we see a significant increase in peer interaction during Phase 1, and the student feedback form provided greater insight into the type of interactions occurring:
Collaborating on each assignment and adding academic input to improve the output of our work.
She was a big part of the editing process and helped with ideas.
Clearly, there was a connection between increasing collaboration and ability to revise. I believe this was due to exposure to their peers’ diverse perspectives and writing styles, causing students to question whether their original draft is the best they could produce.
The changing dynamic of how students valued collaboration and what they regarded as effective forms was well-represented by the question, “Do you feel your group has communicated effectively during the process?” I coded the 29 written response into yes, sort of, and no responses, with the yeses decreasing from week one to week 2, and the sort of’s and no’s increasing:
Collaborating on each assignment and adding academic input to improve the output of our work.
She was a big part of the editing process and helped with ideas.
Clearly, there was a connection between increasing collaboration and ability to revise. I believe this was due to exposure to their peers’ diverse perspectives and writing styles, causing students to question whether their original draft is the best they could produce.
The changing dynamic of how students valued collaboration and what they regarded as effective forms was well-represented by the question, “Do you feel your group has communicated effectively during the process?” I coded the 29 written response into yes, sort of, and no responses, with the yeses decreasing from week one to week 2, and the sort of’s and no’s increasing:
I did not necessarily regard this negatively, as when reviewing my teacher journal I noted an increase in effective communication and collaboration. Therefore my interpretation of the results was that as the value of student collaboration increased, the recognition that they did not know how to collaborate effectively also increased. This is also connected to their recognition that they did not have the skills to revise effectively. Examples from the feedback forms confirm this:
Somewhat. A communication breakdown was definitely evident in us not having a close to finalized script this week. However, we now have ways to contact members within our group.
I think we have, whenever someone needed help or had an idea they weren't afraid to share it with at least one other person in the group, and everyone has been informed on what we are doing and what we plan to do next. Everyone knows the Game Plan.
These students not only recognized areas of concern, but also proposed solutions.
So what did students regard as effective collaboration? The question, “Name at least 3 strengths you feel you brought to the group” provides one answer. Combining their responses in a word map produced the following:
Somewhat. A communication breakdown was definitely evident in us not having a close to finalized script this week. However, we now have ways to contact members within our group.
I think we have, whenever someone needed help or had an idea they weren't afraid to share it with at least one other person in the group, and everyone has been informed on what we are doing and what we plan to do next. Everyone knows the Game Plan.
These students not only recognized areas of concern, but also proposed solutions.
So what did students regard as effective collaboration? The question, “Name at least 3 strengths you feel you brought to the group” provides one answer. Combining their responses in a word map produced the following:
Word Map – Week 1 (Figure 5)
Students emphasized the need for creativity, writing, ideas, organization, work, communication, thought, and focus. It provided fascinating insight into the skills that students value, and it correlated with my journal, in terms of what skills students possess and what they actually brought to the group.
By the end of Phase 1, there had been a slight shift in attitude, reflecting the stage of the project, and the new skills that students were acquiring and emphasizing.
By the end of Phase 1, there had been a slight shift in attitude, reflecting the stage of the project, and the new skills that students were acquiring and emphasizing.
Word Map – Week 3 (Figure 6)
Communication, organization, work, thought, and focus remained important, with the first two skills increasing significantly. However, once the plays had been selected, and roles such as directors, stage managers, and producers had been assigned, students recognized the growing need for leadership, attitude, effort, energy, and help.
What is the impact on teacher-student interaction?
As I mentioned throughout the Implementation section, I found it difficult to position myself as a writer, due to my commitments as a teacher and the time restraints. This difficulty was highlighted by a question I added to the student feedback form: “How do you view Matt’s role this week?” From the responses I noted a significant range in what students viewed as my role. Many valued the instruction I provided as a teacher rather than writer, with students focusing on how I:
Provided structure, laying down the format and skills needed for the foundations of playwriting
Educated us on what made a good play and gave us the resources to most utilize our abilities.
Others focused on the feedback I provided when requested:
Supportive when we needed it. There were a few times where we were stuck and needed a push, and he was there for that
They were always there to listen to the new ideas we had that could have improved our plays.
A few suggested that the traditional teacher role was limited during the creative writing process
There is not a lot you can teach when it is creative writing and you have only a week to write a play. This week was really just students working on their own
The final quote highlighted my failed attempts to be positioned as a writer, but also the value they placed on peer collaboration; thriving in the autonomy, taking ownership of their plays. One student was grateful for my role as writer:
It really helped to review other plays and stories with the teacher and see different tool they used to improve the plot. I learned about making dialogue more realistic, developing characters, and plot twists.
But, overall the students’ responses underlined the multi-dimensional role of the teacher:
I did not see them as an important person during this process. I feel like my partner and I really got this done on our own.
They were there to answer questions our peers couldn’t and gave further instruction
Someone who tells you what to do. Someone who may offer help – depending on whether or not you ask them or not.
The role of the teacher in this phase of the project was to let the students work out flaws and such within their scripts. The teachers also gave us critique and feedback in regards to the content of our plays.
Student feedback at the end of Phase 1 was a real eye-opener. My attempts at positioning myself as a learner had been more successful, but this coincided with students questioning whether I had contributed anything to the process.
I used the analyzed data collected through Student Feedback Forms, Student Work, Observation Guides, and Teacher Journal to summarize my findings. Click on the link below to read further.
What is the impact on teacher-student interaction?
As I mentioned throughout the Implementation section, I found it difficult to position myself as a writer, due to my commitments as a teacher and the time restraints. This difficulty was highlighted by a question I added to the student feedback form: “How do you view Matt’s role this week?” From the responses I noted a significant range in what students viewed as my role. Many valued the instruction I provided as a teacher rather than writer, with students focusing on how I:
Provided structure, laying down the format and skills needed for the foundations of playwriting
Educated us on what made a good play and gave us the resources to most utilize our abilities.
Others focused on the feedback I provided when requested:
Supportive when we needed it. There were a few times where we were stuck and needed a push, and he was there for that
They were always there to listen to the new ideas we had that could have improved our plays.
A few suggested that the traditional teacher role was limited during the creative writing process
There is not a lot you can teach when it is creative writing and you have only a week to write a play. This week was really just students working on their own
The final quote highlighted my failed attempts to be positioned as a writer, but also the value they placed on peer collaboration; thriving in the autonomy, taking ownership of their plays. One student was grateful for my role as writer:
It really helped to review other plays and stories with the teacher and see different tool they used to improve the plot. I learned about making dialogue more realistic, developing characters, and plot twists.
But, overall the students’ responses underlined the multi-dimensional role of the teacher:
I did not see them as an important person during this process. I feel like my partner and I really got this done on our own.
They were there to answer questions our peers couldn’t and gave further instruction
Someone who tells you what to do. Someone who may offer help – depending on whether or not you ask them or not.
The role of the teacher in this phase of the project was to let the students work out flaws and such within their scripts. The teachers also gave us critique and feedback in regards to the content of our plays.
Student feedback at the end of Phase 1 was a real eye-opener. My attempts at positioning myself as a learner had been more successful, but this coincided with students questioning whether I had contributed anything to the process.
I used the analyzed data collected through Student Feedback Forms, Student Work, Observation Guides, and Teacher Journal to summarize my findings. Click on the link below to read further.