Phase One Findings
Through my analysis of student feedback, student work, and my observations I discovered key themes and patterns throughout Phase One of my Action Research Implementation.
Students work most effectively when given audience and autonomy.
It was unrealistic to expect students to write a presentable play in four days, despite having conducted historical research, drafted plot maps, and prepared character backgrounds. As conversations with students showed, the classroom can be a restrictive place when writing creatively, and it is important to be aware of other demands placed on students. All students need motivation; for some it is a grade, while many react best when writing for an audience.
I noticed that after the week two read-throughs in front of both classes, writers became more open to making script changes. As the notion hit home that their plays would be presented to peers, family, and local community, student motivation to revise was duly affected.
I also observed motivation to revise increasing as students were given more autonomy. During the week after Phase One, there was a sudden increase in energy, as directors of the selected plays began to assert authority. All the successful writers chose to become directors, and I witnessed them stepping up and leading their cast. The producers were buzzing around, checking each group was on task, gathering and sharing relevant information. Normally quiet students, who were given highly responsible roles connected to their passions, instantly became more engaged, collaborating with their peers and exercising problem-solving skills.
However, autonomy comes with a price as one student told me
It’s been really hard working with my friend. I like working hard and revising but it’s been hard including her. I try to give her tasks so she can help me, but she doesn’t always listen to me.
She had found it difficult working with her friend, finding that she had to be strict, but not wanting to ruin their friendship. She felt that she was doing the majority of the work and her friend becoming less responsive despite her efforts to encourage her. When asked, she agreed that students need to be explicitly taught how to collaborate effectively. I’d hoped that positioning myself as a writer and promoting the collaborative process would help students interact with their peers, but this was not necessarily the case.
These observations helped my approach to Phase Two, raising the following questions:
Students learn well from their peers
Despite the student quote from above, I did observe students’ ability to revise increase via the collaborative process.
I helped her to plan out the rest of our storyboard and we also worked together to create the opening monologue of our play.
We collaborated on what we wrote and helped each other on how to influence our writing.
There were a number of dynamic pairings, not purely consisting of friends, but many who would not normally work together discovered peers who had writing styles, working habits, and opinions contradictory to their own. Due to the nature of the project they had to find a way to overcome their differences and use it as a strength. I believe by promoting a writing process, emphasizing revision, sharing my weaknesses, and publicly lamenting working alone students placed an increasing value on their peer. As it’s physically impossible for a teacher to have individualized discussions with each group all the time, students turned to each other for help. Collaboration wasn’t contained within pairings, as students sought assistance from other groups, discussing aspects of their plays and sharing ideas on how to improve with revision. Students adopted and adapted these observed skills to enhance their own work.
Students want a leader not a learner
As students collaborated more, it became apparent that some students were more highly regarded. This was due to a variety of factors such as assertiveness, perceived ability, or willingness to share. As the Word Map above indicated, students value fairly similar skills when it comes to collaboration. Students were naturally drawn to peers who exhibited these skills, and they became leaders in the classroom. I mentioned the student who struggled to collaborate effectively with her peer, and perhaps if she had been positioned as a leader, with greater authority, rather than an equal, her friend may have been responsive. Students still looked to me to lead, despite my attempt at positioning myself as more of an equal, and the disadvantage of a lack of leadership is beautifully captured by one student:
We weren't very organized, and I think all of us were at least a little used to someone telling us what to do. Which meant that, in our group, there were no real leaders, which made it hard in a group filled with followers, which meant it was a bit of a mess. Slowed us down, too.
During the final week of Phase 1 it was fascinating to observe students reacting positively to directors and other group managers assuming more responsibility. Actors eagerly looked to their directors for advice, regarding them as experts, despite there being no discernible difference in ability. I wonder if this was because they thought they could have an easy ride for the remainder of the project, and shift responsibility to their director. This may be an avenue worth exploring as to how can I promote myself or my students as leaders?
Click the link below to see my plans for Phase Two.
Students work most effectively when given audience and autonomy.
It was unrealistic to expect students to write a presentable play in four days, despite having conducted historical research, drafted plot maps, and prepared character backgrounds. As conversations with students showed, the classroom can be a restrictive place when writing creatively, and it is important to be aware of other demands placed on students. All students need motivation; for some it is a grade, while many react best when writing for an audience.
I noticed that after the week two read-throughs in front of both classes, writers became more open to making script changes. As the notion hit home that their plays would be presented to peers, family, and local community, student motivation to revise was duly affected.
I also observed motivation to revise increasing as students were given more autonomy. During the week after Phase One, there was a sudden increase in energy, as directors of the selected plays began to assert authority. All the successful writers chose to become directors, and I witnessed them stepping up and leading their cast. The producers were buzzing around, checking each group was on task, gathering and sharing relevant information. Normally quiet students, who were given highly responsible roles connected to their passions, instantly became more engaged, collaborating with their peers and exercising problem-solving skills.
However, autonomy comes with a price as one student told me
It’s been really hard working with my friend. I like working hard and revising but it’s been hard including her. I try to give her tasks so she can help me, but she doesn’t always listen to me.
She had found it difficult working with her friend, finding that she had to be strict, but not wanting to ruin their friendship. She felt that she was doing the majority of the work and her friend becoming less responsive despite her efforts to encourage her. When asked, she agreed that students need to be explicitly taught how to collaborate effectively. I’d hoped that positioning myself as a writer and promoting the collaborative process would help students interact with their peers, but this was not necessarily the case.
These observations helped my approach to Phase Two, raising the following questions:
- How can I encourage the collaborative process?
- How can I support students while providing autonomy?
- Is it necessary to grade student work during this stage of the project?
Students learn well from their peers
Despite the student quote from above, I did observe students’ ability to revise increase via the collaborative process.
I helped her to plan out the rest of our storyboard and we also worked together to create the opening monologue of our play.
We collaborated on what we wrote and helped each other on how to influence our writing.
There were a number of dynamic pairings, not purely consisting of friends, but many who would not normally work together discovered peers who had writing styles, working habits, and opinions contradictory to their own. Due to the nature of the project they had to find a way to overcome their differences and use it as a strength. I believe by promoting a writing process, emphasizing revision, sharing my weaknesses, and publicly lamenting working alone students placed an increasing value on their peer. As it’s physically impossible for a teacher to have individualized discussions with each group all the time, students turned to each other for help. Collaboration wasn’t contained within pairings, as students sought assistance from other groups, discussing aspects of their plays and sharing ideas on how to improve with revision. Students adopted and adapted these observed skills to enhance their own work.
Students want a leader not a learner
As students collaborated more, it became apparent that some students were more highly regarded. This was due to a variety of factors such as assertiveness, perceived ability, or willingness to share. As the Word Map above indicated, students value fairly similar skills when it comes to collaboration. Students were naturally drawn to peers who exhibited these skills, and they became leaders in the classroom. I mentioned the student who struggled to collaborate effectively with her peer, and perhaps if she had been positioned as a leader, with greater authority, rather than an equal, her friend may have been responsive. Students still looked to me to lead, despite my attempt at positioning myself as more of an equal, and the disadvantage of a lack of leadership is beautifully captured by one student:
We weren't very organized, and I think all of us were at least a little used to someone telling us what to do. Which meant that, in our group, there were no real leaders, which made it hard in a group filled with followers, which meant it was a bit of a mess. Slowed us down, too.
During the final week of Phase 1 it was fascinating to observe students reacting positively to directors and other group managers assuming more responsibility. Actors eagerly looked to their directors for advice, regarding them as experts, despite there being no discernible difference in ability. I wonder if this was because they thought they could have an easy ride for the remainder of the project, and shift responsibility to their director. This may be an avenue worth exploring as to how can I promote myself or my students as leaders?
Click the link below to see my plans for Phase Two.