Phase One Implementation
Week 1
There I was, first day back from a two week Spring Break, ready to fill my teacher journal and observation guides, a spring in my step. The students were less enthusiastic about being back, as it dawned on them they had to write a play in four days. They had been encouraged but not expected to begin drafting over the break, but unsurprisingly, no groups had. The first hurdle came in the shape of an absent master-teacher and collaborating teacher. Although this did not directly affect my research, it threw the students and required some explaining.
Research began well enough as script expectations were reiterated and pairs of students got to work. I made students aware I would also be writing a play, which was warmly received and seemed to spark further interest in the project. Students asked what my play would be about, to which I responded I wasn’t sure yet, but that unlike theirs it wouldn’t be a historical fiction based on a Latin American country during the Cold War. I gave students the option of writing their play in GoogleDocs or CELTX, a free online script editing program that simplifies formatting and allows for easy editing, but the vast majority of students chose GoogleDocs as it was familiar. I sat alongside students, rather than at the teacher’s desk, to enhance my position as fellow writer. I told students we would critique our first drafts after 90 minutes as pairings gathered their thoughts and discussed the best place to start.
After 90 minutes, I led our first critiquing session, which in itself highlighted the potential tension of being positioned as a writer and learner but also fulfilling my responsibilities as teacher. It weakened my position as a writer as I led the discussion, and even though I was sharing my work, many students still wanted to be led by a teacher. I shared the first draft of my first few scenes, projecting my draft on the screen and explaining why I had chosen certain literary elements, character and setting descriptions, and how I envisaged the plot developing. Having shared the inner workings of my mind, I provided the prompts as detailed in my Action & Assessment Plan and eagerly anticipated students’ words of wisdom. However, it was one of the most stilted discussions I’d experienced, as students were disinterested in providing feedback to my play. After the lesson I wrote in my journal:
I wonder whether it was because they were showing me too much respect, afraid of critiquing their teacher’s work, believing they didn’t have the ability to improve my play.
It wasn’t just perceived lack of ability to provide feedback, there was also an absence of motivation, as when I encouraged students to share their play with the class they were equally unenthusiastic. They did not value providing or receiving feedback, which was very out of character as they are a close group, accustomed to collaboration and peer feedback. One student provided great insight into his peers’ current mindset:
We just want to write. There isn’t time to give feedback.
This was the first indication that students were more concerned about completing the task of writing a play in four days, rather than creating a high quality piece of work. I must admit, I shared my students’ concerns after only one period, and I soon realized I was attempting to promote revision in a non-conducive environment. Based on what I’d achieved in the first 90 minutes, I foresaw myself struggling to write a play in 4 days. My hope was that by having a partner, students would be more able to complete the task in the given time restraints. However, this was reliant on them collaborating effectively, and there was a risk having an extra opinion could slow them down. I made a note to pay close attention to the level of collaboration during the first week.
Things improved the next day, as I shared my response to the Death and the Maiden prompts. Students were beginning to regard me as a writer and learner, and I also witnessed an increase in peer interaction. Two groups in particular sought me out to review their play. We exchanged some ideas, but it was difficult to tell whether they viewed me as a teacher or learner. I guided the conversation by encouraging them to make decisions themselves, connecting it to similar issues I had as a writer. At this stage, more importantly, they were becoming aware of the need to revise, and hopefully I was seen as a peer supporting their ability to revise.
I continued to monitor student engagement using my observation guide, and by the third day students were more open to feedback. I assigned pairs of groups to share their GoogleDocs with each other, and provided the following prompts as guidelines:
Students seemed more comfortable sharing their work with another group, in a more private environment, rather than the entire class. As I circulated, I noticed that a lot of the feedback was constructive and positive, focusing on developing plot, setting, or character, connecting it to a theme, rather than correcting grammar. This was pleasing, as my think-alouds focused on these deeper-level corrections. However, while I continued to share my progress, highlighting perceived weaknesses and wondering how to revise them, I was finding it increasingly difficult to write my play, without a partner, and with less direction than my students. As seen above, my time was increasingly committed to circulating the class and providing feedback on 20 plays. As the majority of students still needed prompts from their teacher, to share and revise, I rarely had the opportunity to sit for an extended period and write.
Onto the fourth and final day of week one, a week in which I was unsure whether I had successfully positioned myself as a writer. Miraculously, many groups had successfully written a play, and it was encouraging to see the majority begin editing. Although I had only managed three scenes of my play, I had been able to share my process with some groups, explaining how I am not afraid to rewrite entire scenes, or even change the direction of the plot or a character’s motive as conflict is developed. However, Friday saw an increase in off-task behavior as students finished their plays and some did not contemplate revising. A lot of these groups believed their play would not be selected for production, and therefore saw little reason to revise. Of more importance to them was studying for a Math test, a subject of constant angst for these students, with its burgeoning workload and endless worksheets. It was also interesting to observe that many groups still viewed the writing process as a liner concept and did not begin revising until they had written their first draft, and what many viewed, as their last draft. However, I am aware that everyone has a different approach to writing, which they are most comfortable with, and rarely follow preset ideas of how to write.
I was able to have a very productive, albeit lengthy, discussion with one group who had approached me throughout the week. Together, we were able to connect the ending and beginning of their play, develop character relationship with which to drive a detailed plot twist, while utilizing foreshadowing. This group was very open to feedback, and it felt like a discussion between peers, rather than a teacher-student conference.
The week culminated in the first student feedback form, which would allow me to measure student collaboration, and the importance of revising.
Week 2
This week was devoted entirely to read-throughs. Students decided who they wanted to read character’s lines, and the whole process was conducted in front of both classes. After each read-through, students gave constructive feedback, celebrating their peers’ efforts, avoiding lengthy discussions, as time was against us. I had failed miserably at writing my own play, and was unable to participate in the read-through.
However, I did notice a further increase in peer collaboration and willingness to revise. Students were becoming more comfortable giving feedback, realizing they were more likely to receive valuable feedback if they offered it to their peers. This indicated that students recognized the need to revise their plays, and needed peer and teacher feedback in order to develop new ideas.
I decided not to pose a feedback form to students as there had been little room for group work and academic progress and I had failed to position myself as a learner.
Week 3
This week presented a greater opportunity to position myself as a writer and learner, even though I had given up hope of writing a play alongside students. My responsibilities as teacher, and commitments as graduate student made it an almost impossible task. However, to break up the potential monotony of scriptwriting, my mentor led a short unit on the philosophy of Aristotle. I sat with students, completing the same assignments, participating in class discussions as a learner, not teacher. The unit involved small group discussions, and a lot of students began to open up to me. Some shared fantastic responses with me, but admitted to shyness when I encouraged them to share their thoughts with the class:
I hate sharing with the class. What if I’m wrong. It doesn’t matter, because the same people speak anyway.
This was invaluable information, which I believe occurred due to my new position as a peer and learner rather than authority figure. Her response relates to collaboration as she sees herself as an individual, not as a student in a learning community. I also observed at what point students began to tune-out, making note to avoid such pitfalls when teaching. I attempted to complete the same homework as the students, and at least came prepared for the Socratic seminar. I contributed to the discussion, posing questions and sharing my wonderings, maintaining the flow and interacting with students academically.
Once selected, all four plays underwent substantial revision. Outside of the more traditional content lessons, students were forming groups, based on which play they enjoyed during the read-throughs. Students volunteered for acting roles, or fulfilled roles if their expertise lay elsewhere, such as lighting and stage manager. Once formed, groups discussed the current scripts. All members contributed ideas on how to improve the play, but ultimately, the directors had the final say. I contributed my own ideas, and directors were very open to hearing other’s opinions. I began to notice directors defending their plays, explaining why they had developed the plot or character in a certain way, connecting to the theme or historical event.
However, what was most apparent was the need for more historical context to be integrated into the plays. The decision was taken to change the setting of one play from Dominican Republic to Nicaragua, to avoid duplicating countries. The play had a strong plot, and would not be out of place in almost any of the Latin American countries during the Cold War. Changing the country involved employing the help of students who had researched Nicaragua. The directors turned to these students, who would also play acting roles, to integrate language and cultural elements from Nicaragua. It was encouraging to see the directors’ willingness to delegate such an important task to a peer, because they viewed them as an expert. These students were equally keen to help develop a play they would be part of, responding well to the director’s requests.
By the end of Phase 1, there was a notable increase in student motivation and ability to revise, as well as a stronger desire to collaborate, recognizing that together, they could create a stronger play.
There I was, first day back from a two week Spring Break, ready to fill my teacher journal and observation guides, a spring in my step. The students were less enthusiastic about being back, as it dawned on them they had to write a play in four days. They had been encouraged but not expected to begin drafting over the break, but unsurprisingly, no groups had. The first hurdle came in the shape of an absent master-teacher and collaborating teacher. Although this did not directly affect my research, it threw the students and required some explaining.
Research began well enough as script expectations were reiterated and pairs of students got to work. I made students aware I would also be writing a play, which was warmly received and seemed to spark further interest in the project. Students asked what my play would be about, to which I responded I wasn’t sure yet, but that unlike theirs it wouldn’t be a historical fiction based on a Latin American country during the Cold War. I gave students the option of writing their play in GoogleDocs or CELTX, a free online script editing program that simplifies formatting and allows for easy editing, but the vast majority of students chose GoogleDocs as it was familiar. I sat alongside students, rather than at the teacher’s desk, to enhance my position as fellow writer. I told students we would critique our first drafts after 90 minutes as pairings gathered their thoughts and discussed the best place to start.
After 90 minutes, I led our first critiquing session, which in itself highlighted the potential tension of being positioned as a writer and learner but also fulfilling my responsibilities as teacher. It weakened my position as a writer as I led the discussion, and even though I was sharing my work, many students still wanted to be led by a teacher. I shared the first draft of my first few scenes, projecting my draft on the screen and explaining why I had chosen certain literary elements, character and setting descriptions, and how I envisaged the plot developing. Having shared the inner workings of my mind, I provided the prompts as detailed in my Action & Assessment Plan and eagerly anticipated students’ words of wisdom. However, it was one of the most stilted discussions I’d experienced, as students were disinterested in providing feedback to my play. After the lesson I wrote in my journal:
I wonder whether it was because they were showing me too much respect, afraid of critiquing their teacher’s work, believing they didn’t have the ability to improve my play.
It wasn’t just perceived lack of ability to provide feedback, there was also an absence of motivation, as when I encouraged students to share their play with the class they were equally unenthusiastic. They did not value providing or receiving feedback, which was very out of character as they are a close group, accustomed to collaboration and peer feedback. One student provided great insight into his peers’ current mindset:
We just want to write. There isn’t time to give feedback.
This was the first indication that students were more concerned about completing the task of writing a play in four days, rather than creating a high quality piece of work. I must admit, I shared my students’ concerns after only one period, and I soon realized I was attempting to promote revision in a non-conducive environment. Based on what I’d achieved in the first 90 minutes, I foresaw myself struggling to write a play in 4 days. My hope was that by having a partner, students would be more able to complete the task in the given time restraints. However, this was reliant on them collaborating effectively, and there was a risk having an extra opinion could slow them down. I made a note to pay close attention to the level of collaboration during the first week.
Things improved the next day, as I shared my response to the Death and the Maiden prompts. Students were beginning to regard me as a writer and learner, and I also witnessed an increase in peer interaction. Two groups in particular sought me out to review their play. We exchanged some ideas, but it was difficult to tell whether they viewed me as a teacher or learner. I guided the conversation by encouraging them to make decisions themselves, connecting it to similar issues I had as a writer. At this stage, more importantly, they were becoming aware of the need to revise, and hopefully I was seen as a peer supporting their ability to revise.
I continued to monitor student engagement using my observation guide, and by the third day students were more open to feedback. I assigned pairs of groups to share their GoogleDocs with each other, and provided the following prompts as guidelines:
- How is conflict shown through action?
- How is suspense created?
- Is the audience compelled? (Do they think for themselves and about themselves)
- Where does the action begin? Is this an appropriate/compelling start?
- Is the dialogue realistic?
- Are historical and cultural references accurate?
Students seemed more comfortable sharing their work with another group, in a more private environment, rather than the entire class. As I circulated, I noticed that a lot of the feedback was constructive and positive, focusing on developing plot, setting, or character, connecting it to a theme, rather than correcting grammar. This was pleasing, as my think-alouds focused on these deeper-level corrections. However, while I continued to share my progress, highlighting perceived weaknesses and wondering how to revise them, I was finding it increasingly difficult to write my play, without a partner, and with less direction than my students. As seen above, my time was increasingly committed to circulating the class and providing feedback on 20 plays. As the majority of students still needed prompts from their teacher, to share and revise, I rarely had the opportunity to sit for an extended period and write.
Onto the fourth and final day of week one, a week in which I was unsure whether I had successfully positioned myself as a writer. Miraculously, many groups had successfully written a play, and it was encouraging to see the majority begin editing. Although I had only managed three scenes of my play, I had been able to share my process with some groups, explaining how I am not afraid to rewrite entire scenes, or even change the direction of the plot or a character’s motive as conflict is developed. However, Friday saw an increase in off-task behavior as students finished their plays and some did not contemplate revising. A lot of these groups believed their play would not be selected for production, and therefore saw little reason to revise. Of more importance to them was studying for a Math test, a subject of constant angst for these students, with its burgeoning workload and endless worksheets. It was also interesting to observe that many groups still viewed the writing process as a liner concept and did not begin revising until they had written their first draft, and what many viewed, as their last draft. However, I am aware that everyone has a different approach to writing, which they are most comfortable with, and rarely follow preset ideas of how to write.
I was able to have a very productive, albeit lengthy, discussion with one group who had approached me throughout the week. Together, we were able to connect the ending and beginning of their play, develop character relationship with which to drive a detailed plot twist, while utilizing foreshadowing. This group was very open to feedback, and it felt like a discussion between peers, rather than a teacher-student conference.
The week culminated in the first student feedback form, which would allow me to measure student collaboration, and the importance of revising.
Week 2
This week was devoted entirely to read-throughs. Students decided who they wanted to read character’s lines, and the whole process was conducted in front of both classes. After each read-through, students gave constructive feedback, celebrating their peers’ efforts, avoiding lengthy discussions, as time was against us. I had failed miserably at writing my own play, and was unable to participate in the read-through.
However, I did notice a further increase in peer collaboration and willingness to revise. Students were becoming more comfortable giving feedback, realizing they were more likely to receive valuable feedback if they offered it to their peers. This indicated that students recognized the need to revise their plays, and needed peer and teacher feedback in order to develop new ideas.
I decided not to pose a feedback form to students as there had been little room for group work and academic progress and I had failed to position myself as a learner.
Week 3
This week presented a greater opportunity to position myself as a writer and learner, even though I had given up hope of writing a play alongside students. My responsibilities as teacher, and commitments as graduate student made it an almost impossible task. However, to break up the potential monotony of scriptwriting, my mentor led a short unit on the philosophy of Aristotle. I sat with students, completing the same assignments, participating in class discussions as a learner, not teacher. The unit involved small group discussions, and a lot of students began to open up to me. Some shared fantastic responses with me, but admitted to shyness when I encouraged them to share their thoughts with the class:
I hate sharing with the class. What if I’m wrong. It doesn’t matter, because the same people speak anyway.
This was invaluable information, which I believe occurred due to my new position as a peer and learner rather than authority figure. Her response relates to collaboration as she sees herself as an individual, not as a student in a learning community. I also observed at what point students began to tune-out, making note to avoid such pitfalls when teaching. I attempted to complete the same homework as the students, and at least came prepared for the Socratic seminar. I contributed to the discussion, posing questions and sharing my wonderings, maintaining the flow and interacting with students academically.
Once selected, all four plays underwent substantial revision. Outside of the more traditional content lessons, students were forming groups, based on which play they enjoyed during the read-throughs. Students volunteered for acting roles, or fulfilled roles if their expertise lay elsewhere, such as lighting and stage manager. Once formed, groups discussed the current scripts. All members contributed ideas on how to improve the play, but ultimately, the directors had the final say. I contributed my own ideas, and directors were very open to hearing other’s opinions. I began to notice directors defending their plays, explaining why they had developed the plot or character in a certain way, connecting to the theme or historical event.
However, what was most apparent was the need for more historical context to be integrated into the plays. The decision was taken to change the setting of one play from Dominican Republic to Nicaragua, to avoid duplicating countries. The play had a strong plot, and would not be out of place in almost any of the Latin American countries during the Cold War. Changing the country involved employing the help of students who had researched Nicaragua. The directors turned to these students, who would also play acting roles, to integrate language and cultural elements from Nicaragua. It was encouraging to see the directors’ willingness to delegate such an important task to a peer, because they viewed them as an expert. These students were equally keen to help develop a play they would be part of, responding well to the director’s requests.
By the end of Phase 1, there was a notable increase in student motivation and ability to revise, as well as a stronger desire to collaborate, recognizing that together, they could create a stronger play.