Data Collection & Analysis
The plays were a huge success, with every single student performing exemplarily, whether on or off stage. This was largely due to students who adopted leadership roles and were able to effectively model this to their peers. I have discussed in depth many of my questions in the implementation section, drawing significantly from my teacher journal, but in this section I will analyze the student feedback form and observation guide addressing relevant questions
Observation Guide
My observation guide proved to be a rich source of data, addressing almost all of my Phase 2 questions. I recorded student actions throughout the week and combined the data into individual pie charts in order to make weekly comparisons.
Observation Guide
My observation guide proved to be a rich source of data, addressing almost all of my Phase 2 questions. I recorded student actions throughout the week and combined the data into individual pie charts in order to make weekly comparisons.
The pie charts provided insight into the changing behaviors and attitudes of students as student-leaders strengthened their position. So, how do we interpret this data? I will now address individual questions, incorporating data from observation guides, feedback forms and additional quotes from my teacher journal.
How is student motivation to revise affected?
The pie charts above, created from my observation guide findings suggested student motivation to revise did not significantly alter during Phase 2, as ‘questions asked’ maintained a consistent percentage of student activity recorded.
How is student motivation to revise affected?
The pie charts above, created from my observation guide findings suggested student motivation to revise did not significantly alter during Phase 2, as ‘questions asked’ maintained a consistent percentage of student activity recorded.
However, my teacher journal and student feedback forms, which all students were asked to complete every Friday, with the vast majority doing so, suggested there was an increase.
During week 3, one director responded that she overcome a problem by texting her actors in the evening reminding them what scenes they needed to revise. This ingenuity was symptomatic of the increasing motivation to revise. Other examples of an increasing motivation include:
We rewrote part of the script and got critique to further improve our script
We are making sure we put in the small edits into the script
Once again, we’ll be making any minor changes that popped up during blocking
Tonight I am adding more Spanish into my group’s play. I am also making more edits. There is a scene that I feel we can make better, and more dramatic than what it is.
Students were recognizing the need to revise before they had even begun, I will start working on making the first draft of the playbill. However, some were getting frustrated at the constant need for revision. In a response to what problems had been encountered that day, one director stated, Other than having to rewrite the script AGAIN, not really. The cynical emphasis on ‘again’ was not lost on me. However, by the final week, that same director recognized the importance of revising, following a disappointing dress rehearsal she had her group reflect on why it went poorly.
Some groups started to fade towards the end, suggesting there was Too. Much. Time. My actors are burning out. It is quite a shame, for they were so good. However, the majority continued to revise, including the group who added an additional character, we have decided to do some more editing to scene 3. This editing will involve the addition of another female character to make that scene seem more natural.
In the last few days directors reported:
I want to work on all the small critiques that need to be fixed, that we especially noticed today.
Next week I want to go through every scene to do final touches.
We kept changing our historical context. I also suggested we change our rehearsals a bit because we are not advancing as far as voice projection
Although there was clearly less desire to revise as performance night approached, I was impressed by the energy maintained. Compared to Phase 1, there was a clear increase in student motivation to revise, influenced by student-leaders and the potential audience. The students were right to revise less, as the plays were ready, and the dress rehearsals had gone well. For once, students were right in thinking that there was no need to revise. However, revisions continued even beyond the night of the performances, as one student spent several days editing the documentary he filmed of the rehearsals.
How is student ability to revise affected?
The below graph is drawn from my observation guide, monitoring how often students displayed examples of revising, whether through editing scripts or playbill, adjusting stage directions or lights, and overcoming acting hurdles such as blocking, body language, or voice projection.
During week 3, one director responded that she overcome a problem by texting her actors in the evening reminding them what scenes they needed to revise. This ingenuity was symptomatic of the increasing motivation to revise. Other examples of an increasing motivation include:
We rewrote part of the script and got critique to further improve our script
We are making sure we put in the small edits into the script
Once again, we’ll be making any minor changes that popped up during blocking
Tonight I am adding more Spanish into my group’s play. I am also making more edits. There is a scene that I feel we can make better, and more dramatic than what it is.
Students were recognizing the need to revise before they had even begun, I will start working on making the first draft of the playbill. However, some were getting frustrated at the constant need for revision. In a response to what problems had been encountered that day, one director stated, Other than having to rewrite the script AGAIN, not really. The cynical emphasis on ‘again’ was not lost on me. However, by the final week, that same director recognized the importance of revising, following a disappointing dress rehearsal she had her group reflect on why it went poorly.
Some groups started to fade towards the end, suggesting there was Too. Much. Time. My actors are burning out. It is quite a shame, for they were so good. However, the majority continued to revise, including the group who added an additional character, we have decided to do some more editing to scene 3. This editing will involve the addition of another female character to make that scene seem more natural.
In the last few days directors reported:
I want to work on all the small critiques that need to be fixed, that we especially noticed today.
Next week I want to go through every scene to do final touches.
We kept changing our historical context. I also suggested we change our rehearsals a bit because we are not advancing as far as voice projection
Although there was clearly less desire to revise as performance night approached, I was impressed by the energy maintained. Compared to Phase 1, there was a clear increase in student motivation to revise, influenced by student-leaders and the potential audience. The students were right to revise less, as the plays were ready, and the dress rehearsals had gone well. For once, students were right in thinking that there was no need to revise. However, revisions continued even beyond the night of the performances, as one student spent several days editing the documentary he filmed of the rehearsals.
How is student ability to revise affected?
The below graph is drawn from my observation guide, monitoring how often students displayed examples of revising, whether through editing scripts or playbill, adjusting stage directions or lights, and overcoming acting hurdles such as blocking, body language, or voice projection.
As observed, instances of students revising effectively increased from week 1 to week 3, with an unexplained decrease in week 2. Once again, feedback forms and teacher journal proved a richer source of information, as numbers became narrative. During week 1, a student suggested that the best way to revise was by working harder, and by saying the word over and over and over again. Simplicity gradually led to more complex responses as students noted:
A problem that I’ve noticed is that we’re not going along with some of the stage directions in the script. This may require the assistance of someone outside the group to look at our script as we rehearse.
In editing the script. I can’t exactly move forward or I’m stuck in making transitions between topics.
There was a clear awareness of the need to revise, and the motivation to do so, but not always the ability, as the examples above indicate. However, following the visit of the professional actor one student remarked We’ve learned how to act with our facial expressions along with the tone of our voice. While other students viewed their directors as experts, and turned to them for advice:
I have trouble with voice projection with my hair in my face, but director helped by doing vocal warm-ups.
I had to memorize the script changes from last week and improve my acting so that it seems more natural. My director helped me learn the lines by having us block the scene over and over again. He also helped me make my acting natural by giving various pointers and suggestions.
Supporting my findings from Phase 1, students increasingly turned to leaders for advice on how to revise and improve. Directors were becoming more knowledgeable through discussions with fellow directors, producers, or teachers. They were able to act in an authoritative, calming manner, often reaffirming a student’s wonderings on how to improve, without necessarily providing expert insight.
How is student collaboration affected?
The observation guide (see pie charts above) offered fascinating insight into the increasingly positive perception of collaboration.
A problem that I’ve noticed is that we’re not going along with some of the stage directions in the script. This may require the assistance of someone outside the group to look at our script as we rehearse.
In editing the script. I can’t exactly move forward or I’m stuck in making transitions between topics.
There was a clear awareness of the need to revise, and the motivation to do so, but not always the ability, as the examples above indicate. However, following the visit of the professional actor one student remarked We’ve learned how to act with our facial expressions along with the tone of our voice. While other students viewed their directors as experts, and turned to them for advice:
I have trouble with voice projection with my hair in my face, but director helped by doing vocal warm-ups.
I had to memorize the script changes from last week and improve my acting so that it seems more natural. My director helped me learn the lines by having us block the scene over and over again. He also helped me make my acting natural by giving various pointers and suggestions.
Supporting my findings from Phase 1, students increasingly turned to leaders for advice on how to revise and improve. Directors were becoming more knowledgeable through discussions with fellow directors, producers, or teachers. They were able to act in an authoritative, calming manner, often reaffirming a student’s wonderings on how to improve, without necessarily providing expert insight.
How is student collaboration affected?
The observation guide (see pie charts above) offered fascinating insight into the increasingly positive perception of collaboration.
I recorded a steady increase in instances of peers interacting with one another, as they recognized each others’ skills and turned to each other for advice. In the first week not all students knew how to collaborate effectively:
I suppose I’ll yell at people and see how they’re doing with the benchmarks. I don’t know.
But that same student had mastered some collaborative skills by the final week, I believe by observing her peers in leadership roles. She was not a natural leader but found a meaningful role, helping all parties where possible, becoming more proactive.
I helped sew the curtain together, checked in one the playbill group, and gave feedback to a couple of plays
Another student realized that she could improve her contribution to the group by revising and practicing her part. Not everyone progressed like the students above, as one leading actress was regularly absent. She was a strong actress and quickly memorized her lines and stage movements, but she did not place value on collaboration, helping her fellow actors or providing feedback and sharing her expertise.
One director struggled to collaborate effectively as she assumed too much responsibility. She failed to delegate as she was a perfectionist. However, she led by example, and her group willingly followed, producing a stunning play. A director from a different group used his peers to enhance their play, valuing the opinion of others:
We worked on scene 3 with the group to get as much input on what the characters should say, depending on their personality and how they’d respond to things. We managed to do this by having the actors be their characters.
By the final week, groups were collaborating effectively, but it was interesting to note the mindset of some when discussing peers outside their group. One director indicated that a problem he’d encountered was the stage crew, setting up in the commons, really disturbing our practice time. They should be doing this during lunch, or after school. We need the commons for rehearsals. He didn’t recognize that the stage crew are just as integral to the success of the plays, nor did he offer to rehearse during lunch or after school. He had failed to observe and appreciate the stage crew’s efforts and had become protective of his group. Having said that, all groups did spend significant time, towards the end of rehearsals, watching other play groups, providing feedback and incorporating observed strengths into their own play.
I also asked students to list three strengths they brought to the group. As you’ll recall from Phase 1, valued skills included communication, organization, work thought, focus, leadership, attitude, effort, energy, and help. Phase 2 revealed a shift in emphasis, as organization, focus, and communication remained important, but the ability to offer help was heavily valued. I believe this is due to students observing peers as effective leaders, as directors helped actors with their performances, and in turn, actors recognized the need to help others such as providing feedback.
I suppose I’ll yell at people and see how they’re doing with the benchmarks. I don’t know.
But that same student had mastered some collaborative skills by the final week, I believe by observing her peers in leadership roles. She was not a natural leader but found a meaningful role, helping all parties where possible, becoming more proactive.
I helped sew the curtain together, checked in one the playbill group, and gave feedback to a couple of plays
Another student realized that she could improve her contribution to the group by revising and practicing her part. Not everyone progressed like the students above, as one leading actress was regularly absent. She was a strong actress and quickly memorized her lines and stage movements, but she did not place value on collaboration, helping her fellow actors or providing feedback and sharing her expertise.
One director struggled to collaborate effectively as she assumed too much responsibility. She failed to delegate as she was a perfectionist. However, she led by example, and her group willingly followed, producing a stunning play. A director from a different group used his peers to enhance their play, valuing the opinion of others:
We worked on scene 3 with the group to get as much input on what the characters should say, depending on their personality and how they’d respond to things. We managed to do this by having the actors be their characters.
By the final week, groups were collaborating effectively, but it was interesting to note the mindset of some when discussing peers outside their group. One director indicated that a problem he’d encountered was the stage crew, setting up in the commons, really disturbing our practice time. They should be doing this during lunch, or after school. We need the commons for rehearsals. He didn’t recognize that the stage crew are just as integral to the success of the plays, nor did he offer to rehearse during lunch or after school. He had failed to observe and appreciate the stage crew’s efforts and had become protective of his group. Having said that, all groups did spend significant time, towards the end of rehearsals, watching other play groups, providing feedback and incorporating observed strengths into their own play.
I also asked students to list three strengths they brought to the group. As you’ll recall from Phase 1, valued skills included communication, organization, work thought, focus, leadership, attitude, effort, energy, and help. Phase 2 revealed a shift in emphasis, as organization, focus, and communication remained important, but the ability to offer help was heavily valued. I believe this is due to students observing peers as effective leaders, as directors helped actors with their performances, and in turn, actors recognized the need to help others such as providing feedback.
How is perception of peer affected?
I expected the findings on collaboration to be repeated in their perception of their peers, and in general it did, as well as highlighting the difference between the views of leaders and non-leaders. When asked whether fulfilling a leadership role had affected their relationship with their peers, 56% of the leaders said it hadn’t. However, when the same questioned was posed to students in non-leadership roles, 69% said their relationship had been affected. It is hard to explain why there is such disparity, but it may indicate that communication and collaboration was not as effective as first thought. When reading the responses of those who had noticed a change in relationship, 69% reported that it had been a negative effect. This was discouraging and indicates students needed explicit instruction on how to work effectively with a peer in a leadership role, and leaders needed to recognize when there was potential conflict with group members.
One director had an ongoing problem with one of their actors, who had behavioral issues in the past. She did not know how to manage him, and he was a constant distraction, to the detriment of others in his group.
I’m just having some issues with my group listening to me, it’s really hard to get them to do things especially when they are one their phone or are distracted by friends.
She turned to me for help and I was able to model some classroom management skills, and the relationship gradually improved. The actor in question, became more introspective, realizing the gravity of the project, and recognizing the authority of his director. He responded well by regularly questioning how he should present his lines and body language. His director was able to motivate him more than most his teachers had during the semester, and on production night he was one of the stars, delivering a convincing performance.
Initially, there was a clear distinction between leaders and their group members, each having preconceptions of what their role and responsibility should be. As one actor reported:
We had the problem that the directors are very lenient and lax when it comes to directing us. They need to be stricter and more productive with us. Sometimes, I feel like I take charge and control of my play group, which really should be the directors’ job. I don’t mind it, but just something to keep in mind. I start the day by getting people together, doing the tongue twisters, saying what scenes to act, telling people to shut up, etc.
The rifts continued as student responses revealed a lot of heartache, in particular, two close friends, with the director reporting that:
I feel like this role has affected my relationships a lot because one of my good friends is in my play and it's really hard to constantly have to tell her what to do, and say no to things like when she wants to go to the bathroom or do something like that. It's a lot different of a position because usually we are more equal.
And her actor saying
ITS AWFUL! XXX is one of my best friends and her being director isn't helping and sometimes I'm like why am I doing this it's going to mess up being friends and I have a feeling it might.
A lot of students highlighted the difficulty of adapting to the new tiered-relationship, as normally equal students were separated about differing levels of responsibility. However, those that had previous experience of leading their peers were better equipped to deal with the strain put on relationships:
Not much. This is because I have used my experience from directing last year, where it strained my friendships with my peers, to improve this year. I just try to stay relaxed. You can still get things done without being uptight. That way people don't see it as you bossing them around, but as you doing your job, which is getting them to do theirs. That way there is more mutual respect.
However, it wasn’t all negative and some saw benefits, particularly with the way students viewed their peers in leadership roles:
I have more respect towards them because of how hard they're working on this and still keeping up on the same stuff that the rest of the students are doing.
While others were able to overcome initial problems:
It can be a tense situation because we usually don't take orders from fellow students, so it's hard to take them seriously. However, our group has adapted to the situation and accepted that we have peer managers.
And some thrived:
It's easier to take criticism.
My observation guide allowed me to track the changing relationship between peers and their leaders, by recording the number of positive or negative reactions to a leader.
I expected the findings on collaboration to be repeated in their perception of their peers, and in general it did, as well as highlighting the difference between the views of leaders and non-leaders. When asked whether fulfilling a leadership role had affected their relationship with their peers, 56% of the leaders said it hadn’t. However, when the same questioned was posed to students in non-leadership roles, 69% said their relationship had been affected. It is hard to explain why there is such disparity, but it may indicate that communication and collaboration was not as effective as first thought. When reading the responses of those who had noticed a change in relationship, 69% reported that it had been a negative effect. This was discouraging and indicates students needed explicit instruction on how to work effectively with a peer in a leadership role, and leaders needed to recognize when there was potential conflict with group members.
One director had an ongoing problem with one of their actors, who had behavioral issues in the past. She did not know how to manage him, and he was a constant distraction, to the detriment of others in his group.
I’m just having some issues with my group listening to me, it’s really hard to get them to do things especially when they are one their phone or are distracted by friends.
She turned to me for help and I was able to model some classroom management skills, and the relationship gradually improved. The actor in question, became more introspective, realizing the gravity of the project, and recognizing the authority of his director. He responded well by regularly questioning how he should present his lines and body language. His director was able to motivate him more than most his teachers had during the semester, and on production night he was one of the stars, delivering a convincing performance.
Initially, there was a clear distinction between leaders and their group members, each having preconceptions of what their role and responsibility should be. As one actor reported:
We had the problem that the directors are very lenient and lax when it comes to directing us. They need to be stricter and more productive with us. Sometimes, I feel like I take charge and control of my play group, which really should be the directors’ job. I don’t mind it, but just something to keep in mind. I start the day by getting people together, doing the tongue twisters, saying what scenes to act, telling people to shut up, etc.
The rifts continued as student responses revealed a lot of heartache, in particular, two close friends, with the director reporting that:
I feel like this role has affected my relationships a lot because one of my good friends is in my play and it's really hard to constantly have to tell her what to do, and say no to things like when she wants to go to the bathroom or do something like that. It's a lot different of a position because usually we are more equal.
And her actor saying
ITS AWFUL! XXX is one of my best friends and her being director isn't helping and sometimes I'm like why am I doing this it's going to mess up being friends and I have a feeling it might.
A lot of students highlighted the difficulty of adapting to the new tiered-relationship, as normally equal students were separated about differing levels of responsibility. However, those that had previous experience of leading their peers were better equipped to deal with the strain put on relationships:
Not much. This is because I have used my experience from directing last year, where it strained my friendships with my peers, to improve this year. I just try to stay relaxed. You can still get things done without being uptight. That way people don't see it as you bossing them around, but as you doing your job, which is getting them to do theirs. That way there is more mutual respect.
However, it wasn’t all negative and some saw benefits, particularly with the way students viewed their peers in leadership roles:
I have more respect towards them because of how hard they're working on this and still keeping up on the same stuff that the rest of the students are doing.
While others were able to overcome initial problems:
It can be a tense situation because we usually don't take orders from fellow students, so it's hard to take them seriously. However, our group has adapted to the situation and accepted that we have peer managers.
And some thrived:
It's easier to take criticism.
My observation guide allowed me to track the changing relationship between peers and their leaders, by recording the number of positive or negative reactions to a leader.
As we see, positive reactions increased as negative reactions decreased during the project. This indicates that both leaders and non-leaders learned how to create a more collaborative relationship, recognizing the importance of each other.
As mentioned in Phase 2 Implementation, after a few weeks of working in their newly assigned groups, I asked students to report on who they appreciated and why. 80% said they appreciated a peer in a leadership role such as director, producer, playbill, costume, and props managers.
As mentioned in Phase 2 Implementation, after a few weeks of working in their newly assigned groups, I asked students to report on who they appreciated and why. 80% said they appreciated a peer in a leadership role such as director, producer, playbill, costume, and props managers.
In their comments, the majority highlighted their peer’s leadership skills:
I appreciate X for how great of a leader she is. When she observes our group’s blocking she brings such a good energy to the group. She is also great at getting the actors motivated.
I appreciate X for taking a leadership role and organizing everything and being good at it.
Interestingly, the results of the same survey in week 3, revealed a shift:
I appreciate X for how great of a leader she is. When she observes our group’s blocking she brings such a good energy to the group. She is also great at getting the actors motivated.
I appreciate X for taking a leadership role and organizing everything and being good at it.
Interestingly, the results of the same survey in week 3, revealed a shift:
When considering student feedback forms, observation guides and my teacher journal, I interpret the “I Appreciate” results as a reflection of the increasing responsibility being assumed by all group members. Actors were lightening the load placed on their directors, becoming more proactive, reflecting on their own performances, and providing constructive feedback to their peers. It was no longer seen as solely the director’s role to organize, collaborate, and critique. Actors observed their leaders modeling responsibility, recognized its importance, and adopted their practices.
How is student perception of themselves affected?
Whether or not placed in a leadership role, the project affected how students perceived themselves, making them more aware of strengths and weaknesses. From, I’m bad at leading people, to more introspective responses which recognize the revision process is helped by being organized at the beginning of a task:
I have learned a lot about myself as a person, for example I learned that when given big tasks I like to make sure I'm organized before I start doing anything. I also learned that I'm a negative person and sometimes I need to be more positive to the people around me.
The need to critique and revise was becoming a consistent theme in student responses:
I feel a lot of guilt for a lot of things. Everything that has gone wrong I feel like it’s my fault. I also feel like I've been constantly critiquing myself, everything I do I'm being too bossy, or I'm not giving people jobs, or I'm not getting things done. I don't know why I've felt so much pressure today.
While others realized the need to see matters from different perspectives, in helping the revision process:
Typically in a project I assume the leadership position. In this project I am not "in charge" of the group. I have enjoyed this, as I have gotten to view the project from a different perspective. I have learned that I don't ALWAYS have to be in charge of a situation.
How is student perception of teacher affected?
In Phase 1, positioning myself as a learner had mixed results in terms of how I was perceived by students. However, as students assumed more responsibility, and took ownership of their plays, I was able to position myself as a facilitator, modeling how students can revise, providing feedback, but encouraging students to make decisions themselves.
Matt was giving us feedback and also helped us change the script to make it better.
Matt’s role has been crucial in improving our play. He has been a huge help, being a second opinion. I feel like he is still keeping our ideas in mind instead of what he believes it should be.
Supporting my findings from Phase 1, students continued to look to teachers for advice, regarding them as experts, and valuing their leadership, rather than ability to learn:
Matt gave feedback to my group after they performed which was priceless. While I may be the director, I have the responsibility to do my job but not the authority. For my group, it is different to hear feedback from a respected and beloved mentor than it is from a peer, and I think you said many things they needed to hear.
Teacher authority was highly valued by many students, as initially, leaders struggled to manage their group’s behavior.
He helped keep other actors in check when they wouldn't listen to our director. He also gave good input as to how we could improve.
He helped me and my group not get as irritated with each other. I feel like having a teacher in the room while we rehearse helps out so much.
Most significant was the shift in how students value peer feedback. During my needs assessment, 58% reported preferring teacher feedback, 4% preferred student feedback and 38% valued both. By the end of Phase 2, more students valued peer feedback, up to 20%, while only 27% solely valued teacher feedback. Students who were unsure, or who valued both was up to 53%, indicating that when students are positioned as leaders, their value and likelihood of encouraging the revision process is increased.
How is student perception of themselves affected?
Whether or not placed in a leadership role, the project affected how students perceived themselves, making them more aware of strengths and weaknesses. From, I’m bad at leading people, to more introspective responses which recognize the revision process is helped by being organized at the beginning of a task:
I have learned a lot about myself as a person, for example I learned that when given big tasks I like to make sure I'm organized before I start doing anything. I also learned that I'm a negative person and sometimes I need to be more positive to the people around me.
The need to critique and revise was becoming a consistent theme in student responses:
I feel a lot of guilt for a lot of things. Everything that has gone wrong I feel like it’s my fault. I also feel like I've been constantly critiquing myself, everything I do I'm being too bossy, or I'm not giving people jobs, or I'm not getting things done. I don't know why I've felt so much pressure today.
While others realized the need to see matters from different perspectives, in helping the revision process:
Typically in a project I assume the leadership position. In this project I am not "in charge" of the group. I have enjoyed this, as I have gotten to view the project from a different perspective. I have learned that I don't ALWAYS have to be in charge of a situation.
How is student perception of teacher affected?
In Phase 1, positioning myself as a learner had mixed results in terms of how I was perceived by students. However, as students assumed more responsibility, and took ownership of their plays, I was able to position myself as a facilitator, modeling how students can revise, providing feedback, but encouraging students to make decisions themselves.
Matt was giving us feedback and also helped us change the script to make it better.
Matt’s role has been crucial in improving our play. He has been a huge help, being a second opinion. I feel like he is still keeping our ideas in mind instead of what he believes it should be.
Supporting my findings from Phase 1, students continued to look to teachers for advice, regarding them as experts, and valuing their leadership, rather than ability to learn:
Matt gave feedback to my group after they performed which was priceless. While I may be the director, I have the responsibility to do my job but not the authority. For my group, it is different to hear feedback from a respected and beloved mentor than it is from a peer, and I think you said many things they needed to hear.
Teacher authority was highly valued by many students, as initially, leaders struggled to manage their group’s behavior.
He helped keep other actors in check when they wouldn't listen to our director. He also gave good input as to how we could improve.
He helped me and my group not get as irritated with each other. I feel like having a teacher in the room while we rehearse helps out so much.
Most significant was the shift in how students value peer feedback. During my needs assessment, 58% reported preferring teacher feedback, 4% preferred student feedback and 38% valued both. By the end of Phase 2, more students valued peer feedback, up to 20%, while only 27% solely valued teacher feedback. Students who were unsure, or who valued both was up to 53%, indicating that when students are positioned as leaders, their value and likelihood of encouraging the revision process is increased.
As you can see I collected some incredibly insightful data which allowed me to draw clear and concise conclusions. Undoubtedly, positioning students as leaders had a profound effect on students’ motivation and ability to revise, as well as how they perceive themselves, their peers, teacher, and collaboration and their engagement. Click below to read more analysis of my findings.