Findings
Student voice, teacher journal, and observation guides provided a rich source of data on which to build upon my Phase 1 findings.
Peers are better models of the revision process than teachers
During Phase 1 I was not able to effectively model the revision process as a teacher, nor display the process as a learner. Students lacked interest in learning from their peers. However, when peers were positioned as leaders, students became much more attuned to the revision process. Student-leaders quickly realized the need to revise in order to deliver a historically-accurate, dramatic, dynamic play. Non-leaders discovered a respect for peer-leaders, regarding them as experts even if they were no more experienced. They observed the importance of the revision process, and some non-leaders became leaders, showing other group members how to revise.
I've kinda stepped up as another leader in my group. I would never want to take over the assistant-director’s job, but when he can't do something or is gone I help out in his place. I have also realized that I never want to do nothing. I always want to be productive and help out. If I'm just sitting there I get very bored and I do not, not not not like being bored. Or just sitting around.
Students still turned to teachers for advice, but they became less reliant, adopting and adapting revision methods I modeled. They were less afraid to make mistakes, feeling comfortable working with and for peers, trialing new revision methods, and adopting processes observed in other groups. I don’t think I would’ve been able to achieve this level of improvement whether positioned as learner, facilitator, or leader, as students thrived with their autonomy, wanting complete ownership of their play.
As mentioned in my Phase 1 Findings, students are most likely to revise when given autonomy and trust, and the assignment is meaningful and relevant, requiring them to master new skills while connected to an existing passion.
There is no set formula for revising
The advantage to giving students more voice was that everyone was exposed to several different approaches to revising, more than I could’ve modeled in the same time period. This allowed students to adopt a method that best suited their learning style, revising at their own pace.
My literature review revealed a plethora of instructional techniques on how to promote student revision, just as each director possessed different skills sets, including the relaxed approached, intense, indifferent, authoritative, and empowering, to encourage their group to revise. Groups encountered an array of challenges, overcoming them in their own, unique way. It is worth remembering that there are many learning styles and multiple intelligences present in the classroom. We shouldn't expect out students to learn at the same pace, in the same way; emphasizing the need to differentiate instruction and assessments. Leaders were able to exhibit this differentiation by adapting their approach to suit the group, just as non-leaders displayed flexibility in working collaboratively.
Students need to be coached how to collaborate and lead
As mentioned in my data collection and analysis, many student-leaders expressed concerns with how to lead effectively. All directors needed help from teachers, and it would’ve been beneficial for them to receive formal, explicit instruction. Just as students struggled to collaborate with their peers in Phase 1, the same issues continued into Phase 2.
Leadership is very complex, and the most effective approach is based largely on group dynamics. I explore techniques on how to coach leadership in the next section: Phase 2 Next Steps.
Peers are better models of the revision process than teachers
During Phase 1 I was not able to effectively model the revision process as a teacher, nor display the process as a learner. Students lacked interest in learning from their peers. However, when peers were positioned as leaders, students became much more attuned to the revision process. Student-leaders quickly realized the need to revise in order to deliver a historically-accurate, dramatic, dynamic play. Non-leaders discovered a respect for peer-leaders, regarding them as experts even if they were no more experienced. They observed the importance of the revision process, and some non-leaders became leaders, showing other group members how to revise.
I've kinda stepped up as another leader in my group. I would never want to take over the assistant-director’s job, but when he can't do something or is gone I help out in his place. I have also realized that I never want to do nothing. I always want to be productive and help out. If I'm just sitting there I get very bored and I do not, not not not like being bored. Or just sitting around.
Students still turned to teachers for advice, but they became less reliant, adopting and adapting revision methods I modeled. They were less afraid to make mistakes, feeling comfortable working with and for peers, trialing new revision methods, and adopting processes observed in other groups. I don’t think I would’ve been able to achieve this level of improvement whether positioned as learner, facilitator, or leader, as students thrived with their autonomy, wanting complete ownership of their play.
As mentioned in my Phase 1 Findings, students are most likely to revise when given autonomy and trust, and the assignment is meaningful and relevant, requiring them to master new skills while connected to an existing passion.
There is no set formula for revising
The advantage to giving students more voice was that everyone was exposed to several different approaches to revising, more than I could’ve modeled in the same time period. This allowed students to adopt a method that best suited their learning style, revising at their own pace.
My literature review revealed a plethora of instructional techniques on how to promote student revision, just as each director possessed different skills sets, including the relaxed approached, intense, indifferent, authoritative, and empowering, to encourage their group to revise. Groups encountered an array of challenges, overcoming them in their own, unique way. It is worth remembering that there are many learning styles and multiple intelligences present in the classroom. We shouldn't expect out students to learn at the same pace, in the same way; emphasizing the need to differentiate instruction and assessments. Leaders were able to exhibit this differentiation by adapting their approach to suit the group, just as non-leaders displayed flexibility in working collaboratively.
Students need to be coached how to collaborate and lead
As mentioned in my data collection and analysis, many student-leaders expressed concerns with how to lead effectively. All directors needed help from teachers, and it would’ve been beneficial for them to receive formal, explicit instruction. Just as students struggled to collaborate with their peers in Phase 1, the same issues continued into Phase 2.
Leadership is very complex, and the most effective approach is based largely on group dynamics. I explore techniques on how to coach leadership in the next section: Phase 2 Next Steps.