Allison M.

Hawkins ENGL 481 Nardi May 4, 2012 Major Project Four: Action Research Upon walking into my seventh grade field placement classroom at a local middle school, (grades 6-8) it is, undoubtedly, a typical classroom environment. The student population in all of my cooperating teachers classes is extremely diverse, yet each student bears the same tween look: struggling to discovering his or her true self while going through puberty, buzzing with the talk of the tween dating scene, and carrying a cumbersome school supply binder meant for organizational purposes, yet overflowing with each classs materials. Furthermore, everyone is still fairly enthusiastic to be at school as no one is in the back corner, slumped into a ball and falling asleep as seen in many high school classroom environments. However, despite this room bursting with energy, an immense and ugly underlying issue plagues the day-to-day operations of Mrs. Smiths1 fourth-hour English/Language Arts class: the majority of the students are failing. Upon discovering this monumental problem and discussing it with Mrs. Smith, it became clear the problems foundation existed not in the students inability to understand seventh-grade concepts, but in their failure to complete and turn in daily assignments, projects, journal entries, etc. Increasingly worrisome was the fact that Mrs. Smith rarely assigned homework and all assignments had designated class time for completion. In thoroughly examining the roots of this problem, I discovered this was not just an issue about completing assignments, but a failure on both the teacher and curriculum to provide a collaborative classroom in environment in which this population of students could thrive. Indeed, a more functional classroom environment would enable students to see the classroom as productive workspace, rather than a place in which they

Pseudonym

were coerced to do perceived educational labor. This educational roadblock was framed by two main issues: the lack of classroom management as a result of failed procedure and dialogue between student and teacherand the inability of the teacher to provide the scaffolding needed to transform a students potential skills into actual, applicable skills during assigned group projects. Upon first pondering the possible source for this lack of assignment completion, my initial instinct was to direct some sort of blame onto the lack of self-control and/or self-discipline on each of the failing students parts. While there is an undoubted amount of responsibility on the student to direct his or her path toward academic success, seventh graders, (especially those at lower achieving levels like those in my observation) need some sort of guidance on how to achieve better organization and, thus, more timely completion of assignments. Therefore, my cooperating teacher began to put together a specific checklist for each unit the class was covering in which each assignment included in the unit was listed in order for students to be aware of what he or she had not completed (see Exhibit One). Exhibit One was constructed by my cooperating teacher as a way to effectively manage the chaos that was brewing as a result of quickly plummeting grades and to prompt students to more efficiently complete assignments. Following the implementation of Exhibit One, I steadfastly paid attention to the students use of this guide as a way to manage their class time activities. While it was definitely effective in helping each student see exactly what was expected of him or her, I found the checklist not detailed enough as students often asked for a description of the assignment, what page number assignments could be found on, etc. It is worth noting the few-sentence blurb above the rubric on Exhibit One as it claims assignments will not be accepted if the score is less than 80%. However, this is now incorrect. While the teacher originally planned for this assignment procedure to occur, students are now only able to turn in late assignments for 50%. Therefore,

while students actively utilize Exhibit One as a way to organize which assignments have been completed, it has not aided in igniting a quicker turnover of assignments. In conjunction with the discussion of Exhibit One are the actual assignments found on the checklist. Each assignment offers a strict boundary between student and teacher in which the student merely facilitates the assignment and the student must abide and complete. The classroom environment incorporates only a basic transmission of information between communicator and recipient, rather than an environment structured as an open-ended discussion forum in which both teacher and student engage in a dialogue about class topics. This type of interaction varies largely from the aforementioned structure and requires that teachers abandon the security of their roles as authoritative repositories and referees of unproblematic knowledge in favor of more subtle and ostensibly risky roles of master conversant, catalyst, critic, and organizer of dialogue (Nystrand 89). Therefore, in constructing one of my lessons for Mrs. Smiths fourth-hour class, my main goal was to create an activity that fostered whole-class collaboration and a forum in which each student could extract information from his or her own personal funds of knowledge. In this way, the student could feel as though their thought was valued and significant to the overall completion of the activity. I framed my lesson (see Exhibit Two) around a previously learned concept called Content Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) in a Curriculum and Instruction class. With Content DRTA, you preview a text with student by asking for predictions or a listing of knowledge about a particular subject before the actual reading of the text begins. Then, the teacher begins reading WITH students, first reading sections to the class, then asking for volunteers, and then silently reading. After each section of reading, the teacher reverts back to the aforementioned predictions and/or lists of prior knowledge, discussing new points that come up and creating a natural dialogue about a topic. In

an excerpt from my Journal of Literacy Experience I wrote: This activity was ideal because it modeled a communal classroom environment in which we participated in the discussion with students rather than having them simply read the article and then write about it (Hawkins, 4/24/12). Furthermore, it helped to model a "natural" reading process that proficient readers use subconsciously, especially because many of the students in the fourth-hour class are underachieving readers. In order to remedy the problematic boundary between students and teacher, the teacher must promote more frequent dialogic methods in his or her daily instruction. Rather than simply transmitting information, (like the oft used Banking Method) in a teacher-centric classroom in which learning lacks any sort of durability, the teacher must provide lessons that are driven by student engagement and that activate the funds of knowledge unique to each student. My lesson promoting this student-centric environment and incorporating Content DRTA involved reading an article regarding Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen and his recent suspension for making comments about his admiration for Cuban Communist leader, Fidel Castro. The comments outraged not only the Miami Marlins baseball organization, but also the large Cuban population in the Miami community. Because the article activated previous funds of knowledge and the students were able to collaborate with group members and share this knowledge, the completion and participation were levels above normal engagement. Exhibit Three showcases the students work in listing their prior knowledge with the rest of the group. The class was eager to talk about the topics raised in this article (communism, especially) and the teacher actually extended my lesson by instructing students to write a persuasive essay on whether or not they believe Guillen should have been suspended. Regarding this kind of lesson Nystrand writes: By asking authentic questions and not prespecifying answers, teachers open up the floor to student

interpretations, signaling to students that their ideas and not those presented in their textbooks are important and can provide opportunities for learning (Nystrand 90). Indeed, by opening up the classroom conversational floor, new opportunities for fruitful discussion and student-centric learning are ignited. The second major contributor to the students lack of success is the lack of necessary scaffolding when assigning group projects. If teachers wish to assign critical thinking-based projects that help foster creativity and dialogic peer collaboration, they must provide the assistance and modeling that is integral to the project to be completed to the expected standard. For example, Mrs. Smith assigned a group project in which students had to create a movie script for a particular chapter or scene in the class novel they had recently finished. In order for this assignment to be a successful expression of student creativity and collaboration, the teacher must set up checkpoints for completion, rather than simply handing out a worksheet listing the instructions and components of the assignment. The teacher has a key role in aiding understanding of each component in order for students to reach full potential i.e. working within the zone of proximal development. By simply handing out an assignment sheet, students are left floundering they understand the main purpose of the assignment, yet do not know how to compose a script, what it should look like, what scene or chapter of the book to use, etc. Therefore, the teacher must model these components when the project is initially assigned, helping students to discover the necessary steps for completion and what the finished project should ultimately look and sound like. In discussing Vygotskys theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, Nystrand reinforces this aforementioned suggestion for instruction by stating: Hence, in a coordinating effort, the adult scaffolds the learning and activity of the child, Wertsch (1979, 1985) points

out, by allowing for what the student can do (actual development level) while providing support for what the child is not yet able to do (potential development level) (Nystrand 95). In my classroom example, Mrs. Smith would first observe and/or assess what each group of students already knows about the necessary steps to complete the assignment and would then subsequently address areas of concern. In this way, the group gradually begins to work as one collaborative unit, slowly gaining more responsibility and a better understanding of how to complete the assignment. Therefore, discourse and social interaction structure the development of the childs understanding (Nystrand 95). Indeed, the peer group can only be effective and fully utilize its dialogic capabilities if the teacher adequately scaffolds the assignment. After watching some presentations of the movie script and witnessing the poor quality, a teacher operating within each groups zone of proximal development would have, undoubtedly, created more creative, thorough projects. While the students in Mrs. Smiths fourth hour class are suffering from consistent below average grade reports, the issue could be remedied by integrating two major concepts: by providing more complex, dialogic, student-centered lessons and through proper scaffolding in order to allow group collaboration the ability to showcase its complete educational benefits. By creating lessons that activate each students funds of knowledge, the class will feel as though they have something worthy to offer and something that will contribute to the greater understanding of the entire class. In this way, each student feels somewhat experienced and knowledgeable, lowering the affective filter and allowing for better completion of assignments. Additionally, with the correct scaffolding, students would be able to produce work levels above the below average work they are currently turning in. With guidance and gradual responsibility

each group would allow the aforementioned concept of dialogism to function within this smaller setting, as well.

Works Cited Nystrand, Martin. Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1997. Print. Hawkins, Allison. Journal of Literacy Experience. Illinois Compass. 24 Apr. 2012. Web.

Appendix Exhibit One:

Exhibit Two:

Exhibit Two, cont.

Exhibit Three: