Action Research Paper J. Danilowicz

Peer Response Groups: Does focusing on a targeted task improve student writing?
Peer Response Groups: Does focusing on a targeted task improve student writing? Jennifer B. Danilowicz Sixth Grade English Language Arts Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Chapel Hill, NC EDU 690 Action Research University of New England April 12th, 2013
Statement of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as outlined in the Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct document relating to the Honesty/Cheating Policy. By attaching this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify that the work submitted is my original work developed specifically for this course and to the MSED program. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I acknowledge the possible consequences of the act/s, which could include expulsion from the University of New England. 1
Abstract Successful implementation of peer editing is a challenge for many educators. This action research project investigated the impact peer response groups had on student writing when the groups focused on a targeted task in a 6th grade classroom. The study examined the effect peer response groups had on all subgroups of students in regard to motivation and revision. A collaborative class, consisting of 22 students was selected to participate in this study as well as the teacher researcher and co-teacher. This class represented a diverse group, including exceptional, gifted and average students. The study took place over the span of a two week intervention period in which students engaged in peer response groups. Data was collected via two graded essays, surveys, and teacher observation. Results indicated that students from all subgroups benefited from participating in peer response groups in regard to improvement in their essays as well as their motivation to write. The research findings supported that peer response groups are beneficial for improving writing. Key words: middle school, peer response groups, revision, motivation to write
Table of Contents Abstract........2 Table of Contents.3 Introduction..7 Statement of Problem...7 Rationale of Study7 A Need for Intervention...8 Participants...8 School Location.10 Research Questions10 Hypotheses.10 Ethical Considerations...11 Review of Literature..12 Introduction12 Peer Response Groups Impact on Student Writing12 Background12 Benefits of Peer Response Groups13 Peer Response Groups...14 Peer Response Groups in Action...15 Diverse Students in Peer Response Groups...16 Drawbacks to Peer Response Groups16 Educational Drawbacks.17
Social Drawbacks..17 Conclusions18 Methodology..19 Research Design19 Research Questions19 Participants.19 Interventions..20 Data Collection Plan..20 Instruments.21 Essay 1...22 Essay 2...22 Survey 1.23 Survey 2.23 Teacher Observation..23 Analyzing Results..24 Possible Issues...25 Timeline.25 Data Validity..26 Validity of Quantitative Research..26 Validity of Qualitative Research27 Credibility..27 Transferability27 Dependability.27
Confirmability27 Peer Feedback28 Administrator.28 Co-Teacher.28 Classmates..29 Results29 Findings.29 Student opinion of peer editing.29 Student opinion of effectiveness of peer editing31 Teacher Observation..33 Student Essays...34 Motivation.36 Discussion of Findings..37 Improvement in Writing37 On task behavior and improvement in writing..38 Benefits of subgroups38 Student motivation.39 Student view..39 Teacher view..40 Limitations of Study..41 Action Plan.42 Summary of Findings.42 Continued Implementation.42
Modifications.43 Extension44 Current Year...44 Future Years...45 Conclusion.48 References..49 Appendices.51
Introduction Statement of Problem Students participate in the writing process in regard to brainstorming, producing a rough draft, peer editing, revising with teacher support and producing a final draft. Although students had been asked routinely throughout the year to peer edit with a partner the process had not improved revision for the majority of students. Sixth grade students often made superficial comments that did not aid in the revision process. These comments included items such as good job, great work, I liked your topic as well as various other comments. Therefore, students still needed a great deal of assistance from their English Language Arts (ELA) teacher to revise their writing pieces. In addition to this, time was a factor for peer editing. Many students did not finish their rough drafts in time to participate in the peer editing process. When they finished their piece, they moved directly to teacher editing. The peer editing was not well guided. Students were told to use their rubrics to peer edit, but they often did not do this well. They often attempted to look for grammatical errors, but did not focus on the content of the writing piece. Students enjoyed peer editing, but it did not improve their writing. Rationale of Study The writing process is multi-step and includes brainstorming, producing a rough draft, peer editing, teacher editing and revision to produce final drafts. As a result, teaching writing is quite time consuming and teachers are sometimes tempted to skip steps in the writing process, such as peer editing. Hermann (1989) indicated that when students do not participate in peer editing it causes them to not anticipate an audience. In order to make writing meaningful to students it is essential that students write for a larger
audience than their teacher. In addition to this, Christianakis (2010) suggested that students participate in reciprocal learning when they participate in peer response groups to edit their writing pieces. Peer response groups not only aid with student revision, but they also give students a chance to work together in collaborative groups and learn from each other. When peer editing is not used as part of the writing process, students miss out on an authentic audience as well as an opportunity to effectively collaborate with one another. A need for intervention. Peer editing is an essential part of the writing process. Research discussed above hypothesizes a need for peer editing to be a substantial part of the writing process. Although teachers play a vital role in the writing process, their role often comes at the end of the process, when students believe they are finished writing. As a result, teachers are seen as the experts and students do not seek to improve their writing, but instead are only concerned about their grade (Gonca, 2012). Studies have shown peer response groups have positive effects on student revision as well as motivation to write. Dix and Cawkwell (2011) found that having students participate in peer response groups fostered a sense of community, encouraged students to use more detail in their writing and created better listeners. Participating in peer response groups had positive impact on student writing. Participants Jennifer Danilowicz was the teacher researcher. She had been teaching for 12 years, with 11 years spent teaching ELA at the middle school level and one year teaching 9th grade English. The teacher researcher held a Bachelors of Human Science and Services with a concentration in English as well as an endorsement to teach middle
school. Additionally, the teacher researcher was a Nationally Board Certified Teacher in English Language Arts/ Early Adolescence. Jennifer Danilowicz was working towards her Masters of Science Education, specializing in Curriculum and Instructional Strategies. The teacher researcher chose a collaborative class for this research study. A collaborative class is defined as a class taught by one regular education and one special education teacher. Collaborative classes contain a cluster of Exceptional Children (EC) who have collaborative class listed on their Individual Education Plan (IEP) as an accommodation. The collaborative class for this action research project consisted of 22 students who were in the 6th grade. Seven of the students in this classroom were identified as gifted learners in both math and Language Arts, 11 students had IEPs and four students were regular education students. In addition to the teacher researcher, this class was co-taught by a special education teacher who had been working with the teacher researcher for 3 years. This was their first year co-teaching. The students with IEPs had a variety of goals. Three of the students had behavior goals as well as learning goals and the other eight students had learning goals. Four of the students with IEPs were at or above grade level in regard to proficiency in reading, while eight were below grade level. The class met during the morning. Implementing peer response groups in this classroom setting offered the opportunity for the teacher researcher to see how this method affected students of all levels. This classroom was the most diverse that the teacher researcher taught.
10
School Location This study included participants who attended and worked for Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools, in Chapel Hill, NC. The study took place at Phillips Middle School in Chapel Hill, NC. Phillips Middle School had 641 enrolled students and had a diverse ethnic population that broke down as follows: 0.5% American Indian, 16.7% Asian, 11.2% Hispanic, 13.6% African American, 44.6% white, and 13.4% MultiCultural ("Chapel hill Carrboro," 2012). Chapel Hill, NC was located in Orange County, NC. Chapel Hill, a highly education community, had a population of approximately 55,000 people. 96% of the adult population had a high school degree, 77% of the population had a Bachelors Degree or higher and 44.5% of the population had a graduate or professional degree (Town of Chapel Hill, 2004). Chapel Hill was home to the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill. In addition to this university, Duke University in Durham, NC was located just 15 minutes from Chapel Hill. Research Questions 1. Does focusing peer response groups on a targeted task, guided by the teacher, improve student writing? 2. Does grouping students heterogeneously in peer response groups improve the writing for EC students, gifted students and average students? Or, do certain subgroups benefit more from this task than others? 3. Are all students motivated by peer response groups to improve their writing? Hypotheses Students in the collaborative 6th grade ELA class were not able to make significant revisions to their work without help from their teacher. Students did not
10
11
consistently participate in peer editing and when they did, it was on a superficial basis having no impact on their revisions. Additionally, peer editing they participated in was not guided by the teacher. This study was developed to test three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 By participating in guided peer response groups, targeting a specific task, students will be able to improve their writing in regard to the specific writing task that their teacher is assessing. Hypothesis 2 Grouping students in peer response groups heterogeneously will benefit students of all peer groups. Struggling learners will have models to read and strong writers will examine how to improve writing of other students. Hypothesis 3 By participating in peer response groups, students will be more motivated to write articulate pieces because they will have a larger audience. Ethical Considerations The principal of the school was contacted in order to gain approval for this study. He guided the teacher researcher to speak with the Executive Director of Testing & Evaluation and Instructional Services. The teacher researcher was told that because the topic of the study fell within the parameters of basic research that would be done in the classroom, as part of a teachers job duties, the researcher would not have to gain district approval or parental permission. However, the teacher researcher shared with the students that they would be part of a research study she conducted for her graduate school class because collecting information or observing participants without their knowledge is unethical (Mills, 2011).
11
12
Review of Literature Introduction Peer response groups have been utilized by teachers for decades. But, what are peer response groups and how do teachers effectively use them for instructional purposes? Peer response groups are defined as, activities in which peers read and comment on each others drafts or ideas (Flash, 2012, p. 1). Teachers use peer response groups in writing workshops when students are creating written compositions. Peer response groups generally consist of three to four students who work together throughout the year to critique work and give each other feedback. These groups can also be smaller or larger depending on the student needs. Peer response groups impact on student writing. Flash (2012) suggests that peer response groups enable students quick and timely feedback from peers and the groups can occur in class, online or outside of class. Students can use this feedback to improve their writing pieces. Gonca (2012) indicates that peer review is meant to complement teacher feedback and that with guidance and practice, students can effectively offer constructive feedback. Peer response groups offer students a chance to have a live audience read their work, thus making their writing more meaningful. Background Peer response groups have been around since writers began to write. Dipardo and Freedman (1988) indicate that writing groups have been around as long as writers have shared work with their peers, dating back to literary societies in the early colonies and documented as early as the last part of the 19th century. Although the idea of
12
13
communities of writers reading each others work and commenting upon it has existed for a long time, writing was not always taught this way in schools. In fact, Herrmann (1988) suggests that the focus of writing pedagogy shifting from merely written products to a process approach was a relatively new methodology in 1988 in regards to K-8 classrooms. Before this, most peer response groups were seen at the high school or college level, but rarely at the elementary or middle school level (Hall, 2007). As more teachers began to utilize the process approach to teaching writing, peer response groups became more apparent in all classrooms. Benefits of peer response groups. As peer response groups become more commonly used, many teachers ask themselves about the usefulness and purpose of peer response groups. Christianakis (2010), writes, From a sociocultural perspective, literacy development grows out of meaningful interactions with the social world (p. 423). Therefore, learning to write is a social process and peer response groups play a vital role. Dix and Cawkwell (2011) suggest that the benefits of peer response groups extend well beyond the writing products themselves as they increase motivation to revise, improve the quantity of writing, foster positive attitudes towards writing, reduce writing apprehension, offer immediate feedback and create a nonthreatening audience. Flash (2012) offers a wide variety of reasons to use peer response groups that include: opportunities for students to improve drafts before its too late, an expanded idea of audience, practicing in reading for revision, enhanced communication skills, increased confidence, better writing, high levels of student engagement as well as high evaluation ratings. In addition to this, some studies have shown that students themselves feel they benefit from peer response groups. Gonca (2012) analyzed a study in which college
13
14
students filled out a survey depicting their thoughts in regard to participating in peer response groups. From this study, 9 students found the groups very helpful, 11 students felt they were adequate, while only two students felt they were not satisfied with their groups (Gonca, 2012). Dix and Cawkwell (2011) performed a study on elementary students and this study indicated that not only did teachers observe that students were more engaged, but all students made revisions and even their parents noted a difference in their childs writing. Finally, research has proven that instructional groupings where students work together to plan, compose and revise had a strong impact on the quality of writing students produced (Graham, MacArthur and Fitzgerald, 2007). Peer Response Groups As demonstrated by research mentioned above, peer response groups can be extremely useful. But how does a teacher set up peer response groups that are beneficial to student learning? Dix and Cawkwell (2011) point out that in order for teachers to create beneficial peer response groups, it is important for teachers to see themselves as writers and practice the writing process as well with their own peer group. Wagner (2001) suggests that one major aspect to consider when creating peer response groups for middle school students is to ensure that they have a common ground in the form of an ongoing project. Students who have been working on a year round project are well versed in what is expected of them and tend to offer constructive feedback. Hall (2009) suggests that teachers must teach peer response groups and not just model them, but rather give students significant time to practice peer response groups. Therefore, peer response groups work best when students continuously work on them throughout the year. Pritchard and Honeycutt indicate that having writing responded to using specific
14
15
criteria for response, improves writing (as cited in Dix and Cawkwell, 2011, p. 45). Middle school students often need scaffolding when working on writing pieces. Offering them specific criteria to focus on while working in peer response groups is very beneficial. Peer response groups in action. Gonca (2012) indicates that teachers play a vital role in student writing, but their role comes at the end of the writing process instead of at the beginning and that a good time for peer response groups is in the composing stage. The traditional set-up of peer response groups consists of writers sitting in a circle with their papers in their hands (Dix and Cawkwell, 2011). Research suggests that when grouping students, groups of 3-4 students are the most beneficial (Marzano, Pickering and Pollock, 2001). Therefore teachers should create peer response groups by placing their students in groups of 3-4 students. While in the groups, writers read their pieces aloud and classmates respond with positive feedback initially, then with constructive feedback while the writer listens (Dix and Cawkwell, 2011). At this time, teachers are asked to step back and be observers of the process. Peer response groups are not a time for corrective feedback, but rather a time for students to focus on the content of their writing pieces (Gonca, 2012). Corrective feedback focuses on the grammatical errors in a writing piece and foster superficial level revisions. In order to focus on deeper level revisions, students should be taught how to analyze content. Therefore, peer response groups should focus on a targeted task that teachers are assessing. When students participate in groups such as these, they are preparing themselves for discourse communities they will work for in the future (Hall, 2009).
15
16
Diverse students in peer response groups. The world we live in is becoming increasingly diverse. As such, our classrooms have become multiculturally diverse. In addition to this, teachers work in classrooms that are often heterogeneously grouped. Therefore, teachers often work with students from a variety of social backgrounds as well as students who have a wide variety of instructional levels. There are several considerations that teachers must make in regard to diversity. Teachers must realize that peer response groups are influenced by friendship, peer status, and social identities (Christianakis, 2010). Teachers need to be mindful of successful students who are convinced that they work best on their own and tend to resist collaboration (Flash, 2012). Many of our classrooms today consist of a complex hierarchy. Peer status is a result of literacy achievement and social status is a result of multiple characteristics like gender, socioeconomic levels, race and ethnicity (Christianakis, 2010). Therefore, good looking, high achieving students have a higher social status and this gives them access to more supportive and helpful interactions during peer response groups (Christianakis, 2010). These are all considerations that teachers must ponder before setting up peer response groups in diverse classrooms. Teachers need to be especially careful not to be complacent with respect to fostering these stereotypes in their classrooms and should avoid putting students with high social status in consistent leadership roles (Christianakis, 2010). Drawbacks to Peer Response Groups As with any educational strategy, there are always drawbacks to consider. Peer response groups have both educational as well as social drawbacks.
16
17
Educational drawbacks. DiPardo and Freedman (1988) discuss that teachers are heavily divided in regards to the efficacy of peer response groups. Many teachers feel that students will fail to go beyond the surface level problems in their writing and those students will hone in on superficial revisions (Gonca, 2012). Some studies have proven
that there is no true benefit to peer response groups. Gonca (2012) indicated that one study about peer review indicated that there was no impact on revision for students who edited with a peer over students who did not edit with a peer. In a similar study at a Dutch school, 11 classes were studied and the students who did not participate in peer review performed the same as those who participated in peer response groups (Herrmann, 1989). Social drawbacks. In addition to the educational drawbacks listed above, there are a plethora of social issues associated with peer response groups. Positive results within peer response groups depend upon how much students actively participate in their respective groups. Dix and Cawkwell ( 2011) state an excellent point when they discuss that just because a student is asked to revise does not mean the student will revise their work, no matter how useful their feedback was. Gonca (2012) also suggests that some students simply prefer teacher feedback and do not respect the feedback of their peers. Members in groups could also shirk responsibility (Christianakis, 2010). Peer response groups involve a complex hierarchy of social grouping. Christianakis (2010) indicates that teachers could mistakenly be complacent in social status rankings by giving dominant, high achieving students positions of power in which they could marginalize their peers. Clearly, there are several aspects of peer response groups that could go wrong.
17
18
Conclusions As with any educational strategy there are benefits and drawbacks to peer response groups. Herrmann (1989) indicates that the relationship between peer comments and revision is complex and deals with multiple factors within the classroom environment. Creating a classroom that fosters inclusion of all students will greatly aid in creating productive peer response groups. Hall (2009) states, We assign peer response, but we dont teach it, ( p. 3). If teachers want their students to participate in peer response groups and be successful, then they need to teach students how to participate in these groups. One way to do so is to have students focus on a targeted task in peer response groups such as transition words, descriptive language or creating effective endings. Teachers can not just assume that students know how to critique each others writing. Writing is one of the most challenging crafts for students to learn as it tends to be very subjective. Even when peer response groups do not show large gains in student revision, their may be hidden benefits, such as students learning to work with others. Benefits and drawbacks aside, learning to write is more than learning to just produce written products for a teacher (DiPardo and Freeman, 1988). Writing is an essential component of our daily communications with others, a vital tool students will need to be successful in todays world.
18
19
Methodology Research Design Peer response groups improve student writing. Both Gonca (2012) and Dix and Cawkwell (2011) performed studies on varying age groups of students in which teachers and students found peer response groups beneficial to improving student writing. In the researchers classroom students are not consistently participating in peer editing and when they do peer edit, it is inefficient. Although students have been asked routinely throughout the year to peer edit with a partner the process has not improved revision for the majority of students. The researcher decided to implement targeted peer response groups with a specific focus on descriptive writing to improve student revision. Research questions 1. Does focusing peer response groups on a targeted task, guided by the teacher, improve student writing? 2. Does grouping students heterogeneously in peer response groups improve the writing for EC students, gifted students and average students? Or, do certain subgroups benefit more from this task than others? 3. Are all students motivated by peer response groups to improve their writing? Participants The teacher researcher chose a collaborative class for this research study. A collaborative class is defined as a class taught by one regular education and one special education teacher. Collaborative classes contain a cluster of EC students who have collaborative class listed on their IEP as an accommodation. The collaborative class for this action research project consisted of 22 students who were in the sixth grade. Seven
19
20
of the students were identified as gifted learners in both math and Language Arts, 11 students had IEPs and four students were regular education students. The students with IEPs had a variety of goals. Three of the students had behavior goals as well as learning goals and the other eight students had learning goals. Four of the students with IEPs were at or above grade level in regards to proficiency in reading, while seven were below grade level. Interventions The researcher chose to implement targeted peer response groups to improve student writing. Description was an area of weakness for the students in this study, so the researcher decided to focus on description in student writing for the targeted task. Students were grouped heterogeneously in groups of 3-4 students and asked to respond to each others writing by highlighting descriptive words and offering suggestions to improve description. Students were asked not to focus on surface level revisions (such as grammatical corrections) but instead to consider deeper revisions with a focus on descriptive writing. Before grouping students, the teacher modeled how to highlight descriptive words, and use both a thesaurus and the classroom word wall to select words that were highly descriptive. Data Collection Plan Mills (2011) writes, It is generally accepted in action research circles that researchers should not rely on any single source of data, interview, observation or instrument, (p. 92). Therefore the researcher chose to collect data from various sources. Doing so created triangulation (Mills, 2011). The researcher collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data the research gathered was done through Likert
20
21
scale surveys and the rubrics used for writing assessment. In addition to this, the researcher collected qualitative data in the form of teacher observation, student conferences and conferences with the co-teacher in the classroom. The researcher was an active participant in the activity so the teacher was an active participant observer (Mills, 2011). To organize the data collection plan, the researcher created a data matrix. Table 1 Data Collection Matrix for Peer Response Groups Research Data Source 1 Questions Improvement in Student essays writing? before implementation (Essay 1) Data Source 2 Student essays after implementation (Essay 2) Date Source 3 Teacher observation, conferences with students and co-teacher. Teacher observation, conferences with students and co-teacher. Teacher observation, conferences with students and co-teacher. Student essays after implementation (Essay 2) Data Source 4
Beneficial for all students?
Student survey 1
Student survey 2
Increase student Student survey motivation? 1
Student survey 2
Student essays after implementation (Essay 2)
Instruments Throughout the data collection process the researcher used four instruments to assess the students performance in peer response groups. The first instrument used was a survey based on the Likert scale. The Likert scale asks students to respond to a series of questions in with they strongly agree (SA), agree (A), are undecided (U), disagree (D)
21
22
or strongly disagree (SD) (Mills, 2011). These surveys not only provide teachers with quantitative data, but they are also descriptive (Mills, 2011). The researcher used one survey before the intervention and one after the intervention. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed two artifacts from the students, Essay 1 and Essay 2. They provide quantitative data in regard to surface level and deeper level revisions. To provide qualitative data, the researcher additionally used direct observation in the role of an active participant observer as well as conferences with students and the co-teacher in the classroom. Essay 1. Students had been participating in a year long writing project called an alphabiography project. The assignment consisted of students choosing a word for each letter of the alphabet that represented them. Students then wrote a detailed paragraph defining the word and describing why it was important to them. Moreover, students wrote a life lesson they have learned or could learn from this word. The essay was graded according to the Alphabiography Rubric (Appendix A). The teacher researcher chose the alphabiography entry students submitted in January to analyze for both surface and deeper level revisions. The researcher examined this artifact by listing the number of surface level revisions and the number of deeper level revisions in each paper. These entries were not edited in peer response groups. The teacher researcher was the sole editor of these artifacts. Essay 2. The teacher researcher again used the ongoing alphabiography for this artifact. This entry was completed in March and was graded according to the Alphabiography Description Rubric (Appendix B). Students participated in targeted peer response groups for this entry. The teacher researcher analyzed these essays for both surface and deeper level revisions by listing the number of surface level revisions and the
22
23
number of deeper level revisions in each paper. Some students also required additional teacher support to revise their writing pieces and this was included in the data as well. Survey 1. This survey assessed students attitudes about peer editing using a Likert scale. In this survey the researcher used the terminology peer editing instead of peer response groups as students were more familiar with that terminology at that time. The researcher gave this survey to students before they participated in the peer response group intervention in order to obtain a gauge as to how students viewed peer editing. This survey asked students a variety of questions focused around peer editing and revision. The researcher selected the Likert scale and assigned point values to each category to infer whether students felt positively or negatively about peer response groups (Mills, 2011). Survey 2. This survey was very similar to Survey 1 in that it used a Likert scale to assess student feelings about peer response groups. The difference in this survey was that it was given after students had participated in peer response groups. The researcher used peer response groups as the terminology in this survey as students had been told they were participating in peer response groups and not simply peer editing. The survey asked students a variety of questions focused around peer response groups and revisions. It was set up identically to Survey 1 and the purpose was to gauge if students feelings towards peer response groups had changed either positively or negatively since the intervention. Teacher observation. Participant observers are genuine participants in research projects (Mills, 2011). The teacher researcher taught the class and was therefore an active participant observer. The researcher recorded observations about all happenings in
23
24
the classroom, including negative, positive and neutral actions. The researcher did this through note taking and conversations with students and the co-teacher. In order to record accurate data, the researcher observed and recorded everything that happened in the classroom (Mills, 2011). Analyzing Results The first research question asked if peer response groups improved student writing. In order to access this question the researcher examined an essay students wrote before the intervention, an essay they wrote after the intervention as well as teacher observation. The researcher examined both essays for surface and deeper level revisions by counting how many types of revisions were in each writing piece. In addition to this, the researcher observed students in peer response groups, recorded notes in regards to the effectiveness of the groups, conferenced with students and the co-teacher. The second research question asked if certain groups of students benefited more from peer response groups than other students. The researcher used a survey before students participated in the intervention and a survey after students participated in peer response groups. The researcher required students to put their names on their surveys in order gain data about the attitudes of the different students in the classroom. The researcher also observed students as they worked in groups, conferenced with students and the co-teacher. The final research question asked if students were motivated by peer response groups to improve their writing. The researcher used two surveys to assess motivation as well as teacher observation and conferences with students and the co-teacher.
24
25
Possible Issues Although the researcher used a variety of quantitative and qualitative data collection pieces, possible issues could arise. Student surveys were based on student opinion and student opinion can change on a daily basis. Although working in peer response groups may be helpful to students, they may feel negatively towards it because they are angry that they had to work with a person they did not like. Conversely, some students may feel as though peer response groups are beneficial because they liked their group, even if it did not improve their writing. The researcher did, however, choose a variety of assessment tools, such as teacher observation and student artifacts that will not solely rely on student opinion. Another possible issue is sporadic attendance. This intervention took place over two weeks in the winter. Some students were absent for a portion of that time they were not able to fully participate in the study. Timeline Table 2 Anticipated Completion of Tasks Task Essay 1 Survey 1 Begin the intervention Essay 2 Survey 2 Final Draft of Paper Anticipated Timeline January 19 February 21st March 4th March 15th March 18th April 14th
th
Data Validity
25
26
Having valid research is essential for creating a reliable action research project. Mills (2011) defines validity as how we know that the data we collect (test scores, for example) accurately gauge what we are trying to measure (p. 102). The researcher examined both quantitative and qualitative data in this study. The quantitative aspects of this study were the surveys and essays. Teacher observation and conferences with students and the co-teacher functioned as qualitative data. Validity of quantitative research. To ensure that the quantitative aspects of this study were valid, the researcher examined both the internal and external validity of each piece of data. Internal validity assesses whether or not the observed differences were the result of the intervention or some other variable (Mills, 2011). Both surveys assess peer response groups before and after the intervention and are internally valid as they only assess how the students viewed peer response groups. The essays are assessed via a checklist rubric. The researcher chose a checklist design for this rubric so that the rubric was very clear in its assessment. One way in which the internal validity could be inaccurate is that students were allotted more time with essay two because they were given time to work in their peer response groups. This time had not been offered before. However, this was not simply extra time, but rather was time spent in targeted peer response groups. The second area that the researcher assessed was the external validity of each piece of data. External validity refers to whether or not the study results are generalizable to other classrooms (Mills, 2011). The teacher researcher teaches five sections of ELA, but chose the most diverse of all classes in order to gain full insight into how peer response groups would work with gifted students, EC students as well as regular education students.
26
27
Validity of qualitative research. Quantitative data deals with numbers and as such is a scientifically favored way to obtain data. However, teacher researchers often find themselves in the realm of analyzing qualitative data because the job of teaching students is not always numerically concrete. Systems have been created for measuring the quality of qualitative data and these systems often analyze credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmablity (Mills, 2011). Credibility. The researcher used teacher observations and conferences with students and the co-teacher as qualitative validity. To ensure the accuracy of these observations, the teacher researcher practiced triangulation. By using a variety of data sources, the researcher was able to cross-check data to ensure accuracy (Mills, 2011). Transferability. In addition to this, the researcher was mindful that this study is context bound, within the confines of the classroom in which it took place. The goal of this study was not to perfect a truth statement, but instead to generalize results for what could possibly happen in other classroom contexts (Mills, 2011). Dependability. The researcher also took into consideration the dependability of the qualitative data by using an overlap method. Initially, the researcher had intended to only use teacher observation to assess peer response groups, but after conversations with colleagues, decided to also conference with students and the co-teacher so that there were multiple observations of what occurred in the classroom. Confirmability. Finally, the researcher addressed the confirmability of the data. In order to ensure the confirmability of the data, the researcher practiced triangulation and reflexivity (Mills, 2011). The researcher did this by using multiple sources of data while being objective about the use of peer response groups. The researcher began the
27
28
study without ever having successfully implemented peer response groups in the classroom. The researcher had mixed feelings as to whether peer response groups would work and therefore had conferences with both students and the co-teacher to ensure that the accounts of the effectiveness of peer response groups were accurate. Peer Feed-Back. Mills (2011) suggests that meeting with colleagues is an effective way to increase the validity of data collection techniques. The researcher met with an administrator as well as the EC co-teacher. Additionally, the researcher also conversed with several classmates. Administrator. The administrator had no suggestions, but felt that the plan was thorough in that the researcher collected a variety of data from different sources. The administrator was very interested in the researchers results and felt the alphabiography project was a wonderful opportunity for students. Co-Teacher. The co-teacher expressed that the rubrics would be very beneficial for the students. In regard to the survey, the co-teacher indicated that the validity of the survey would be increased if the teacher researcher shared the purpose of the survey with students. As a result, the researcher ensured that students were well aware of the reasons for completing the survey by adding this piece to the survey directions. Additionally, the co-teacher suggested that the teacher researcher effectively model constructive feedback for the students. Taking this into consideration, the researcher decided to use a fish bowl method to model this activity. The fish bowl method consists of one student group participating in a peer response group while the other students in the classroom gather around to watch. While students participated in the group, the researcher offered
28
29
constructive feedback in regards to comments that were beneficial and comments that were superficial in nature. Classmates. Initially, the teacher researcher was going to record teacher observations as a teacher participant only. Upon further conversations with graduate level classmates, the researcher decided this would reduce the validity of the qualitative research because only teacher observations were being recorded. Therefore, the researcher decided to additionally conference with students and the co-teacher so that a variety of thoughts and opinions were represented. Results Findings The researcher examined the findings by focusing on student opinion, teacher observation as well as examining Essay 1 and Essay 2. In order to obtain an accurate gauge on student opinion, the researcher gave students Survey 1 and Survey 2. Teacher observations were recorded daily. Student opinion of peer editing. Student opinion in regards to the effectiveness, usefulness and enjoyment while participating in peer response groups was assessed before the intervention and after the intervention via two surveys (Appendix C and Appendix D). Students were asked a variety of questions with respect to their views on peer editing. Figure 1 demonstrates how students felt about peer editing before the intervention. This pie chart is divided into student subgroups. Figure 2 displays students opinions of peer response groups after the intervention. Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 are set up identically and are sectioned off by subgroups.
29
30
Figure 1. Survey 1: Student Opinion by Subgroups
Figure 1: Students positive or negative opinions of peer editing before the intervention. EC refers to exceptional children; Avg. refers to average children with no label and Gift. stands for students labeled academically gifted. EC Peer + means that EC students viewed peer editing positively. EC Peer indicates that EC students viewed peer editing negatively.
30
31
Figure 2. Survey 2: Student Opinion by Subgroups
Figure 2: Students positive or negative opinions of peer editing before the intervention. EC refers to exceptional children; Avg. refers to average children with no label and Gift. stands for students labeled academically gifted. EC Peer + means that EC students viewed peer editing positively. EC Peer indicates that EC students viewed peer editing negatively. Student opinion of effectiveness of peer editing. In addition to assessing students positive or negative opinion of peer response groups, the researcher examined student views with respect to the benefits of peer response groups and student desire to continue peer response groups. Survey 2 (Appendix D) asks questions related to the benefits and desire to continue working in peer response groups. Figure 3 exhibits student opinion in regard to the benefits of working in peer response groups versus the model of peer editing used previously. Students indicated that the peer response groups were more beneficial,
31
32
less beneficial or that they were undecided about the benefits (as shown in Figure 3). Figure 4 displays student opinion in regard to their desire to continue working in peer response groups. Figure 3. Benefits of Peer Response Groups.
Figure 3: Student opinion comparing peer response groups peer editing completed in the past. Students found the groups more beneficial, less beneficial or were undecided about the benefits.
32
33
Figure 4. Views on Future Participation in Peer Response Groups
Figure 4: Student desire to continue peer response groups in the future. Teacher observation. Students participated in peer response groups over the span of two 45 minute class periods. To determine student motivation, the researcher observed student on task behavior at the beginning, middle and end of the period. In order to assess motivation across levels of students, the researcher noted their participation by subgroups. Students on task behavior over the two class periods with respect to their subgroup and the time of the period they were on task is shown in Figure 5.
33
34
Figure 5. On Task Behavior During Peer Response Groups
Figure 5: On task behavior during peer response groups during both days of the intervention. These are broken down by subgroup. Student Essays. In order to gauge the effectiveness of peer response groups, the teacher researcher analyzed two student essays. Essay 1 was completed in January, before the intervention and was graded according to the Alphabiography Rubric (Appendix A). Essay 2 was completed in March, during the intervention. Students worked in peer response groups for Essay 2 and were graded according to the Alphabiography Description Rubric ( Appendix B). In order to compare the two essays, the researcher analyzed superficial and deep level revisions. Superficial revisions were those that focused solely on grammar (such as capitalization, spelling, formatting, punctuation, etc.). Deep level revisions refer to changes that greatly improve the writing piece such as adding detail, changing wording and adding descriptive words. Figure 6 is
34
35
an area chart that shows superficial revisions for both Essay 1 and Essay 2 by student subgroup. Figure 7 shows the deep level revisions for Essay 1 and Essay 2 by student subgroup. Figure 6. Superficial Revisions for Both Essays
Figure 6: Superficial revisions for Essay 1 and Essay 2 sectioned by subgroup.
35
36
Figure 7. Deep Level Revisions for Both Essays
Figure 7: Deep level revisions for Essay 1 and Essay 2 sectioned by subgroup. Motivation. The teacher researcher assessed student motivation to write via Survey 2 (Appendix D). Students were asked if participating in peer response groups encouraged them to write a better piece because they knew someone other than their teacher would look at their piece. Additionally, students were asked if they were motivated to finish their writing piece because they enjoy working with other students. Figure 8 displays whether students responded positively, negatively or undecided to the questions.
36
37
Figure 8. Peer Response Groups Effect on Motivation
Figure 8: Student opinion of peer response groups effect on motivation to write their piece.
Discussion of Findings After compiling data and creating charts, the researcher examined this data in regard to the initial research questions. The researcher considered improvement in writing, the benefits or peer response groups for all for subgroups, student motivation as well as student opinion and teacher observation. Improvement in writing. The researcher hypothesized that student writing would be improved by working in peer response groups that focused on a targeted task. Based on data collection, the hypothesis was accurate. The researcher assessed
37
38
superficial and deep level revisions in the student essays (see Figure 6 and 7 respectively). For Essay 2, both gifted and EC students made more superficial revisions, though the number superficial revisions for average students dropped slightly. Superficial revisions create a grammatically coherent piece, but deep level revisions add depth to the content of the essay. The number of deep level revisions that students suggested to their peers drastically increased for all subgroups of students after the intervention. In Essay 1, students were asked to make a total of 34 deep level revisions versus a total of 171 deep level revisions in Essay 2. Therefore the number of deep level revisions increased by an average of 5 deep level revisions per essay, a substantial improvement. On task behavior and improvement in writing. In addition to increases in superficial and deep level revisions, students also showed an increase in on task behavior, which improves writing as well. Figure 5 displays students on task behavior over the two day intervention where students worked in peer response groups. Gifted and average students were on task for the entire class period both days. EC students began Day 1 with only two students on task, but ended the day with all 10 EC students on task. For Day 2, EC students fared better. They began Day 2 with 5 students on task and by the middle of the period 9 out of 10 EC students were on task. The one EC student that was not on task did not take her medication that day and had difficulty focusing. This attention and focus during the peer response groups helped to improve student writing as students were focused on editing. Benefits for subgroups. The second research question asked if grouping students heterogeneously for peer response groups helped all student subgroups or if
38
39
some subgroups benefited more than others. The researcher hypothesized that heterogeneous grouping would benefit all subgroups of students and this hypothesis proved true to a certain extent. For superficial revisions, gifted students and EC students showed an increase in the number of revisions. However, average students had a slight drop in their number of superficial revisions for Essay 2, slightly dropping from a total of 9 revisions to 7. However, all subgroups showed significant growth with respect to deep level revisions. EC students more than tripled the number of deep level revisions, increasing from 23 deep level revisions in Essay 1 to 70 deep level revisions in Essay 2. Average students multiplied their deep level revisions by 10 as they went from 4 deep level revisions in Essay 1 to 41 in Essay 2. Gifted students showed a marked improvement as well as they increased their number of deep level revisions from 7 to a total of 60. Out of all three subgroups, average students improved the most, in regard to deep level revisions and EC students improved the most with respect to superficial revisions, increasing their total number of superficial revisions from 60 to 91. Student motivation. The third research question hypothesized that students would be motivated to write a better piece if they were working in peer response groups. This hypothesis proved to be accurate. The researcher examined this hypothesis with respect to student opinion on their motivation as well as teacher observation. Student View. Students were asked a variety of questions in regard to their opinion of working in peer response groups in Survey 2 (Appendix D). When asked if working with a peer motivated them to write a better piece, more students responded positively with respect to Essay 2 after the intervention and fewer students responded
39
40
negatively or were undecided. Therefore, students were motivated to write due to their participation in peer response groups. In addition to this when asked if peer response groups were more beneficial than peer editing in the past, 52.6% of students indicated that the groups were more beneficial, while 15.8% felt they were not beneficial and 31.6% of students felt were undecided. More students felt working in peer response groups was beneficial and therefore more students were motivated to write coherent essays. Figure 1 and Figure 2 display data in regard to how students viewed peer response groups. Before the intervention, 75.4% felt positively with respect to peer editing and 24.7% felt negatively about it. After the intervention, 75.7% felt positively about peer response groups and 24.3% felt negatively about it. This data does not necessarily support that working in peer response groups motivated students as the numbers are nearly identical. There is a slight increase after the intervention, but it is not large enough to fully support the argument. However, average students showed a marked improvement in their positive view of peer response groups, moving from 6.5% to 14% after the intervention. All average students felt positively about peer response groups, none felt negatively. Average students were highly motivated by working in peer response groups. Teacher View. The teacher researcher and co-teacher both observed that students were more motivated to write coherent pieces due to the peer response group intervention. Figure 5 indicated that more students were on task in a timely fashion on the second day of the intervention. This demonstrates student motivation to perform well. One EC student had not completed any work for his ELA class for well over two
40
41
weeks. Working with a peer response group motivated this student to complete Essay 2 and he worked with his peer response group both days, improving his rough draft an entire letter grade. This motivation transferred to his final draft and he made corrections his teacher suggested, earning an A on his completed draft. The co-teacher observed that students worked longer on their rough drafts because they wanted them to be complete before their peer reviewed the draft. Descriptive writing was taken to another level during the intervention. Students used words such as annihilate, feisty and frustrated instead of harm, fun and angry. Both the researcher and co-teacher noted student motivation to excel in Essay 2. Limitations of Study. The two major limitations of this study were the sample size as well as the length of the intervention. The researcher formally collected data from one of the five classes taught. Although the researcher chose the most diverse class for this study, having a larger sample size would have been beneficial. The researcher informally collected data via observations in the other classrooms, but was not able to include that data here as it was much more informal and had the potential to skew the findings. Furthermore, time was a large factor. Students spent seven days working on Essay 2 with their peer response groups. The researcher was unexpectedly out due to an illness one day and the co-teacher taught the class. During the first day of the peer response group intervention there was a tornado drill. This drill kept students away from their work for nearly 10 minutes. This could also be a factor as to why students were not on task that entire class period. Not only was the actual time spent on the intervention an issue, but it would be useful to examine another essay in regard to the effectiveness of peer response groups and to perform this intervention over the span of a few weeks
41
42
instead of just seven days. Because students were working on an ongoing Alphabiography project, essays are very similar to one another and offer student choice. Therefore, comparing the essays would give the researcher accurate information in regards to the effectiveness of peer response groups.
Action Plan Summary of Findings This action research project was implemented to research the effectiveness of peer response groups in regards to increasing the quality of student writing as well as increasing student motivation to write. The findings supported that students are more motivated to write a coherent piece when they anticipate they will review their piece with a peer. Additionally, the findings supported that student writing is improved when they work in peer response groups because the number of deep level revisions students made in their writing pieces significantly improved. Student sample sizes as well as length of intervention were both limitations of this study. A total of 22 students participated in this study over the span of approximately a two week intervention period. Having a larger sample size and a longer intervention with students meeting multiple times in peer response groups would increase effectiveness of the study. Continued Implementation Positive outcomes from this study supported the rationale to continue having students participate in peer response groups when editing their writing pieces. Students often struggle with adding description to their writing. In Essay 1, students made significantly less deep level revisions then they did in Essay 2, following the
42
43
intervention (see Figure 7). Deep level revisions improve student writing because they focus on content. In addition to this 52.6% of students indicated that the groups were more beneficial than the peer editing they had done in the past, while only 15.8% felt they were not beneficial (see Figure 4). Although 31.6% of students remained undecided about the benefits, it is highly likely that with more time spent in peer response groups, students would find them beneficial, given the increase in deep level revisions. Students were specifically taught how to edit their peers paper while working in peer response groups. The teacher researcher used a document camera to show an example essay with lower level vocabulary words (Appendix E). As a class, the researcher highlighted words that could be changed and then demonstrated how to use an online thesaurus to replace the words. Students main focus during the peer response group was to edit for descriptive writing and although they could make suggestions in regards to grammatical errors, they were not expected to do so. Both the researcher and co-teacher felt this modeling was necessary for the students and that without proper modeling, peer response groups would be no more effective than asking students to peer edit with one another. The researcher and co-teacher felt that 6th grade students need an adequate guide in order to properly review anothers writing piece. Therefore, it is essential for students to not only focus on a targeted task, but it is imperative that the instructor models how to edit for that targeted task (descriptive writing in this instance). If students continue to work in their peer response groups there should be a marked improvement in their writing. Modifications
43
44
Although the data indicates that peer response groups are effective in regards to improving student writing and motivating students to write, some modifications could be made to the peer response groups. The researcher grouped students heterogeneously for the project and did not allow students to choose their own groups. Data supported that average students grew the most in regards to deep level revisions, gifted students were in the middle and EC students grew the least (though EC students still tripled the amount of deep level revisions from Essay 1 to Essay 2). The researcher has substantial resources in the collaborative classes taught as there are sometimes three to four other adults in the classroom to aid with instruction. It would be prudent to have a teacher sit with each group for the duration of the meeting time to ensure students would be properly guided. This would benefit all subgroups of students, but EC students would particularly benefit from this extra guidance. On Day 1 of the intervention, EC students had difficulty focusing in peer response groups and it took nearly the entire period for students to become fully engaged (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, days that peer response groups occur should correspond to days in which the researcher has extra adults in the classroom to help keep students on task. In addition to helping keep students on task, it would be particularly beneficial for introducing an entirely new concept. Students were somewhat aware of descriptive language, but if the targeted task had been a concept such as using figurative language in writing, students would not have been able to complete the task without proper assistance. Extension
44
45
The findings of this action research project supported the continuation of using peer response groups in the future. As a result, the researcher created an action plan to take place over the course of the current school year as well as in future years. Current Year. The researcher is nearing the end of the school year and will only teach this set of students for another nine weeks. Although the researcher plans to continue peer response groups this school year, it is unlikely students will meet more than two or three times. Many colleagues of the researcher felt that peer response groups are ineffective and as a school, most ELA teachers do not have students peer edit in peer response groups. In fact, most ELA teachers at this school do not use peer editing at all as they feel it is a waste of time. As mentioned above, students felt that peer response groups were more beneficial than editing they had done in the past. This was shown in Figure 3 when 52.6% of students indicated peer response groups were more beneficial versus 15.8% feeling that it was less beneficial and 31.6% remaining undecided. In addition to this, the number of deep level revisions made a significant increase. Therefore, the researcher plans on taking this data to the ELA department to encourage other teachers to use the peer response group model. Not only do students feel it is an effective model, but their writing clearly improved as well with the increase of deep level revisions. The researcher will present ideas of targeted tasks teachers can use in their classroom that correlate directly with the Common Core Standards. Future Years. Due to the positive outcomes of this project, the researcher has decided to implement peer response groups at the very beginning of the next school year. The goal will be to have students meet in these groups at least three times a quarter. Students showed an improvement their time on task from Day 1 to Day 2 (see Figure 5).
45
46
Continuously working in peer response groups would motivate students to stay on task as they would know what is expected of them. In addition to this, students felt as though peer editing and peer response groups were useful. In Survey 1, given before the intervention, 75.4% of students responded that peer editing was useful (see Figure 1). In Survey 2, given after the intervention, 75.7% of students felt peer response groups were beneficial (see Figure 2). Not only did the teacher observe that students were motivated by working in peer response groups, but students also felt that peer response groups were useful. Peer response groups will continue to be heterogeneously grouped and the researcher plans on having students work with the same group of students for an entire quarter so that students can become familiar with one anothers work. While watching students participate in peer response groups, the researcher noticed that students were more focused the second day (see Figure 5). In addition to this, the researcher noticed that students were more comfortable working with each other the second day as they knew what to expect and had already shared their work beforehand. At the beginning of each new quarter, the researcher will switch students around in peer response groups so that they have the opportunity to work with other students. The researcher chose to do this because it was observed that some students preferred not to work with one another. It would be prudent to allow some flexibility within groupings in case groups become hostile environments for the students. Each quarter students will work on 1-2 targeted tasks with their group before moving to the next targeted task. This will ensure that students have a familiarity with a concept before moving forward. The structure will be beneficial for middle school
46
47
students. When students were asked what they enjoyed about working in their peer response groups, many students indicated that it was helpful to focus on one aspect of a paper, in this case that was descriptive writing. In future years, students will work throughout the school year in peer response groups. Hence, their writing should substantially improve, in regards to the targeted tasks the teacher selects. Table 3 indicates the action plan that the researcher has designed to further develop student writing not only in the researchers individual classrooms, but also throughout the school.
Table 3 Steps to Action Chart Recommended Action Continue peer response groups by meeting at least 2 more times. Share data collection with ELA department Peer response group implementation for following year. Who is responsible for the action? Teacher Timeline Resources Needed
Present to end of the school year.
Computers Rubrics Targeted Tasks Data Document Camera Projector Teacher listeners Computers Rubrics Targeted Tasks Tutors EC teacher Support staff
Teacher
Present at April department meeting
Teacher Other ELA teachers
August 2013-June 2014
47
48
Conclusion This action research project was implemented to determine the effectiveness of peer response groups in regard to revision and student motivation to write. Previous research (Dix and Caw well, 2011; Gonad, 2012; Hall, 2007; Hermann, 1989) indicated that peer response groups are beneficial to students because they create a sense of community and autonomy, aid in revision and create an authentic audience for students. Hall (2007) suggests that when creating peer response groups teachers must not only model how to participate in a peer response group, but it is essential to give students adequate time and opportunity to participate in the groups. Additionally, Gonca (2012) suggests that teachers should avoid having students offer correctional feedback, but instead should have students focus on targeted tasks such as descriptive writing, figurative language, transitional words, etc. When students focus solely on correctional feedback, they are making superficial revisions that do not greatly increase the quality of their writing piece. The researchers findings indicated that peer response groups are beneficial to student writing with respect to revision and student motivation. Students across all subgroups more than tripled the number of deep level revisions in their writing pieces after working in their peer response groups. More than half of all students felt peer response groups were more beneficial than the peer editing they had done in the past and
48
49
more than half of the students in the study indicated they would like to participate in peer response groups again. Future research studies should include other age group participants as well as an intervention period spanning several samples of student writing.
References (2012). Chapel hill Carrboro city schools historical membership survey (PMR 1 by Grade/Ethnic/Sex Code). Retrieved from Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools website: http://www.chccs.k12.nc.us/download.axd?file=d1e9b327-413e-44f6981d-d8c5c5aabda1&dnldType=Resource Christianakis, M. (2010). "I don't need your help!" Peer status, race, and gender during peer writing interactions. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 418-450. Retrieved from http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/42/4/418.full.pdf html DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 119-149. Retrieved from DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 119-149. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1170332? uid=3739776&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=211017251 57107 Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). The influence of peer group response: Building a
49
50
Teacher and student expertise in the writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(3), 41-57. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ962604.pdf Flash, P. (2012). Creating effective peer response workshops. Retrieved from http://writing.umn.edu/tww/responding/peerworkshop.html Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Gonca, Y. E. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective? International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 3348. Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.lilac.une.edu/docview/1033775980?accountid=12756 Hall, M. (2007). The politics of peer response. The Writing Instructor, Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ890609.pdf Herrmann, A. (1989). Teaching writing with peer response groups: encouraging revision. ERIC Digest, Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED307616.pdf Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria: ASCD. Mills, G. (2011). Action research: a guide for the teacher researcher. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Town of Chapel Hill, (2004). Demographics. Retrieved from Chapel Hill Data Book website: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/planning/DataBook/2004/3 Demographics04.pdf
50
51
Wagner, D. (2001). Middle talk: A safe harbor: Writing groups in the middle school classroom. English Journal, 90(5), 127-133. Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.lilac.une.edu/docview/237301371?accountid=12756
Appendix A Rubric for Alphabiography Component Topic sentence Description Introduces: Word being used. What the word stands for. Describes Defines the word being used (at least 3 sentences) Explains why the word is important to them (at least 3 sentences) Exemplary: Uses higher level vocabulary and reflects upon the word being used. Restates The word being used again and why in a different way from the topic sentence. Describes The life lesson that they learned from writing this entry. Exemplary: Truly reflects on a serious or thoughtful life lesson in at least 2 sentences. Points Available 5
Supporting details
70
Concluding sentence
Life Lesson
10
51
52
Grammar
12 font Double spaced Indented No spelling, capitalization or punctuation errors. No fragments
10
Note: It is perfectly acceptable to have your entry be more than one paragraph, but you need to have solid paragraphs with topic sentences, supporting details and concluding sentences.
Appendix B Rubric for Alphabiography: Description Component Topic sentence Description Introduces: Word being used. What the word stands for. Describes What the word is and why it is important How the word relates to your life Uses: Descriptive adjectives at least 4 times throughout the piece. Exemplary: Uses higher level nouns and verbs as well as adjectives. Reflects upon the subject of the alphabiography. Restates The word being used again and why in a different way from the topic sentence. Describes The life lesson that they learned from writing this 52 Points Available 5 Self Grade Teacher Grade
Supporting details
70
Concluding sentence
Life Lesson
10
53
entry. Uses: Descriptive adjectives at least once. Exemplary: Truly reflects on a serious or thoughtful life lesson in at least 2 sentences and uses higher level nouns, verbs adjectives. 10 12 font Double spaced Indented No spelling, capitalization or punctuation errors. No fragments
Grammar
Note: It is perfectly acceptable to have your entry be more than one paragraph, but you need to have solid paragraphs with topic sentences, supporting details and concluding sentences.
53
54
Appendix C Name: Date: Survey #1: Peer Editing Survey Survey: This survey will be used to collect data in regards to peer editing and the effect it has on your writing. Please be honest with this survey. I am using it as data for a graduate school class. A revision refers to changes that you make in your writing piece that makes it a stronger piece and generally you earn a higher grade as a result. Directions: Please fill out the survey below by circling the answer choice that best fits your opinion. SA= strongly agree, A = agree, U = undecided D = disagree SD = strongly disagree. 1. When I have a peer edit my writing I find their comments very helpful for revision. SA A U D SD
2. When I have a peer edit my writing it increases the grade I earn on my writing piece because I make good revisions.
54
55
SA 3. I enjoy peer editing. SA
SD
SD
4. Peer editing motivates me to write a better piece because I know someone other than the teacher will be reading my piece. SA A U D SD
5. Peer editing motivates me to finish my writing pieces because I like to work with other students. SA A U D 6. I prefer to have my teacher edit with me over a peer. SA A U D SD SD
7. When I have a teacher edit my paper I find their comments very helpful for revision. SA A U D SD
8. When I have a teacher edit my writing it increases the grade I earn on my writing piece because I make good revisions. SA A U D SD
9. I enjoy editing with my teacher. SA A U D SD
10. I peer edited seven or more times in elementary school. SA A U D SD
11. I have peer edited this year. SA A U D SD
55
56
Appendix D Name: Date: Survey #2: Peer Response Group Survey Survey: This survey will be used to collect data in regards to peer response groups and the effect it had on your writing. Please be honest with this survey. I am using it as data for a graduate school class. A revision refers to changes that you make in your writing piece that makes it a stronger piece and generally you earn a higher grade as a result. Peer response groups refer to the groups you worked with when you shared your writing and edited for descriptive language. Directions: Please fill out the survey below by circling the answer choice that best fits your opinion. SA= strongly agree, A = agree, U = undecided D = disagree SD = strongly disagree. 1. The comments from my peer response group were helpful for revision. SA A U D SD
2. Participating in my peer response group increased the grade I earned on my writing piece. SA A U D SD
56
57
3. I enjoyed participating in my peer response group. SA A U D SD
4. Working with a peer response group motivated me to write a better piece because I knew someone other than the teacher would be reading my piece. SA A U D SD
5. Participating in the peer response group motivated me to finish my writing piece because I like to work with other students. SA A U D SD
6. My teacher also edited with me. SA A U D SD
7. I would have preferred to just have my teacher edit with me. SA A U D SD
8. My peer response group helped improve my writing more than when Ive peer edited in the past. SA A U D SD
9. I would like to participate in peer response groups again. SA A U D SD
57
58
Appendix E B is for Bella B stands for Bella and I dont mean Bella from Twilight, but Bella, my adorable two year old toddler. Bella was born on a hot day on August 17 th, 2010. Ill never forget the first time I looked into her sweet, little face. She looked so much like her father, even as baby. This is a good thing, because my older daughter, Chloe, looks a lot like me and nothing like her father. Bella is very shy, but she also has a great sense of humor, once she warms up to you. Even as a small baby, I remember her doing things to make us all laugh. Now, she loves to have snuggle time on our bed where she tries to tickle us. Its very cute! Bellas favorite activities include watching
Mickey Mouse, going to the park and reading books. She also loves Sesame
58
59
Street and Peppa Pig. She also has the biggest sweet tooth! Bella loves to
eat cookies and sweet treats. I always say that Chloe loves to help me bake cookies, but Bella loves to eat them; thats her way of helping! I certainly could not imagine our family without sweet, little Bella!
Life Lesson: People can change your lives. Bella has brought joy and happiness to our home.
59

Action Research Paper J. Danilowicz

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Action Research Paper J. Danilowicz

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Peer Response Groups: Does focusing on a targeted task improve student writing?

Modifications.43 Extension44 Current Year...44 Future Years...45 Conclusion.48 References..49 Appendices.51

Beneficial for all students?

Increase student Student survey motivation? 1

Student essays after implementation (Essay 2)

Figure 1. Survey 1: Student Opinion by Subgroups

Figure 2. Survey 2: Student Opinion by Subgroups

Figure 4. Views on Future Participation in Peer Response Groups

Figure 5. On Task Behavior During Peer Response Groups

Figure 6: Superficial revisions for Essay 1 and Essay 2 sectioned by subgroup.

Figure 7. Deep Level Revisions for Both Essays

Figure 8. Peer Response Groups Effect on Motivation

Present to end of the school year.

Present at April department meeting

Teacher Other ELA teachers

August 2013-June 2014

12 font Double spaced Indented No spelling, capitalization or punctuation errors. No fragments

SA 3. I enjoy peer editing. SA

9. I enjoy editing with my teacher. SA A U D SD

10. I peer edited seven or more times in elementary school. SA A U D SD

11. I have peer edited this year. SA A U D SD

3. I enjoyed participating in my peer response group. SA A U D SD

6. My teacher also edited with me. SA A U D SD

7. I would have preferred to just have my teacher edit with me. SA A U D SD

9. I would like to participate in peer response groups again. SA A U D SD

Вам также может понравиться