Robin Montano

Dr. Dona Gibson

TEAC 525: Action Research for Teachers

6 May 2018

Action Research Project

Introduction

Each year teachers are competing for the attention of their students. It seems as though

there are more and more distractions coming into the classroom. Whether they are disengaged in

the lesson due to lack of sleep, trauma from their home life, or are simply allowing social life

drama to take priority, teachers are looking for strategies to fully engage their students in their

classroom. As an elective teacher for grades 9-12, I am no different. Some are taking my class

because they have a genuine interest in writing or digital media, while many are looking to fill

their schedules with another elective. For those in the latter category, I understand the need to

embrace strategies that may draw the student in and diligently plan for each lesson. In my fourth

hour introductory course, I have 16 students evenly split between males and females, ranging

from grades 9-12. Two students have been identified with a specific learning disability and have

accommodations written in their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Many students in this

class struggle to meet daily homework assignment deadlines due to a lack of motivation. My

project will explore the student engagement and success (reflection in student grades and

comments) when giving students mores choice and ownership of their work as well as

purposefully dividing into small collaborative groups.

 Montano !2

Research Question

How will student choice and purposeful grouping of students lead to increased

engagement and student success?

Literature Review

Today, students come to school from various cultural backgrounds, academic readiness,

and with varying degrees of at-home support. In classrooms across the country, teachers are

tasked with the difficult job of trying to engage all students in their daily curriculum, but often

find students are not always performing with their best effort.

Differentiated instruction is one way to help address the needs of all leaners. However,

this term that cycles through educational circles can be broad and encompasses many

instructional strategies. Differentiation is intended to accommodate students’ interests, prior

knowledge, and multiple intelligences. Teachers must find ways to communicate the content and

ensure that students use various methods to demonstrate their understanding of a concept.

One specific differentiated instruction practice is related to student choice. This strategy

of giving students choices is one that can help address student apathy by allowing students to

take control of their learning process. Offering student choices has shown significant

improvement in positive relationships, motivation, and student achievement (Marone, 2013).

David Marone conducted a 2013 study on whether or not student engagement increased

due to the students’ ability to choose their homework assignments and/or projects. In his study,

Marone interviewed a focus group to gather data regarding their increased engagement in

addition to assignment scores of work that was assigned without choice versus student-chosen

assignments. Marone determined four basic themes throughout his results: 1) Student could
 Montano !3

choose the activity they believed they would be more successful in and learn 2) Students put

more effort into the assignment when given a choice of activity 3) Increased student ownership

in the activity as a result of having choice, and 4) Students perceived choice as increasing their

learning because they were able to choose the activity they felt was more enjoyable. These

themes were determined based on students’ comments from their focus group interview.

(Marone, 2013).

In a study done by the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 6.9 students in the

United States between the ages of 16 and 24 dropped out of high school in 2009 (Shin, 2013). As

a result, reforms to education have been introduced to teachers as a way to help increase the

number of graduates. In order for teachers to effectively embrace changes and implement these

reforms, administrators have looked at using a similar teaching strategy to gain buy-in. Offering

professional developmental as a choice model rather than requiring attendance at meetings and

trainings have made teachers more motivated to transfer their learning into their classroom

instruction, therefore, impacting student learning and achievement (Shin, 2013). The use idea

that choices lead to increased engagement is true for teachers as it is similar to students as well.

Student success is found when a number of factors come together. Student engagement

and willingness to work on a project or assignment is only the beginning. Grouping students

together to work either collaboratively or cooperatively can also aid to student success. While

tracking was first introduced with the best intentions, it has shown to have more negative affects

than positive results. “They develop lower self-concept, and therefore teachers and other think

they are less educable.” Studies showed students in a homogeneous lower track illustrated less

engagement and with an increase in apathy toward the class and their education. (Watkins, 2014).
 Montano !4

Alternatively, heterogenous mixed-ability grouping within the classroom has shown to be

successful for all students, but particularly those formerly tracked in the low-ability group.

“Unlike in tracked groups, collaboration rather than competition is emphasized in heterogeneous

groups. Heterogenous grouping has positive effects on students’ academic achievement, self-

esteem, and interpersonal relationships, all of which increase students’ academic

outcome” (Webb, 2011).

Heterogenous grouping takes time and effort in order to effectively match the right

students together to truly form a mixed-ability group. One key component to any group

cooperative or collaborative project is the pre-teaching of student roles in advance. Before

introducing group work, students need to see how collaborative work should look and sound like.

Overall, like any other planning, group practice will only be successful if time and effort is made

and attention is given to the specific of the assignments including the grouping compositions, the

task at hand, management of time, and the assessment component (Lapp, Fisher, & Frey, 2012).

Method/data collection (chart or table plus narrative)

My actin research question is “How will student choice and purposeful grouping of

students lead to increased engagement and student success?” I conducted my action research

project in a classroom of 16 students composed of eight males and eight females ranging from

grades 9-12. These students meet for 90 minutes every other day and struggled through the year

to turn in homework assignments either on time and/or completed in full.

The first part of my plan was to collect the data from the previous independent writing

assignment. I decided to collect the scores from each person’s feature writing story and use this

as a part of the pre-assessment data. Many students either did not meet the requirements of the
 Montano !5

assignment, failed to turn it in on time, and few never completed it at all. The scores represented

a baseline of their motivation and engagement with the class prior to this action plan.

Next, I gave each of my students a survey to complete via Google Forms within Canvas,

the learning management platform selected by our building for all students and staff to utilize in

the classroom. I required them to answer questions regarding the reasons, from their perspective,

for their low scores on assignments, lack of completion of assignments, and what they would see

as necessary to change these habits including working independently versus collaborative small

groups as well as picking their story ideas versus being assigned.

To begin the unit, students were able to pitch various story ideas as a class to the

newspaper editorial board. They discussed why certain story ideas would work and why others

lacked merit, news values, etc. At the completion of this class period, roles were assigned for

their first production of the paper. Some students were selected as reporters, designers, or

photographers. Roles were assigned based on previous work ethic (completion of assignments

and quality of writing), specialized interest, and availability outside of school hours.

Additionally, roles included students with varying scores and ability in order to work in

collaborative teams as needed throughout the cycle.

All students were given a calendar of mini deadlines throughout the production cycle to

be clear regarding the expectations since most are working on various tasks at various times

throughout the week based on their job/assignment. Students could refer to their calendars and

assignments sheets as a means of self-direction and collaboration with others.

Throughout the next two weeks, students in all roles communicated to each other

regarding their needs to complete their own assignments and what would be required from others
 Montano !6

in order to help get to a fully, finished product. Students met many times in small groups to edit,

revise, and discuss layout ideas. I continued to make notes of student comments and observations

of their in-class engagement and on-task behavior. After recording these observations and

compiling them with the results of the student surveys I was able to analyze and determine the

results of my action research project.

Specific Data To Be Collected Instrument to be Projected Comments/

Used to Collect Deadline Explanation/
These Data for Notes
(Survey, Test, Collecting
Student Records, These Data
Interview, More.
PRE-ASSESSMENT: Students Electronic student April 15 This survey will allow
completed a pre-assessment survey via Google (Pre) students to evaluate
survey that asked them to Forms and give rationale for
reflect and evaluate why they their lack of
believe they failed to turn in motivation and/or
assignments or scored low as engagement in the
well as comment on what might learning.
help them be more successful. Additionally, they are
Questions also included their able to have a voice
preferences in working in describing their
collaboratively or individually. preferred work
environment.
PRE-ASSESSMENT: Percentages Student Records April 15 This will give me
of missing/late assignments from the online (Pre) data for a direct
grade book comparison for
assignment
completion.
POST-ASSESSMENT: Students Electronic student April __ This survey will allow
completed a post-assessment survey via Google (Post) students to reflect on
survey that asked them to Forms the work in the
reflect on their work throughout current unit using
the unit. They must answer different strategies
questions regarding their level throughout their
of completion and in-class assignments including
engagement with the project in having choice in their
regards to the content (story story ideas as well as
ideas) chosen by students. working in
Additionally, questions also collaborative small
included regarding their groups.
collaborative small groups.
 Montano !7

POST-ASSESSMENT: Percentages Student Records April __ This will give me

of late assignments from the online (Post) data for a direct
grade book comparison for
assignment
completion.
POST-ASSESSMENT: Teacher Teacher Notes April __ This will help record
notes from in-class (Post) daily observations
observations. from class including
both the positive and
negative responses
throughout the unit.

Results

This study was meant to examine the impact of student choice and small group

collaboration and their relationship to assignments and in-class engagement. Many of my

students indicated low motivation when it came to completing their assignments. Pre-assessment

data of the previous semester grade averages would support their lack of motivation and low

numbers of turned in assignments as well. Previous semester grade reports indicated the final

grade class average had 25% (4 of 16) students that either ended with a D or F. These low grades

were a culmination of multiple missing assignments. In total, there were 68 recorded zeros for

assignments that were completely missing and/or never completed. (See Appendix A for the

complete Pre-Assessment Grade Report).

Additionally, a pre-assessment student survey also supported the students’ low motivation

to complete assignments. When given options to explain their missing work, 40% chose a lack of

motivation versus the other options including: forgot to do it, not understanding the assignment,

too busy, and didn’t apply (no missing assignments). (See Appendix B for the complete pre-

Assessment Student Survey). Data showed students’ perception of their ability to turn in

assignments may be increased when given more choices as well.

 Montano !8

During the unit, observations of student behavior and of their collaborative work

discussion indicated a increase in student engagement for the activity and assignment. One

quotation recorded from a previously unmotivated student, one that part of the four that ended

the semester with a D or F was noted to say, “I like having time to work each class on this; it

keeps me interested in our layout.” Additionally, the overall class average for the final scores of

the unit was 76% (See Appendix C for the complete Post-Assessment Student Survey). Although

there were still a few students that failed to complete their assignment and role for the unit due to

multiple absences.

Finally, the student survey given at the end of the unit when the students’ newspaper was

published was the last source of data. Student responses indicated that interest and engagement

increased by 76% during this unit. A few students indicated that their engaged increased due to

the “real world experience” and one was surprised how much they ended up enjoying it. Their

original perception of what the unit and project would be ended up different by the end.

Additionally, student marked that they preferred both working in small groups and choosing their

story ideas as well. (See Appendix D-F for the complete Post-Assessment Student Survey).

Conclusion

The results of the data collected did show that student engagement increased during this

unit. Students clearly showed more interest based on the data collected via the student survey as

well as a number of teacher observations made on the daily basis. While students did indicate

that they were more engaged during this unit, it was only their direct comments that gave any

type of correlation to link their increased engagement to the small group collaboration or the

student choices.
 Montano !9

Several students mentioned how they liked working together and having more flexibility

and freedom throughout the class periods. This flexibility was allowed due to the different roles

assigned to them, the stories that were chosen by the students and the decisions being made

collaboratively about layout and design. Editing was a constant flow between reporters and

designers as they worked to meet word count, yet revise for content purposes as well.

While the students’ responses showed an overall positive attitude for the unit project, the

scores did not necessary reflect their best work. The average scores for the deadlines and quality

of the assignments still stayed at 76%, the same percentage for the final cumulative scores from

last semester. This final grade reports did not clearly reflect the increased I was anticipating and

hoping for.

Future Planning

As I implement this unit next spring, I would like to re-assess my rubrics and deadline

points that are given for each student. The grading structure during this unit was different than

previous assignments and could be the variable that makes it hard to compare scores side-by-side

as a valid comparison. I think I will also try to allow students to also choose their role as well as

their content. However, this plan is dependent on the number of students total for the class as not

everyone can choose to be a designer - reporters are essential to completing the project.

References

Lapp, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Identifying why groups work well, then giving grouping
another try. Voices from the Middle, 20(2), 7-9. Retrieved from April 2, 2018 from
http://library.friends.edu:2048/login?url=https://library.friends.edu:2214/docview/
1288618249?accountid=34741

Marone, D. A. (2013). Integrating choice in a differentiated history class, 7-30 (Order No.
 Montano !10

3610444). Available from ProQuest Education Database. Retrieved from March 30, 2018
from http://library.friends.edu:2048/login?url=https://library.friends.edu:2214/docview/
1500435761?accountid=34741

Shin, A. (2013). How choice model affects teacher collaboration within the linked learning
college readiness initiative, 1-17 (Order No. 3601282). Available from ProQuest
Education Database. Retrieved from March 30, 2018 from http://library.friends.edu:2048/
login?url=https://library.friends.edu:2214/docview/1467753102?accountid=34741

Watkins, A. D. A. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of ability grouping and a guide for

implementing mixed-ability groups, 4-37 (Order No. 3709668). Available from ProQuest
Education Database. Retrieved from March 30, 2018
http://library.friends.edu:2048/login?url=https://library.friends.edu:2214/docview/
1699340872?accountid=34741

Webb, T. E., Jr. (2011). The effect of heterogeneous grouping in the classroom on lower-ability
students, 4-29 (Order No. 3454884). Available from ProQuest Education Database.
Retrieved from March 30, 2018 from http://library.friends.edu:2048/login?url=https://
library.friends.edu:2214/docview/871108692?accountid=34741

Appendix A
 Montano !11

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D
 Montano !12

Appendix

Appendix F