Action Research Project
| arkevinkmcmullen.pdf |
Action Research Plan
Action Research Plan– Kevin McMullen
Building Socially and Emotionally Safe Classrooms by creating Communities of Practice through Trust in both Teacher and Peers
Purpose:
The purpose of my action research is to show how a healthy happy classroom improves not only attitudes towards learning but improves overall achievement by breaking down pre-established feelings of doubt and fear in the learner and creating a community within the classroom itself.
Problem:
Working in Title 1 schools, in which cycles of poverty, drugs, and violence dominate the lives of children, we see a disconnect between what education can achieve to break the cycles above and the belief of the students and families that such a break is in fact possible.
Research Question:
Can a community of practice be established within a middle school environment, which fosters peer to peer support for the benefit of all involved? Will empowering every student to take on the roll of mentor and expert help facilitate the learning of the entire classroom community?
Background Research:
Allison, J., & Decicco, E. K. (1997). Creating an Antidote to Beavis and Butthead: Urban Young Adolescents Building a Culture of Achievement. Childhood Education, 73.
Booker, K. C. (2008). The Role of Instructors and Peers in Establishing Classroom Community. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35.
Bottery, M. (2004). Trust: its importance for educators. Management in Education, 18, 6-10.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing Students’ Perspectives: Toward Trust, Dialogue, and Change in Education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
Covey, S. M., & Merrill, R. R. (2006). The Speed of Trust. New York, NY: Free Press.
Fassinger, P. A. (1997). Classes are groups: thinking sociologically about teaching. College Teaching, 45.
Goddard, R. D. (2003). Relational Networks, Social Trust, and Norms: A Social Capital Perspective on Students’ Chances of Academic Success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59-74.
Goddard, R. G., Salloum, S. J., & Berebitsky, D. (2009). Trust as a Mediator of Relationships Between Poverty, Racial Composition, and Academic Achievement: Evidence From Michigan’s Public Elementary Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 292-311.
Harada, V. H., Lum, D., & Souza, K. (2002). Building a Learning Community: Students and Adults as Inquirers. Childhood Education, 79.
Jaffee, D. (2007). Peer Cohorts and the Unintended Consequences of Freshman Learning Communities. College Teaching, 55.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Constructing Trust Between Teacher and Students Through Feedback and Revision Cycles in an EFL Writing Classroom. Written Communication, 25(4), 506-537.
Maldonado, N. S., & Winick, M. P. (2004). A Sense of Community: Learning, Culture, and Leadership. Childhood Education, 80.
Manning, R. L., & Macdonald, R. H. (1995). What Works in Urban Middle Schools. Childhood Education, 71.
Mcgoldrick, K. (2003). ‘The Game of Life’: Using a Student Developed Course Project to Create a Learning Community in the Classroom. American Economist, 47.
Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who Trusts? Personality, Trust and Knowledge Sharing. Management Learning, 37(4), 523-540.
Owens, M. A., & Johnson, B. L., Jr. (2009). From Calculation Through Courtship to Contribution: Cultivating Trust Among Urban Youth in an Academic Intervention Program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 312-347.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68.
My Actions (Cycle 1): The initial action cycle for this project will be in establishing the core members of the community of practice leadership team. Our goals will be to establish ideas, generated from the group itself, about what they see as a safe trust filled classroom. As a team we will work to identify the areas of schooling, which make them the most uncomfortable in the classrooms around campus. We will develop data collection techniques and establish observation protocols. They will then begin their first observations of the school with the intention of documenting what they see, both positive and negative.
Artifacts: I will be collecting personal observation in the form of a daily blog/journal of both the students in the field and the observation leadership team themselves.
The leadership team members will keep personal journals of their observations in a select set of classrooms (with the classroom teachers permission) and keep tallies of both positive and negative behaviors. For example every time a student offers help to a fellow student or every time a student puts down or criticizes another students thinking.
Student evaluation forms. After every two week cycle students will be given a simple evaluation form collecting numerical scores on their perceived learning, attitude about school, and happiness. As well as a summary of anything they feel they wish to share about their experience.
Monthly, computerized math tests on the standards with full analysis of the standards taught and the overall retention of the classes.
Evaluation: The effectiveness of the changes in the room will be evaluated on three criteria… 1. Did the students develop a habit of helping vs. hindering their neighbors.
2. Did the student’s perception of enjoyment of being at school improve over the period of the research.
3. Did the children’s math scores on the monthly bench mark tests show improvement over the period of the research, compared with both their own peers in the other two 6th grade houses as well as compared to the other 16 intermediate schools to which I have statistical data.
Plan/Cycle Questions: Will students who are empowered to help their fellow students take advantage of the opportunity or will jealousy and competition get in the way of establishing a community of practice?
Will students who struggle with the school environment feel liberated by working with their peers?
Will the leadership data collection team be capable of being hands off observers?
What effect will the freedom and personal power have on the traditionally disruptive students in the room? Will their need for personal attention derail the entire experiment?
Timeline:
Building Socially and Emotionally Safe Classrooms by creating Communities of Practice through Trust in both Teacher and Peers
Purpose:
The purpose of my action research is to show how a healthy happy classroom improves not only attitudes towards learning but improves overall achievement by breaking down pre-established feelings of doubt and fear in the learner and creating a community within the classroom itself.
Problem:
Working in Title 1 schools, in which cycles of poverty, drugs, and violence dominate the lives of children, we see a disconnect between what education can achieve to break the cycles above and the belief of the students and families that such a break is in fact possible.
Research Question:
Can a community of practice be established within a middle school environment, which fosters peer to peer support for the benefit of all involved? Will empowering every student to take on the roll of mentor and expert help facilitate the learning of the entire classroom community?
Background Research:
Allison, J., & Decicco, E. K. (1997). Creating an Antidote to Beavis and Butthead: Urban Young Adolescents Building a Culture of Achievement. Childhood Education, 73.
Booker, K. C. (2008). The Role of Instructors and Peers in Establishing Classroom Community. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35.
Bottery, M. (2004). Trust: its importance for educators. Management in Education, 18, 6-10.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing Students’ Perspectives: Toward Trust, Dialogue, and Change in Education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
Covey, S. M., & Merrill, R. R. (2006). The Speed of Trust. New York, NY: Free Press.
Fassinger, P. A. (1997). Classes are groups: thinking sociologically about teaching. College Teaching, 45.
Goddard, R. D. (2003). Relational Networks, Social Trust, and Norms: A Social Capital Perspective on Students’ Chances of Academic Success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59-74.
Goddard, R. G., Salloum, S. J., & Berebitsky, D. (2009). Trust as a Mediator of Relationships Between Poverty, Racial Composition, and Academic Achievement: Evidence From Michigan’s Public Elementary Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 292-311.
Harada, V. H., Lum, D., & Souza, K. (2002). Building a Learning Community: Students and Adults as Inquirers. Childhood Education, 79.
Jaffee, D. (2007). Peer Cohorts and the Unintended Consequences of Freshman Learning Communities. College Teaching, 55.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Constructing Trust Between Teacher and Students Through Feedback and Revision Cycles in an EFL Writing Classroom. Written Communication, 25(4), 506-537.
Maldonado, N. S., & Winick, M. P. (2004). A Sense of Community: Learning, Culture, and Leadership. Childhood Education, 80.
Manning, R. L., & Macdonald, R. H. (1995). What Works in Urban Middle Schools. Childhood Education, 71.
Mcgoldrick, K. (2003). ‘The Game of Life’: Using a Student Developed Course Project to Create a Learning Community in the Classroom. American Economist, 47.
Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who Trusts? Personality, Trust and Knowledge Sharing. Management Learning, 37(4), 523-540.
Owens, M. A., & Johnson, B. L., Jr. (2009). From Calculation Through Courtship to Contribution: Cultivating Trust Among Urban Youth in an Academic Intervention Program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 312-347.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68.
My Actions (Cycle 1): The initial action cycle for this project will be in establishing the core members of the community of practice leadership team. Our goals will be to establish ideas, generated from the group itself, about what they see as a safe trust filled classroom. As a team we will work to identify the areas of schooling, which make them the most uncomfortable in the classrooms around campus. We will develop data collection techniques and establish observation protocols. They will then begin their first observations of the school with the intention of documenting what they see, both positive and negative.
Artifacts: I will be collecting personal observation in the form of a daily blog/journal of both the students in the field and the observation leadership team themselves.
The leadership team members will keep personal journals of their observations in a select set of classrooms (with the classroom teachers permission) and keep tallies of both positive and negative behaviors. For example every time a student offers help to a fellow student or every time a student puts down or criticizes another students thinking.
Student evaluation forms. After every two week cycle students will be given a simple evaluation form collecting numerical scores on their perceived learning, attitude about school, and happiness. As well as a summary of anything they feel they wish to share about their experience.
Monthly, computerized math tests on the standards with full analysis of the standards taught and the overall retention of the classes.
Evaluation: The effectiveness of the changes in the room will be evaluated on three criteria… 1. Did the students develop a habit of helping vs. hindering their neighbors.
2. Did the student’s perception of enjoyment of being at school improve over the period of the research.
3. Did the children’s math scores on the monthly bench mark tests show improvement over the period of the research, compared with both their own peers in the other two 6th grade houses as well as compared to the other 16 intermediate schools to which I have statistical data.
Plan/Cycle Questions: Will students who are empowered to help their fellow students take advantage of the opportunity or will jealousy and competition get in the way of establishing a community of practice?
Will students who struggle with the school environment feel liberated by working with their peers?
Will the leadership data collection team be capable of being hands off observers?
What effect will the freedom and personal power have on the traditionally disruptive students in the room? Will their need for personal attention derail the entire experiment?
Timeline:
- January 11-22, 2010 – Upon returning to school for semester 2, members of the initial leadership and observation team will be recruited by the teacher and data collection protocols will be established and agreed upon.
- January 25- February 5, 2010 – Students will spend two weeks collecting their first data sets and will meet weekly with the teacher to reflect on their observations and progress, on the last day of the first data cycle the leadership team will discuss any changes they see as necessary to improve the observation and collection process. Peer to Peer tutoring and mentoring program will be discussed at this meeting in preparation for AR Cycle 2, Creating Classroom Experts.
- February 8-19, 2010- Leadership will continue their observation and data collection as the teacher implements the ‘Everyone Can Be an Expert’ phase of the Action Research. Distributing the teaching to the members of the classroom community. Ending the two-week cycle with the second Leadership meeting in which we discuss the effectiveness of the ‘distributed experts’ phase on both morale and math scores.
- February 22- March 5, 2010- ‘Distributed Experts’ phase will continue as Leadership focuses on not only the effect the new program is having on attitudes in Math class, but also focusing on the effect it is having on the attitudes of the students when they are in their other classes as well. End of two-week cycle leadership meeting in which we discuss collecting and representing the data the following week.
- March 8-11, 2010- Data is collected from Teacher Journal, Leadership Journals, and questionnaires distributed to the students. Leadership collects and analyzes all data, prior to Spring Break.
- March 15-21, 2010- Spring Break
- March 23- April 9, 2010- Hawaii State Assessments (No data collected.)
- April 12-23, 2010- Meet with leadership team to discuss Cycle 3. Discuss what they see as the key elements that they deem worthy of observation for the last cycle. Begin first of the final two 2-week observation periods meeting weekly.
- April 26- May 7, 2010- Last data cycle. Leadership team observes if the coming of Summer Break effects the students attitudes and breaks down the team trust of one another, focusing on stamina and attention.
- May 10-14, 2010 Final week whole group reflection on the process. Daily circle discussions about the effect the project had on the students learning and attitudes about being a learner and a student.
- June 2010 - Reflection and evaluation period, MALT presentation
