Draft Action Research Report

This week, I changed the title of my action research project.  Rather than focus on my original title, 

"How can the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) improve the students’ achievement in the editing and revising of writing?," I decided to change my title to  "Will using mentor texts help to improve students’ editing and revising skills?"  I used a form of PLC to collaborate with my colleagues, but it was not the focus of my project.  We weren't able to meet as frequently as I would have needed in order to truly collect data on that process.  I focused my action research mainly on effective instructional strategies for teaching students editing skills and strategies in a writer's workshop format.  Below find a copy of my original draft for my project. 

Week 3 Assignment, Part 3

Draft Action Research Project Progress Report

Title: Will using mentor texts help to improve students’ editing and revising skills?

Needs Assessment:

My third grade team discussed the need to improve our instruction of editing and revising because our students tend to do more poorly on this portion of the CMT than on the prompt writing.  I gave a benchmark assessment to my students in October.  The benchmark assessment had two parts.  The first component required the students to edit a piece of writing from their writer’s notebook.  Their writing was scored using an editing rubric.  I have listed the average percents and disaggregated the data based on gender and special education.  I do not have a variety of ethnicities to report.

	Authentic Writing Benchmark Editing Assessment	CMT-Type Benchmark Assessent
Total Student Average Percent	1654/22= 75.18%	1163/22= 52.86%
Girl Average Percent	836/12= 69.67	528/12= 44%
Boy Average Percent	818/10= 81.8%	635/10= 63.5
SPED Average Percent	80/2= 40%	28/2= 14%

Objectives and Vision of the action research project. (ELCC 1.1):

 My objective was to use mentor texts within a writer’s workshop to improve my students’ writing from a total average score of 75.18% as determined by their authentic writing benchmark editing assessment given in October of 2011 to an average score of 85.18% as determined by the authentic writing summative editing assessment given in May of 2012.  My second objective was to improve my students’ performance on a CMT-Type editing and revising assessment from 53% accuracy as determined by the benchmark CMT style assessment to an 80% accuracy as determined by the summative end-of-year CMT style assessment.

Action Planning Template

Goal: To improve writing instruction, with a focus on editing and revising, using student data to inform instruction.

Action Steps	Person(s) Responsible	Timeline: Start/End	Needed Resources	Evaluation
List wonderings	Elizabeth Exias	September ‘11:	CMT Data, Research on editing and revising instruction, Dana (2009) Text	Research that addresses needs
Discuss topic with literacy instructional leader to provide insight.	Elizabeth Exias, Ellen Tuckner	September ‘11:	Ellen Tuckner, Books and other resources that she provides.	Identifying research that matches her insights
Inquire about databases for professional journals provided by Lamar University	Elizabeth Exias Lamar Professor	September ‘11	Email Database	Ability to locate professional journals
Research effective writing instruction with a focus on editing and revising, PLCs, and differentiation.	Elizabeth Exias	September and October ‘11:	Database for journal articles, Texts on editing and revising instruction such as Mechanically Inclined: Building Grammar, Usage, and Style into Writer’s Workshop, Additional workshops in this area	Implementation of strategies in the classroom. Collecting and analyzing student data to monitor their progress after implementing research based strategies.
Give baseline assessment and analyze it.	Elizabeth Exias	September and October ‘11:	Baseline Assessment	Summative assessment in June will provide data that evaluates the implemented techniques. Anecdotal Notes will serve as data for the effectiveness of the PLC
Collect and analyze data	Elizabeth Exias	September and October ‘11:	Benchmark assessment, ongoing formative assessments, and summative assessments, CMT Results, rubric for editing and revising strategies in everyday writing	Analysis of the assessments will evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional strategies used.
Discuss Research-based Practices	Elizabeth Exias PLC Team	October ’11-May 2012	Professional literature	Implementation of research-based strategies in action plan
Meet with the PLC to discuss data and determine an action plan.	Elizabeth Exias	October ‘11	PLC Team, data from a variety of assessments	Anecdotal records, formative and summative assessments, CMT results
Implement the action plan in the classroom.	Elizabeth Exias	October ’11 – June ‘12	PLC, Action Plan, Resources for Instruction	Formative and summative assessments that monitor progress
Monitor the progress of the students with formative assessments and adjust instruction accordingly.	Elizabeth Exias	4 times October ’11 – June ‘12	Data from Formative Assessments	Analysis of data from the formative assessments
Give summative assessment and evaluate the growth that was made through this action research study.	Elizabeth Exias	May ‘12	Summative Assessment	Comparison of benchmark assessment and summative assessment
Share learning with others on blog, in discussion boards and at a staff meeting.	Elizabeth Exias	October ’11 – June ‘12	Blog, discussion boards, staff meeting	Comments on my blog and discussion posts

Review of the Literature and Action Research Strategy

Writer’s Workshop

Karsbaek (2011) and Gray P., Strubhar J., & Tornquist K. (2009) describe a writer’s workshop approach to writing instruction as an effective format of instruction for their students.  Karsbaek (2011) describes a writer’s workshop as “a positive emotional environment [that] is attained by the teacher listening to the children and modeling a positive attitude toward writing, creating a safe environment for writing, and allowing the students to have choice and control over their writing” (p. 7).  The writer’s workshop format includes a mini-lesson that includes scaffolded instruction centered on a writing strategy that is connected to a mentor text.  During the mini lesson, students are given time to discuss the learned writing strategies with partners.  Then, they have a chance to try out the strategy or skill during the independent writing block.  The students use the writing strategies from the mentor text to model their writing after. During independent writing, the students have choice in their writing topic and the teacher is involved in conducting conferences or small group instruction.  The workshop ends with a share-time to wrap up the lesson.  While students are independently writing, they can be in any stage of the writing process.  The stages of the writing process are Prewriting and planning, Drafiing,  Revising, Editing, and Publishing.

Anderson (2005) and Karsbaek (2011) describe the importance of giving students the opportunities to share their writing with others.  Karsbaek (2011) writes “Children also need to see writing as a way of communication and know that they are creating something meaningful when they write. They need to write for a purpose. Knowing that someone else will read what they write gives a sense of purpose and audience” (p. 10).  Since others will be reading their writing, they need to communicate their ideas in a way that others will understand.  This is where editing comes into the writing process.  Anderson (2005) writes “Grammar and mechanics are not rules to be mastered as much as tools to serve a writer in creating a text readers will understand” (p. 5).  Once students understand the purpose of editing, they will be much more inclined to edit their pieces.

Using Mentor Texts

Anderson (2005) and Karsbaek (2011) describes the importance of using mentor texts to help “children to make decisions about the design and quality of their own writing” (p. 8).  Anderson (2005) describes using mentor texts in teaching editing skills and strategies.  He descrbes it as “sentence stalking” (p. 17).  He and his students pull sentences out of authentic literature to demonstrate a rule of grammar and editing.  When a sentence is displayed, the students notice features of it, such as comma placement or use of capitals.  Once the rule is understood, students search for other sentences that follow the rule and practice writing the sentences correctly.  A running editor’s checklist is created and displayed for the stduents.  When students complete a piece of writing, they will use this checklist to correct their sentences.  The focus of using mentor texts, is to focus on great sentences, not pick apart incorrect sentences. 

Scaffolding Instruction  (Karsbaek) (Reed)

Karsbaek (2011) and Read (2010) agree on the need for scaffolded instruction based on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the zone of proximal development.  This means that teachers must scaffold their students just above where they can work independently.  The steps for scaffolded instruction, as decribed by Read (2010), includes inquiry, modeling, shared writing, collaborative writing, and independent writing (IMSCI). 

Editing

Anderson (2005) describes incorporating editing into a writer’s workshop approach to writing.  He spends the first ten minutes of the workshop, teaching an editing skill to his students.  Anderson (2005) writes,

Grammar includes all the principles that guide the structure of sentences and paragraphs:

syntax – the flow of language: usage – how we use words in different situations; and rules – predetermined boundaries and patterns that govern language in a particular society.  Mechanics, on the other hand, are ways we punctuate whatever we are trying to say in our writing; punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, and formatting. (p. 5) 

Teaching grammar and mechanics within a writer’s workshop takes a balanced approach. 

Anderson (2005) stresses the importance of teaching the principles of grammar and mechanics, not simply correcting errors.  He explains that daily sentences with multiple errors isn’t an effective way to learn mechanics.  There is too much to discuss in order to discuss it well.  Also, this strategy demonstrates what is wrong, instead of what is right and it does not transfer into the students’ daily writing.  Instead of using incorrect sentences to teach, he suggests using correct sentences to demonstrate the proper use of mechanics and grammar so that students can emulate these skills in their daily writing.  Anderson (2005) writes “Processing what works in a piece makes it more likely that the stuff of powerful writing will spill over into student’s writing.  I am teaching students to pay attention, to live consciously, to think, to analyze, to connect, to synthesize” (p. 18).  Additionally, he stresses the importance of teaching one principle at a time so that students can truly understand and retain and apply the new skill to their daily writing.

Editing Checklists

            Anderson (2005) and Gray, Strubhar, & Tornquist (2009)  describe how essential editing checklists are for students to independent editors.  The checklists are a great tool to help students keep track of what they have learned.  Gray, Strubhar, & Tornquist (2009) and Reed (2010)  describe how editing with the use of colored pencils or pens was very helpful in the editing process so that students can see where they have fixed errors in their own writing.  Once students edited and revised their own writing, they boroght it to a peer for peer revisions. 

References

Anderson, J. (2005). Mechanicaly Inclined: Building Grammar , Usage, and Style into Writer’s  

Workshop. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Gray, P.,  Strubhar, J., & Tornquist, K. (2009). The making of a 7-year-old editor. Illinois

Reading Council Journal, 37(1) 27-37.

Karsbaek, B. (2011). Writer’s workshop: Does it improve the skills of yourng writers? Illinois                                      

            Reading Council Journal, 39(2) 3-11.

Read S. (2010). A model for scaffolding writing instruction: IMSCI. The Reading Teacher, 64(1)

47-52.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: Tbe development of bigber mental processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Articulate the Vision:

I communicated the vision of the action research project to the parents and community members by discussing the project at Open House.  To communicate my vision to the students, I shared the rubric for the students and explained to them that throughout the year we will be looking at sentences to discover how writer’s communicate their ideas clearly to their readers.  I explained that I will uncover authors’ secrets so that the students will be able to clearly communicate their ideas as well.  I shared the rubric with my students in addition to the results of their benchmark assessment. I graphed their progress throughout the year so that they could see their growth.  I communicated my vision to the staff by collaborating in a study group with my team.  I will share my results, and if they are positive, I will provide an after school session where I will discuss the strategies that were effective for my students.

Manage the organization (ELCC 3.1) –

The strategy that I used for organizing the implementation of the project including my own responsibilities and the responsibilities of others is by creating the Action Research Plan in a table.  It outlined the timeline, persons responsible, needed resources and system of evaluation.  This helped to keep me on track with the implementation of my project.  I managed my time by reading research early in the year and implementing the strategies throughout the year.  To prioritize student learning, I gave formative assessments to inform me of how I needed to modify and differentiate my instruction to meet the needs of my students.  I kept them safe by removing names from student work that was used in the project and obtained permission from the parents to use their children’s work in my action research project.      

Manage Operations (ELCC 3.2) –

The strategy used to lead the operations of the project and set priorities was to lead my study group in the analysis of student data and collaborate on best practices in the area of editing and revising instruction.  I shared the research that I collected and collaborated with my colleagues to reach a concensus on how we would instruct the students and assess their progress.  I needed to build consensus because the team did not want to eliminate the use of daily sentence correcting, even though the research that I studied leaned toward replacing this practice with looking at correct sentences daily.  To reach a consensus, we decided to incorporate both practices.  We would do daily sentence correcting, and incorporate mentor texts to teach editing skills in our writer’s workshop.  I resolved a conflict during these initial meetings by deciding to compromise so that both sides of the conflict were satisfied with the results.

Respond to Community Interest and Needs (ELCC 4.2)

The action research project served the needs of students with special and exceptional needs because it involoved looking at student data to differentiate my instruction.  The project served the needs of students with diverse backgrounds because the mentor texts that were used addressed different cultures and special interest groups.  The methods used to address the specific needs of the school was to use data to inform my instruction.  I differentiated my instruction by using small groups to reinforce skills or strategies and to extend the understanding of my students who needed a challenge.