Material Culture/Observation: Raw Data Sample Class 1

Observations: During implementation of the treatment, students in the class are independently completing their literacy block which is based on the “Daily 5” structure.  The classes use the “6+1 Traits of Writing” and the “Café’” approach to literacy strategy instruction.  In addition to observations in the classroom, I wanted to provide information and photos of the material culture within each of the classrooms that have been observing and working in. In each of these classes, the walls are used for more than decoration; the walls are full of visual supports for students and interactive activities to support their independence. 

The following photographs were taken on September 20, 2012 in “Third Grade Class 1”

This interactive wall hanging supports student choice of their activity during the “Daily 5” routine.  Students choose from five literacy activities indepdently based on a chart that they use each week where they mark of the activity they have completed.  Each student completes  one activity each day for a total of five each week.

This visual is used to support the “6+1 Traits of Writing.”  Student discuss this during writing instruction and the teacher places examples of each trait when working on each.

The multicolored keyboard is engaging for students in the classroom.  They are able to use the keyboard as their word work for “Daily 5” and can choose from the choices in the right picture including stamping, typing, boggle, and rolling die.

The posters below support the “Daily 5” routine and provide expectations of students and the teacher during each of the activities they are expected to complete.

Thick Description: First observation & Treatment Group Day 1

Location: Third Grade Class B.

Time of day:  12:50-1:30pm               Classroom Activity: Daily 5 reading block   

            This observation occurred during the second day of implementation of the treatment group.  I arrived early to allow time for observation before the thirty-minute small group.  As I entered the classroom, I noticed that this classroom was more active in moving around the class than Class A (the class from the first observation and treatment group).  This classroom was participating in the “Daily 5” literacy structure where students “work on writing,” “read to self,” “read to peers,” “listen to reading,” and “work on words.”  Students were placed throughout the classroom; some were on the floor reading with peers, some lying under tables reading alone, while others were working in their journal or completing independent centers for word work. Students in the classroom seemed to be less independent than the previous classroom often going to the teacher to ask questions.  While the students were working independently, the teacher worked with 5-6 students at the kidney-shaped table in the back left corner of the classroom (exactly the same as the previous classroom).  The teacher was working with small groups based on student needs concerning the use of reading strategies.  The majority of students were quietly working with peers or alone but a few students required instructions and redirections from the teacher to stay focused and complete their center. 

            This is the special education cluster classroom and the teacher has supported the independent work of students by creating posters to guide them through the steps of the “Daily 5” activities.  When the special education students returned to their classroom from the resource room, they required brief instructions from the teacher (stated from her seat at the table) to use the posters to find their station.  The students were able to select the activity they needed to complete and independently moved throughout the classroom to begin their activity.  The posters seem to be a strong visual support for all students in the classroom.  The rules and expectations of the classroom were clearly posted where all students could view them. 

            The classroom was clean and brightly colored with teacher made posters and decorations.  The class library was categorized by interest or topic, which increases ease of finding interesting texts for students.  Talk in the classroom consisted primarily of students interacting with each other during their centers and was focused on their activity.  In this classroom, students were more energetic but they were able to stay on topic within their collaborative pairs. 

            Following observations in the classroom, I asked five students to move to a table to the right of the classroom, where the fewest students were working, to begin the first meeting.  This group required additional time to introduce the concepts and strategies, as well as, to stay focused and wait their turn to talk. This was the initial meeting of the group and instructional interaction with the researcher seemed to excite the students, which increased engagement but made it difficult to focus them on the tasks while they were asking me questions and telling me about their new toys or summer vacations.  I assumed that my background with these students, as a collaborating teacher in their early primary classrooms, would be a strength but it seemed to be more of a distraction during this sessions.  The students in this classroom had more difficulty with the motor aspects of the multisensory cues than the verbal prompting.  Students required physical assistance to isolate their pinky finger in order to begin finger tapping decodable words; by the end of the session all students made progress with this skill.  The students were able to tap out the sight words on their arms with little difficulty and were able to pound out sentences for segmentation.  The sentence editing strategy was novel to the students are required prompting, modeling, and support through all three dictated sentences. Students with limited language, one special education student and one ELL student, were able to successfully participate in the group and complete the tasks with assistance. Following the completion of the writing sample where students were asked to write three CVC words and three sentences as they were dictated, I praised the students, discussed the next session, and supported their transition back to the classroom literacy structure. 

Thick Description: First observation & Treatment Group Day 1

Location: Third Grade Class A.

Time of day:  12:50-1:30pm               Classroom Activity: Daily 5 reading block   

            As I walked into the third grade classroom, I instantly noticed that the students were working independently all around the classroom.  Some students were typing words on an old, grey keyboard from an out-of-date desktop computer.  There was a group of students working with laptop computers; they were participating in the “Listen to Reading” component of the “Daily 5” classroom reading structure.  From previous experiences in the school, I am aware that these laptops were purchased for ELL students to use in the classroom; I was glad to see that the use of this technology is not restricted solely to the ELL students, but is used to support all students’ learning. Some students were writing in their journals during the “Work on Writing” component of the reading block; each of these students had stapled a small sheet of paper in their journal with their writing prompts.  The writing prompts connected to both their writing block and their vocabulary and literacy program, “Literacy by Design.”

            In the back, left corner of the classroom, five students were working at the kidney-shaped table with the teacher.  This group focused on strategies from the “CAFÉ” reading strategy which has been adopted school wide along with the “Daily 5.”  When the teacher finished with the group, she asked another group (named by their color and supported with a poster on the wall with all of the names of students in the group). The students who left the group moved to the front of the room and moved their clothes pin, labeled by their name, from “work with the teacher” to one of the other five options for literacy centers. 

            The students seemed to be very familiar with the routine and were independent throughout the classroom.  The teacher must have a firm grasp of training routines at the beginning of the school year.  The students were able to go to the restroom without asking by writing their names on a plastic plate attached to the wall (pink for girls, blue for boys).  The tables, for two students each, were in the center of the room and were arranged in a horseshoe shape with the opening at the front of the classroom; there were additional tables in the center of the horseshoe shape with openings in the back for students to move around easily.  The classroom was clean and brightly colored with many supportive visuals on the wall throughout the classroom including: math, reading, and science word walls, posters to support the routine, “Daily 5” center details, etc.  The classroom is equipped with a projector, sink, whiteboard, document camera, laptops, and three student computers. 

            Talk in the classroom consistent of students discussing books, asking for help with centers, collaborating with a buddy to read a text, discussing events from their favorite television show, and making connections from text to their lives.  Students are prompted to request assistance from peers before asking the teacher in order to build collaboration and independence. 

            Following the observation of the classroom, I asked five students to come to the front table, away from the majority of distractions and peers, to begin our first instructional treatment group.  Once I announced the names of students, several peers asked to participate in the small group instruction.  The students in the group were excited about participating in the group and needed prompts to wait their turn before speaking.  This being the initial meeting, the students were very curious about the activities we would be completing and wanted to tell me all about themselves.  Students in this group were adequately focused even though there were a number of distractions around the room; I actually started to think our group may be distraction other students due to the novelty of the research in the classroom.  The students required additional prompts to understand the multisensory strategies: finger tapping to segment CVC words, arm tapping to spell sight words, pounding table to segment sentences.  These more physical tasks were confusing for some of the students but by the end of each of the three activities they were showing progress.  The students were strong with the sentence editing strategy and after guided practice of the first two sentences; they were able to complete the third with few prompts.  Writing samples collected from this observation were from the treatment group and consisted of writing CVC words, sight words, and sentences using the multisensory method and the editing strategy. 

Reflection: Analysis of whole group data collected in second class. Dictated Sentences Assessment

            Yesterday I assessed the second class in the research study.  I will be choosing five students from each class who are showing the highest need for intervention.  These students will receive 10 sessions of intervention based on a multisensory writing technique in conjunction with a sentence editing mnemonic. 

            This class was much more active, requested additional reassurance that they are doing well, and asked to spell more words than the initial class assessed. 

Trends and Points of interest include:

·         This class had both the only 100% score on this assessment and the only 0% score.  The range of ability on this assessment is significant.  It is important to acknowledge that this is a special education, collaborative classroom, which may explain increased range in skills.

·         The second class was comprised of more special education students (5) than the first class (3).

·         When considering capitalization (70% group accuracy) and punctuation (37% group accuracy), this class was stronger than the previous class (caps: 46% group accuracy; punctuation: 27% group accuracy).

·         The greatest class instructional need is instruction in appropriate punctuation (37% whole group accuracy). This is congruent with data collected from the initial classroom assessed with a whole group accuracy of only 27%. 

·         During analysis of the writing stages and sentence mechanics assessment, capitalization and punctuation have been common deficits between the classes.

The assessments that I am focusing on are quantitative and provide numbers and data to show growth. This is strong data but I will begin collecting qualitative data through observations, interviews, and material culture this week.

Attachments:

1.  Class 2 Dictated Sentences Pretest

2.  Qualitative Data Collection Sheet

Reflection: Analysis of whole group data collected in first class. Writing Stages

            I also analyzed the second assessment for class 1 this week.  The assessment is based on DeFord’s developmental stages of writing.  On the assessment one student was at the “writing know isolated words” stages (stage 6), nine students were on the “Writing simple sentences: inventive spellings” (stage 7) and ten students were on “Combining two or more sentences, complete thoughts” (stage 8).  The students that were in stage 8 showed a strong understanding of storytelling and writing for a purpose but they did not exhibit strong control of capitalization and punctuation, as noted in the previous assessment of dictated sentences. 

Trends include:

• All students showed errors with capitalization use.
• All students showed errors with punctuation use.
• Several students simple wrote a list of simple sentences with identical beginnings (I like…).

This assessment provided information about the writing stages of third graders.  One would expect for the students in the class to be close on the writing development scale due to similar instruction throughout the course of their schooling; this was true for the most paper.  The range of stages for the assessment was only 3 (all students were on stages 6, 7 or 8).  This supports the use of the assessment of dictated sentences to provide further information in order to select students for intervention.  The five students in each class who struggle the most will be selected for ten sessions of structured, research based intervention strategies.

Attachments:

1.  Class 1 Journal Writing - Stages PreTest

2.  Stages of Writing: Codes used withinAssessment Graph

Reflection: Analysis of Data From Dictated Sentences- Class 1

            This week I had the chance to sit down and use the whole group assessment sheets that I have made to organize all of the data collected during the writing samples assessment of dicatated sentences.  The data sheet is simple, yet provides the opportunity for easily noticing holes in writing ability based on the “COPS” editing strategy (i.e. capitalization, organization, punctuation, and spelling).  The data showed many trends and patterns that I would not have noticed without analysis of the data. 

Trends include:

·         Some students used capitalization with proper nouns but failed to capitalize letters at the beginning of sentences.

·         Many students completed neglected to use capitalization and punctuation completely, yet developed strong sequence of events and details.

·         Some students have mastered punctuation and capitalization with simple sentences but begin to error with sentences dictated having three or more words.

·         The students exhibit strong organization and spelling skills.

Upon collecting this data, and wanting to share my trends with you  online, I decided to use participant numbers rather than names on the data sheets to ensure confidentiality of the research participants.

Attachments:

1.  Class 1 Dictated Sentences PreTest

Reflection: Whole class assessment of phonics / writing skills.

            This week I conducted my first assessments for an entire third grade class.  The assessments were whole group and required the students to complete two writing samples.  The first as a journal writing experience about anything they would like, I gave the students various examples of topics to allow each to write enough to assess.  During the assessment, I noticed that there were several students with very little written and seemed to be inexperienced with journal writing.  I provided encouragement and repeated the task to remind students to stay focused on their writing.  Many students raised their hand and asked me for help spelling words, in reaction to which I stated, “Spell your words the best you can.  I want to see what you can do!”  This encouraged the students and refocused them on the task.  

            Implementation of the second assessment was highly successful with the class.  Students understood the task and worked independently to number their paper, focus on me, and write the sentences.  Students continued to ask how to spell things and, due to the varying phonetic skills in the assessment, I repeated the sentences as many times as they needed.  I justified this support to myself by deciding that this was an assessment of writing and phonics ability, not ability to remember an entire sentence or ability to focus on the teacher. These are important characteristics of each individual participant but are not the focus of the research project.

Attachments:

1.  Whole Group Data Sheet PreTest – Qualitative Assessment

2.  Whole Group Data Sheet PostTest – Qualitative Assessment

3.  Participant Information Sheet – Participant number. Informed consent.

4. Whole Group Data Sheet Pre and Post