How was the study implemented?
A Writer’s Workshop, including a mini-lesson, one-on-one conferences, and author’s chair sharing, was implemented every day for a 50-minute instructional block with my 18 students. The workshop and research-based strategies of the model were implemented from January 28th to April 1st. The baseline data for the study was gathered on January 23, 2019. The post-test was administered on March 21, 2019. The pre-test and post-test consisted of asking my students to write. I simply reminded them of the four writing traits (ideas, organization, sentence fluency and conventions, and word choice) and main skills we had already worked on (outlining, problem/solution, compare/contrast, vivid verbs, figurative language, and dialogue). When I analyzed the data, I noticed that my students could not write longer than ten minutes without getting stuck, they then needed prompting to stay on task and their pieces did not reflect third-grade level writing. To support my varying students’ needs, I implemented a ten-minute mini-lesson that reviewed, focused on, and modeled a skill for the day that began on January, 28th. After the mini-lesson, students were released to write on their own. During this 35-minute block, I conferenced, or met one-on-one with, at most five students per day.
|
Within the conferencing time, I monitored students as a whole knowing which students needed more guidance than others. I also followed a structured order that ensured I met with each student at least once a week, I had the flexibility to meet with students more than once based on need. During the conference, students led the conversation. They showcased what they worked on and voiced concerns and achievements. I focused on finding one strength (medal) and an area of improvement (mission) that I shared with the writer as verbal and immediate feedback. When I conferenced, I consistently collected data through anecdotal notes to track the medals and missions that were given to all students to vary support throughout the entire study based on what my students needed. Throughout the study, I took time on task data twice to determine if student focus during independent writing increased. I also interviewed a low-achieving, medium-achieving, and a high-achieving student at the beginning and end of the study to understand student perceptions towards writing and if there was anything I could change to better support them throughout the study.
|
Why were these strategies selected?
I chose to implement the writer’s workshop model including writing conferences because I noticed an overall need in my classroom for a time devoted explicitly to my student’s writing needs. Writer’s workshop allowed for complete differentiation of attention, tasks, and independence. My students’ writing abilities ranged from only being able to write a few sentences with pictures to writing pages. Within my classroom, my students deserved academic attention where they were at in order to support the journey they were on. During the mini-lessons and student conferences, I addressed the skills and topics my students needed in the best way for each of them to be successful. When I conferenced with students, we had authentic conversations on what areas they were proud of and what areas they wanted to work on. Through noticing what their “mission” was we either conversed or wrote a specific goal they wanted to work towards by the next conference. The goal was decided upon solely by the student and he or she voiced what they thought they would be able to do in order to make progress or meet it by the next time we met. After the pre-test, I knew exactly where my students needed more instruction and where they were confident so that is what I used to decide on topics for mini-lessons. By working individually with each student, I was able to support the students where they were at and give them immediate feedback on their work.
This study was student-centered
Individual needs of my students were met through the model almost effortlessly. Due to the layout of the writing block, I had the time allotted to collaborate with students individually and intentionally. I had one English Language Learner (ELL) paraprofessional in my classroom for the four students working on learning English and she operated a small-group for those students that provided support and encouraged independence. For some students, they were comfortable meeting and chatting about their piece at their desk and others preferred to step out in the hallway where it was just us for more privacy. I was flexible on the space and even how they led the conference because the goal of the study was for my students to become more confident and successful writers, not to become uniform in what writing looks like. With some students, they preferred being given two missions instead of just one, so we chose what to work on based on skill level and attitude towards their writing. Sometimes, the conversation was enough for students to understand what their area of improvement, or mission, was for when they returned to writing and other times they requested a sticky note for a visual reminder. We offered choice because we knew that the ability to write well and the attitude towards writing sometimes depended on the day! Overall, when the mini-lesson was delivered, it was a short time that focused on the data collected from the pre-test or student conferences to ensure it met what my students needed to improve their writing.
|
During this study, all students were given voice and choice in what they wrote, how they wrote it, how they received their feedback and the method of delivery for the instruction. During the mini-lesson, students chose where they wanted to sit. They either remained in their seat or joined the class on the carpet. Giving this choice made sure students were where they were comfortable and successful. All students had the choice to have their writing notebook out to take notes/copy the anchor chart into their notebooks for reference or use the model on the writing wall as a visual when needed. Based on their preferred learning style, students had access to the instruction. When using mentor texts, I chose a variety of authors when covering the same topic which ensured various styles and perspectives of the same concept so students used what made sense the most to them. Students were read aloud to and then had access to the book while they were writing if they needed tangible evidence of what they were working on. Most students used pencil and paper to write, but a few focused better if they typed their work. While they wrote, I played soft classical music that helped my students stay on task. One student who preferred a more secluded space was given desk dividers to close in his workspace. While we conferenced, students talked through their piece. For their feedback, they chose whether their medal and mission were discussed verbally or written on a sticky note that served as a visual reminder. Some students kept a notebook page open to write their goals on and others preferred to discuss them. They also knew that because they chose one format at first, they did not have to continue using it. In our classroom, we were continually worked on making it more student-centered and guided, in this study students were encouraged to write however they were most comfortable, which ultimately depended on the day.
|
It took a village!
In deciding on what the study would look like for my specific classroom, many conversations were had with colleagues. These colleagues helped me question and expand my understanding about this study as well as how to best support my students and their learning. Internal stakeholders, or colleagues within my building included the literacy coach, an assistant principal, my grade-level team, and a fourth-grade teacher. In each of these situations, I discussed what the purpose and goal of the study were and we discussed the possible methods and data collection tools I could use. With my literacy coach, she reminded me of the district’s expectations but also referred me to a few teachers outside of my building to gather new ideas for implementation from. My grade level team was very helpful in problem-solving with me in creating engaging mini-lessons on a variety of topics and pulling mentor texts to use. Finally, the fourth-grade teacher mentored me through how she takes her anecdotal notes over their conferences, which helped me model my outline. While people within my school were very helpful, I could not have been successful without a multitude of people outside of my building. Externally, I interviewed a writer’s workshop professional development leader from the district to gain a deeper understanding of what writer’s workshop really looks like in the classroom. Additionally, I utilized a cohort of educators to bounce ideas off of and answer questions I had throughout the process of conducting this study effectively. One previous professor I had provided me with a long list of mentor texts after I reached out for recommendations. Finally, my students’ parents were supportive of the new look that writing had and actively engaged in their child’s education by commenting on student posts and even emailing me directly. The collaboration of people rallying around my students and I aided my students’ growth much more than I could have on my own. Each encounter whether within or outside of my building aided student learning by providing me with resources or ideas to implement in my classroom.
Great learning happens in groups; that collaboration is the stuff of growth
-Sir Ken Robinson, author, TED speaker, and retired educator