GED 2002

Project IDEA Corner
One Teacher's Panacea ... GED 2002 Writing Project

I recently completed a year of professional development with Project IDEA, the Institute for the Development of Educators of Adults. Project IDEA provides teachers a continuum of formal learning opportunities for new and seasoned teachers. In our training we were introduced to the concepts of Teacher Action Research and Project-Based Learning. I decided I would try using the Action Research model in my writing class. I had noticed that my students were struggling with their writing activities. I kept a journal to help me identify learning trends of the students.

Beginning in January 2001, I started an action research project. Taylor, Marais, and Kaplan (1997) provide an excellent explanation of action research.

The action-learning approach takes into account that actions, understandings and feelings are extremely important sources of knowledge. The action learning cycle is like the seasons. No one part of the cycle is more important than the other. The model has four elements: action, reflection, learning, and planning. These elements should be thought of as a repeating cycle. Action learning is based on the simple belief that there is an enormous amount to learn from our own actions. (pp. 3-4)

I began compiling data to form a research question by keeping a journal, engaging in dialogue with my students and observing the learners. I still had students who had no concept of the basics of essay development, organization, punctuation or grammar usage. We had been working on writing skills for over four months and had made little, if any, progress. After forming a research question, I developed a plan of action to address the problems in my class. I then enlisted the help of my students to help me test the theory I had formed from my research.

The action-learning cycle is a simple, powerful tool to help individuals and groups understand the basic idea of "action-learning." Each cycle of learning builds on the previous one to improve the effectiveness of future action.

• Journal : I maintained an informal journal of classroom activities and progress. "A journal is a weekly record of the events in a teacher's life that have impressed themselves most vividly on his or her consciousness. By focusing on these events, we learn much more about our assumptions than if we just tried to list them" (Brookfield, 1987, p. 161).
• Dialogue: I scheduled time with the math/computer teacher and parent involvement coordinator. We reviewed each student's portfolio and baseline testing. It was obvious that math and writing were areas of great concern.
• Muddle around: I developed a questionnaire for my students to obtain feedback regarding their attitude about writing and what areas they felt they needed help in to improve their writing skills.

Forming your research question is the point in which you put the learning into practice. This is where you look at the examples or circumstances that have given rise to action-learning. I sat back and asked myself, "What is my ultimate goal with my students and what do I need to do or change to meet this challenge?" According to Brookfield (1987), this is called "problem formulation" (p. 161). I finally determined that the question I wanted to answer was:
What strategies do I need to incorporate into my class to help my students improve their writing skills and pass the GED 2002?

The Good Practices Audit (GPA) is a three-phase process in which teachers search their experiences for good responses to common problems they encounter. It involves a mix of individual reflection, collaborative critical analysis and is focused on helping people deal with difficulties they have identified (Brookfield, 1987, pg. 161). I chose the following three methods in creating my research design because I needed to be able to measure progress, I needed the students to be involved and I needed some type of collaborative action for the plan to be successful.

Three methods were used to design and monitor the success of the project.

• Quantitative: I used the TABE/BEST (for baseline and monitoring progress) and the GED pretest for measuring progress.
• Participatory: Students were directly involved in the process by determining the writing prompts, content of the lessons and peer scoring.
• Action: Students who passed the GED assisted me with peer review and tutoring.

The Texas Education Agency requires all adult education students to be baseline and progress tested using either the TABE or BEST. In addition to using these two instruments, we also collected data utilizing the GED pretest, personal interviews, a questionnaire developed for the project, and my reflective journal.

Reflective and analytical activities are used to help participants think about what they are learning and to learn from their experiences. An individual insight or group decision and plan might result from this type of activity (Bingham & Bell, 1995, p. 89). This participatory activity was the avenue for the collection of qualitative data. The scores from the TABE and the BEST are used to gather the quantitative data.

Utilizing the quantitative and qualitative data and involving the students in the evaluation process was the final step in completing the systematic inquiry. I analyzed the data to help formulate a research question. Project-based learning has several phases which includes:

• Identifying the problem (completed);
• Investigating (completed);
• Planning and assigning tasks ;
• Researching (completed);
• Implementing the project;
• Developing the final project; and
• Evaluating the information gained.

At this point I had completed several of the required phases and needed to begin planning and assigning tasks and implementing the development of the final project. The real beauty of project-based learning is that it is so logical. During the process, adjustments were made to accommodate individual student's needs. Based on the research, I knew that we had to go back and address the very fundamentals of writing. Project-based learning requires the teacher to create an environment conducive to learning and willingness to safely express ideas. Planning is a democratic process. My students were so involved and their level of "buy-in" was so much higher than in my non project-based classes.

Although good plans always project into the future, they cannot be guaranteed to turn out as intended because it is impossible to control all of the variables. Once a plan is put into practice, it should be evaluated regularly (Taylor, Marais, & Kaplan, 1997, p. 8). We had a research question and a plan of action. It was time for the class to move forward and test the theory.

Since my initial research question was to identify strategies to improve student writing, I now further refined my question to: Will a student-driven writing project with peer review and tutoring increase my students writing skills and willingness to learn "good" writing habits?

The students brainstormed writing topics they might possibly want to write about and came up with a list of over forty. As a group, we voted and selected thirteen to be used for prompts. Students also discussed the areas in which they felt they needed the most help to make a positive change in their writing. They identified twenty topics they wanted to cover during the project.

• Peer tutoring was a major part of the project. I hand selected three students who had passed the GED test and scored high on the writing component. I spent several sessions training the peer tutors on how to use the new GED 2002 Rubric. We practiced scoring essays and each peer tutor scored over 15 essays prior to starting the project.
• Writing Class was on Mondays and Wednesdays from 9:00-11:00 a.m. At the beginning of each class, a new writing prompt was assigned and a 20-minute lesson was taught. As I taught each lesson, I provided the students with visual examples of the correct way to accomplish that particular writing task.
• Students were given 10 minutes to brainstorm the topic as a group.
• Students had approximately 35 minutes to begin organizing their topic using a graphic organizer.
• Peer tutors reviewed the drafts. Prior to students beginning their final drafts, I re-taught topics, when necessary. Students used the GED 2002 rubric (1 - 4 scale) to grade each other's essays when completed.

• Trained peer tutors January 15-18, 2001.
• Began program January 22, 2001.
• Worked with each student approximately four hours per week.
• Tested all students for baseline and progress data.
• Collected and analyzed data May 2001.
• Reported results of research to Project IDEA May 2001.
• Taught students scoring guidelines and writing rubric for GED.
• Taught students how to graph their individual results each week.

Again, the action plan (the GPA model) plays an important role in the process. It was time for us to evaluate what had been accomplished and complete the cycle. We had questions and now we wanted the answers. Students participated in analyzing the data and forming of the conclusions. We asked ourselves:

• What were the results?
• Did the students' writing scores improve?
• Did the TABE and BEST scores show improvement?
• Were the lesson plans developed by instructor and students effective in meeting the goal?

At this point most of you may be wondering, "Was this method of instruction successful?" That would be my question too! In fact, that was my question. Over 90% of the students who participated in the writing project showed measurable improvement over the 13 weeks we participated in the pilot project.

Will I continue to use this method of teaching? Yes. The student buy-in was incredible ... I didn't own the project ... they owned the project. They were so excited to be involved in the planning, evaluation and final product. Initially, I was concerned about the results of peer grading. Would they award all 3's and 4's and not follow the rubric? If a student gave another student a 4 (the highest score), I automatically graded the paper. If a student awarded a 3, another student had to review the paper. During the 13 weeks we participated in the project I graded only 6 essays. The new 1- 4 scoring guidelines are much easier to follow than the old 1- 6 guidelines. The parameters are much clearer to teach and follow.

Project-based learning has given my students a voice and has helped me to be a more effective teacher in the classroom. One student was quoted as saying, "I feel like I'm in control of my learning for the first time in my life." It has energized my classroom because we are all actively involved in the learning. It has revolutionized the way I teach ... I don't try to guess what my students' needs are. I ask them and involve them in the actual process from beginning to end. The result is ... we are all winners.

Jeanni Priutt is the Northeast Texas Community College Downtown Adult Education Coordinator and lead ESL instructor. She also coordinates and teaches for the following NTCC programs: Pilgrim's Pride, Even Start (family literacy program), and Teen Challenge (GED program). Jeanni was a Project IDEA participant in 1999-2000. For her teacher action research project, she worked with her Teen Challenge students. Jeanni was selected the 1999-2000 TALAE Full-time Teacher of the Year. She is a graduate of the University of Tyler with a degree in social work and foreign languages.

Bingman, B., & Bell, B. (1995). Teachers as learner: A sourcebook for participatory staff development. Knoxville, TN: Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Checkett, L., & Feng-Checkett, G. (2001). The write start with readings. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Defelice, L. (1989). Basic composition: A step-by-step approach. Syracuse, New York: New Readers Press.

Mulcrone, P., (Ed.). (1996). Essential GED. Lincolnwood, Illinois: Contemporary Books.

Taylor, J., Marais, D., & Kaplan, A. (1997). Action learning for development: Use your experience to improve effectiveness. Cape Town, Africa: Creda Press.

Troyka, L., & Nudelman, J. (1999). Steps in composition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Winkler, A., & McCuen, J. (1997). Writing talk. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

• GED 2002 Writing Standard and grading Rubric
• TABE Test
• BEST Test
• GED Practice Test