Project IDEA
Corner
One
Teacher's Panacea ... GED 2002 Writing Project
By
Jeanni Pruitt
Northeast Texas Community College
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.
Starting
My Teacher Action Research Project
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.
Phase
1. Looking at My Classroom
- 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.
Phase
2. Forming My Research Question
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?
Phase
3. Creating a Research Design
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.
Phase
4. Collecting the Data
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.
Phase
5. Analyzing Data
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.
The
Student Project
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.
Step
1. Research Question
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?
Step
2. Activities and Timeline Activities
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.
Timeline
- 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.
Step
3: Final Outcomes
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.
About the Author
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.
References
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.
Other resources used
- GED 2002 Writing
Standard and grading Rubric
- TABE Test
- BEST Test
- GED Practice Test
  
|
