Action Plan

What was implemented?

My action research was conducted as part of a writing unit on persuasive essays. Students wrote a persuasive essay through the writing process. Over the course of six weeks, students worked through four phases of the writing process: pre-writing, writing, revising/editing, and post-writing. The purpose behind this study was to improve the quality of all student writing by implementing explicit writing process strategies. The following strategies were implemented:

Word Webs - Brainstorming strategy to help students expand on their topics.
Outline - Pre-writing strategy to help students set-up their essays.
RACES - Writing strategy to help students organize their paragraphs and essays.
Peer Review - Editing strategy to help students to think about the components of their essays as well as their peers’ essays.
Self-reflection - Post-writing strategy to help students polish their final essays.

Why these strategies?

The above strategies have been applied in various environments with diverse learners. The research showed application everywhere from elementary schools to college classes to English Language Learners' classrooms. Each phase of the writing process had at least one strategy being applied to this study. The results, as examined in the Literature Review, have demonstrated success within the applied environments. I chose to use these strategies, because I believed they would work to make the writing process simpler for my students to understand. Each strategy chosen was used to give students the necessary structure to complete their persuasive essays.

The population of my students represented a diverse demographic of learners. I selected these specific strategies, because they can be applied to a wide variety of learners regardless of ability or background. The population as outlined in the Rationale showed signs of writing struggles, and the strategies being used were designed to help students to gain the proper knowledge and skills to become more successful writers. Many of the strategies such as Peer Review and Self-reflection met students at their individual writing skill level and allowed them to build on their skills. Other strategies such as Word Webs and RACES were based on giving students structure to build upon. These structure based strategies either acted as a foundation or reinforcement for students, regardless of their ability.

When did the research take place?

The following schedule was only the writing unit being taught. In between days of writing instruction, students studied Macbeth by William Shakespeare. An emphasis was placed on the theme of justice. This writing unit connected to the theme of justice by examining the concept of social justice.

Tuesday, January 29th: Pre-Test Essay
Thursday, January 31st: Interest Brainstorm/Topic Selection
Friday, February 1st: Topic Selection/Word Webs
Monday, February 4th: Picture/Outline/RACE
Tuesday, February 5th: Write
Wednesday, February 6th: Write
Monday, February 11th: Write
Tuesday, February 12th: Peer Review Bingo
Tuesday, February 19th: Revision
Friday, February 22nd: Revision
Monday, February 25th: Self-Assessment
Tuesday, February 26th: Conference
Wednesday, February 27th: Conference
Thursday, February 28th: Conference
Friday, March 8th: Final Draft Due/Post-Test

Meeting Diverse Learning Needs

The writing project itself was designed with the intention of giving students choice. Students chose a subject area that was of interest to them. They chose a subject matter they are already knew something about. By allowing them this choice, content was not an extra barrier for students to concern themselves with trying to maneuver around. The strategies were chosen with diverse learning needs in mind. They were mostly grounded in structure to ensure that students were given the proper foundation to succeed, regardless of beginning ability. Class time was set aside to work on the essay and to allow for students to receive extra support from the teachers in the room. Students developed an individualized goal through the self-assessment portion of the writing process. They conferenced with me about their individual progress and where they were to go next with their essay.

Fostered Equity

Each student was allowed to choose an area to research/write about that met their prior interest and understanding. No student should have felt they were disadvantaged as a result of an assigned topic. Each student received the same strategies to help build a foundation for their essay. Regardless of prior knowledge of writing, students began at square one. They had equal access to instruction during class.

Fostered Accessibility

In class, time was given to work on student writing. This accounted for students who had to work or take care of siblings/children after school. It also accounted for providing a learning conducive environment for students to work. Students had access to the necessary resources based upon their needs. Time in class allowed for guaranteed access to those resources.

Supported Multiple

Perspectives

Students interacted with writing strategies that had been researched and developed from multiple perspectives. Each of the applied strategies was derived from a different source. Rather than simply receiving instruction designed solely by myself, students received research based instruction that was proven to work. This helped to widen the scope by which students understood the writing process.

The entire point of the writing assignment was to allow students to share their perspectives. The focus was not on teaching students to hold a specific perspective, but rather to express their perspective in a well-structured and eloquent way. Additionally, the project was designed to give students a platform to communicate their perspectives.

Internal Stakeholders

Department Colleagues

My department colleagues acted as a sounding board for many of my decisions. We had conversations that helped me to decide if my reasoning was sound. Additionally, they often helped me to make decisions about how to adjust my schedule when changes were necessary. I collaborated with one colleague to design the "Peer Review Bingo" format that I used with my peer review strategy.

Co-Teacher

My special education co-teacher played an active role in conducting the study. He was a part of the instruction process. If it were not for him, I would not have been able to individualize instruction for specific students. There were times that he took students to another location to provide them a quiet location to catch up when they had fallen behind schedule. This allowed me to focus on keeping other students moving forward. We collaborated to make decisions about how to move forward when events did not go as planned. He advised me on how to work with specific students and building in accommodations in coordination with their IEPs.

External Stakeholders

CADRE Associate

My CADRE associate was an active participant in the classroom as a support for students throughout the process. Additionally, she was a support for me in making decisions about how to handle unexpected intangibles such as absences and snow days. More than anything, she helped me talk through my concerns and arrive at solutions throughout the completion of the project.

Cohort

My cohort colleagues discussed with me about how to best implement certain aspects of the study and how to use the data collected. At each new portion of the project, they acted as a sounding board for my thoughts and shared their own ideas about how they were implementing aspects of their study. Seeing how they were interacting with the same concepts was important to my development throughout the process.

Professors

My professors helped me to better understand the project and how to use my data to improve my instruction. The final product is a reflection of the ongoing dialogue and feedback I had received over the five months of working on the research. If not for their input, the shape of this project would not be as refined. My understanding of action research is a direct result of my time spent with my professors.