Phase I: Action & Assessment Plan
Action Plan
In light of the information I gathered during the needs assessments, I hypothesized that my third grade students’ challenges with comprehending and responding to open-ended questions resided in the insufficient or ineffective application of metacognitive skills, such as evaluation and analysis. Additionally, since the students shared in the survey and focus group that they enjoyed writing and language arts to some degree, I elected to address these challenges within the framework of language arts lessons. My exploration into the literature showed that students who engage in question creation and subsequent dialogue with their peers activate the higher-order thinking processes that improve critical thinking abilities.
The driving question for my action research can be stated as follows:
In light of the information I gathered during the needs assessments, I hypothesized that my third grade students’ challenges with comprehending and responding to open-ended questions resided in the insufficient or ineffective application of metacognitive skills, such as evaluation and analysis. Additionally, since the students shared in the survey and focus group that they enjoyed writing and language arts to some degree, I elected to address these challenges within the framework of language arts lessons. My exploration into the literature showed that students who engage in question creation and subsequent dialogue with their peers activate the higher-order thinking processes that improve critical thinking abilities.
The driving question for my action research can be stated as follows:
How can evidence-based questions and responses be used to improve
third-grade students’ comprehension of grade-level language arts passages?
third-grade students’ comprehension of grade-level language arts passages?
In this first phase of research, I also wanted to explore how to use the different Question-Answer Relationship strategy (QAR) question types to support my students’ analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information in a passage.
With these points in mind, I designed a phase of interventions that:
The interventions for this Phase I were focused on helping students identify the two text-based QAR question types: “Right There”, where the answer is stated directly in the passage, and “Think and Search”, where the answer is given in more than one place in the passage. I selected these two question types because they are text-based and allow the students to focus on using evidence from the text to support their answers; the other QAR question types (“Author and Me” and “On My Own”) are not text-based. In learning to identify these text-based question types, students practice analysis (“What question type is this?”), synthesis (“How can I combine these pieces of information to get an answer?”), and evaluation (“Does my response properly answer the question? Do I need more or less information from the text?”).
To further ground this intervention in practice, I selected a third-grade Common Core English Language Arts standard under the Reading Literature prong. This standard, CCSS.ELA.3.RL.1, states: “Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.” This standard specifies that students should use evidence from the passage in answering questions to demonstrate comprehension, so the “Right There” and “Think and Search” question types aligned with this goal.
The Phase I action plan consisted of three lessons. Each lesson followed the same general outline:
With these points in mind, I designed a phase of interventions that:
- used the two text-based QAR question types, “Right There” and “Think and Search” to deepen the students’ reading of a text;
- used the two text-based QAR question types to provide a scaffold for writing evidence-based responses;
- used reading passages from the grade-level language arts textbook; and
- took place during the usual English Language Arts time.
The interventions for this Phase I were focused on helping students identify the two text-based QAR question types: “Right There”, where the answer is stated directly in the passage, and “Think and Search”, where the answer is given in more than one place in the passage. I selected these two question types because they are text-based and allow the students to focus on using evidence from the text to support their answers; the other QAR question types (“Author and Me” and “On My Own”) are not text-based. In learning to identify these text-based question types, students practice analysis (“What question type is this?”), synthesis (“How can I combine these pieces of information to get an answer?”), and evaluation (“Does my response properly answer the question? Do I need more or less information from the text?”).
To further ground this intervention in practice, I selected a third-grade Common Core English Language Arts standard under the Reading Literature prong. This standard, CCSS.ELA.3.RL.1, states: “Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.” This standard specifies that students should use evidence from the passage in answering questions to demonstrate comprehension, so the “Right There” and “Think and Search” question types aligned with this goal.
The Phase I action plan consisted of three lessons. Each lesson followed the same general outline:
- Anticipatory set/activation of prior knowledge. Discuss how questions can be used to guide reading and find information.
- Instruction. Introduce/review QAR question types “Right There” and “Think and Search” (see Figure 5 for class chart).
3. Guided practice. Distribute sticky notes (for bookmarks) and a graphic organizer with each of the following questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? (Figure 6).
As a class, begin reading a passage from the students’ grade-level reader. Pause at the bookmark and follow the step-by-step process for answering the graphic organizer questions (see Figure 7 for class chart):
* Write the question type (1 or 2).
* Write your answer in a complete sentence.
* Write the page number where you found your answer.
- Read each question – do you have enough information to answer it?
* Write the question type (1 or 2).
* Write your answer in a complete sentence.
* Write the page number where you found your answer.
- If NO: Move on to the next question.
4. Independent practice. Students independently continued the process of stopping, reading questions, and evaluating whether they had enough information to answer.
5. Conclusion. Answer a final comprehension “Think and Search” question on the entire passage (written on the board and answered on the back of the graphic organizer sheets). An example final question was, “How did Dogzilla ruin the cook-off?”
Each lesson in Phase I roughly followed this lesson pattern. Of course, Lesson 1 required longer instruction and guided practice time than the later Lessons. Also, different stories from the grade-level textbooks were used each time.
When I designed these lessons, I envisioned that they would increase the students’ awareness and familiarity with different evidence-based questions. I hypothesized that they would prompt the students to think more critically about the text and the questions, because this format had analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills built into it. I also had seen these lessons as a necessary foundation for getting the students to create their own evidence-based questions and participate in constructive dialogue with each other.
Assessment Plan
Throughout these interventions, I collected various forms of data to give me insight into student learning. These tools provided me with a more complete view of the effectiveness of the Phase I interventions in helping my students deepen their comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. The data was gathered through the following tools:
The goal of these lessons was to provide scaffolding for the students to practice higher-order thinking skills and help them achieve a deeper conceptual understanding of the reading and the questions. In monitoring the students’ progress, I looked for them to show that they understood what each question asked by answering it with appropriate information from the passage. A key component of this was their use of evidence (in the form of page numbers and/or examples) to support their responses. I assessed the effectiveness of my Phase I lessons based on the following criteria:
I anticipated Phase I to take approximately one month in the classroom. Table 1 shows the timeline I designed for the implementation of Phase I, as well as an estimate for Phase II.
5. Conclusion. Answer a final comprehension “Think and Search” question on the entire passage (written on the board and answered on the back of the graphic organizer sheets). An example final question was, “How did Dogzilla ruin the cook-off?”
Each lesson in Phase I roughly followed this lesson pattern. Of course, Lesson 1 required longer instruction and guided practice time than the later Lessons. Also, different stories from the grade-level textbooks were used each time.
When I designed these lessons, I envisioned that they would increase the students’ awareness and familiarity with different evidence-based questions. I hypothesized that they would prompt the students to think more critically about the text and the questions, because this format had analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills built into it. I also had seen these lessons as a necessary foundation for getting the students to create their own evidence-based questions and participate in constructive dialogue with each other.
Assessment Plan
Throughout these interventions, I collected various forms of data to give me insight into student learning. These tools provided me with a more complete view of the effectiveness of the Phase I interventions in helping my students deepen their comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. The data was gathered through the following tools:
- Graphic organizers. The graphic organizer sheets provided a vehicle for the QAR strategy because they integrated both question types: “Right There” (e.g., Who, What, Where, When) and “Think and Search” (e.g., How, Why). Therefore, the organizers were collected in order to gain insight into the students’ thought processes during the lesson.
- Final comprehension questions. Each final question was a more comprehensive “Think and Search” question on the entire passage that the students answered on the back of their graphic organizer sheets. These final questions allowed me to examine the level of their understanding by the end of each lesson.
- Exit surveys. At the end of each lesson, students were also asked to rank how helpful they found the lesson (scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest). This gave me a snapshot of each student’s reaction and informed me if there were students I needed to follow up with later.
- Teacher observation journal. I also kept a daily journal to record my anecdotal notes, observations, reflections, and any changes I made to the lessons. This journal supplemented the other tools by including notes about specific students’ strengths, needs, progress, etc. both during and after each lesson.
The goal of these lessons was to provide scaffolding for the students to practice higher-order thinking skills and help them achieve a deeper conceptual understanding of the reading and the questions. In monitoring the students’ progress, I looked for them to show that they understood what each question asked by answering it with appropriate information from the passage. A key component of this was their use of evidence (in the form of page numbers and/or examples) to support their responses. I assessed the effectiveness of my Phase I lessons based on the following criteria:
- Whether the student correctly identified the QAR question type for each question on the graphic organizer (either “Right There” or “Think and Search”) and indicated the type on the organizer.
- Whether the student provided an appropriate answer for each question. Answers were considered appropriate if they contained the correct information from the text or an answer was supported by an example from the text.
- Whether the student indicated evidence from the text for each answer by including the page number where they found the answer.
- Whether the student used proper writing conventions, including capitalization, complete sentences, and punctuation.
I anticipated Phase I to take approximately one month in the classroom. Table 1 shows the timeline I designed for the implementation of Phase I, as well as an estimate for Phase II.
Table 1: Tentative Timeline for Implementation
Week of Action
Nov. 18-22 Phase I, Lesson 1
Nov. 25-29 No lesson; two-day school week for holiday
Dec. 2-6 Phase I, Lesson 2
Dec. 9-13 Phase I, Lesson 3
Jan 6-24, 2014 Phase II (3 weeks)
Week of Action
Nov. 18-22 Phase I, Lesson 1
Nov. 25-29 No lesson; two-day school week for holiday
Dec. 2-6 Phase I, Lesson 2
Dec. 9-13 Phase I, Lesson 3
Jan 6-24, 2014 Phase II (3 weeks)