Phase II: Findings
For both Lesson 1 and Lesson 2, I used the scored the students’ worksheets to help me determine how much the Phase II activities effected the students’ development of higher-order thinking skills and deeper comprehension. I charted the scores for comparison (Figures 21 and 22).
(Note: The number of students was reduced from 11 to 10; one student moved before Phase II began.)
(Note: The number of students was reduced from 11 to 10; one student moved before Phase II began.)
In order to have a more gain a more complete view of the effectiveness of Phase II, this data is best interpreted alongside my observation notes. Overall, the scores for Lesson 1 were pleasing, with seven of the students’ worksheets (70%) receiving a score of 3 or higher. Also, with the exception of the one who was pulled for tutoring, every student completed the activity, which was a major improvement over the results from Phase I.
The chart shows that Lesson 2 brought a slight improvement in the students’ scores: the average increased very slightly from 2.8 to 3, or 5% (Figure 22). No individual score went down, and two (20%) improved. However, in looking at my journal notes, most of the students had difficulty with the final comprehension question in this lesson. I believe there were three reasons for this. First, the passage was more challenging and placed a focus on the idea of anticipation, which was a word most of the students did not know. Even though we discussed the meaning of it and its use in the passage as a class before the comprehension question, a few students appeared to still be developing what it means to anticipate something. Second, the comprehension question that I gave them could have been worded better. Instead of using the phrase “What things can we know…”, it would have been clearer if I had asked, “What qualities does the narrator have…” or something similar. Last, there was very little time for the students to answer the final comprehension question due to the day’s schedule. Perhaps if they had had more time, they would have been able to provide examples from the text to support their answers.
In doing a comprehensive review of the data I collected in Phase II through student work, exit slips, and my own observation notes, I was able to identify two key findings.
Theme 1: Students benefitted from being allowed a structured discussion activity as part of the lesson. The partner discussion portion of both Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 was a high point for the students. Knowing that they would have a chance to discuss their ideas with a classmate – particularly one whom they had a say in picking – got them more excited for reading and writing their own questions. Perhaps this was due to the knowledge that they each had a real audience for their questions and answers, instead of simply having to answer questions for a teacher. Overall, they were more enthusiastic and invested in each lesson, they stayed focused during their independent work, and completed the work in both lessons.
Theme 2: Students’ responses to comprehension questions are effected by the phrasing of the question and the support provided. This became apparent to me in this phase when I compared the responses to the final comprehension questions between Lesson 1 and Lesson 2. In Lesson 1, the question (“What type of question do you think the narrator is? Why? Give examples from the story.”) was a little more specific as to what answer was expected. Additionally, I gave some verbal support and clarification to the class as a whole by providing examples of guiding questions (e.g., “In other words, do you think he is a nice person?”). Most of the students gave an accurate answer or were on the right track. However, in Lesson 2, the question was less specific (“What things can we know about the narrator? Give examples from the story.”) and I did not provide much verbal guidance. The resulting answers were only partially related to the question and nearly all lacked examples or evidence from the text.
The chart shows that Lesson 2 brought a slight improvement in the students’ scores: the average increased very slightly from 2.8 to 3, or 5% (Figure 22). No individual score went down, and two (20%) improved. However, in looking at my journal notes, most of the students had difficulty with the final comprehension question in this lesson. I believe there were three reasons for this. First, the passage was more challenging and placed a focus on the idea of anticipation, which was a word most of the students did not know. Even though we discussed the meaning of it and its use in the passage as a class before the comprehension question, a few students appeared to still be developing what it means to anticipate something. Second, the comprehension question that I gave them could have been worded better. Instead of using the phrase “What things can we know…”, it would have been clearer if I had asked, “What qualities does the narrator have…” or something similar. Last, there was very little time for the students to answer the final comprehension question due to the day’s schedule. Perhaps if they had had more time, they would have been able to provide examples from the text to support their answers.
In doing a comprehensive review of the data I collected in Phase II through student work, exit slips, and my own observation notes, I was able to identify two key findings.
Theme 1: Students benefitted from being allowed a structured discussion activity as part of the lesson. The partner discussion portion of both Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 was a high point for the students. Knowing that they would have a chance to discuss their ideas with a classmate – particularly one whom they had a say in picking – got them more excited for reading and writing their own questions. Perhaps this was due to the knowledge that they each had a real audience for their questions and answers, instead of simply having to answer questions for a teacher. Overall, they were more enthusiastic and invested in each lesson, they stayed focused during their independent work, and completed the work in both lessons.
Theme 2: Students’ responses to comprehension questions are effected by the phrasing of the question and the support provided. This became apparent to me in this phase when I compared the responses to the final comprehension questions between Lesson 1 and Lesson 2. In Lesson 1, the question (“What type of question do you think the narrator is? Why? Give examples from the story.”) was a little more specific as to what answer was expected. Additionally, I gave some verbal support and clarification to the class as a whole by providing examples of guiding questions (e.g., “In other words, do you think he is a nice person?”). Most of the students gave an accurate answer or were on the right track. However, in Lesson 2, the question was less specific (“What things can we know about the narrator? Give examples from the story.”) and I did not provide much verbal guidance. The resulting answers were only partially related to the question and nearly all lacked examples or evidence from the text.