Phase II: Reflections
In reflecting on Phase II, I found that the lessons went more smoothly and the students were much more engaged than in Phase I. While it was still not the ideal solution to addressing all of their comprehension challenges, Phase II revealed more about my students’ needs, including what they appreciated and what made their learning more difficult. It appeared that having peer discussion was beneficial and capitalized on their natural tendency to be social. However, a simple structure, clear expectations, and a careful arrangement of student team were necessary to make the discussions helpful for the students. Additionally, I would need to consider how to boost the effectiveness of the discussions in order to get the students to show continued improvement in their written responses.
Planning for Phase III
After finding mixed success with Phase II, I developed a Phase III plan that would hone in on the specific strengths and struggles of the students in terms of their comprehension. Phase III was not implemented in this project, but creating an action plan was useful for my personal learning as well as for possible future projects. Phase III would keep the student-led dialogues of Phase II, but give more attention to helping the students apply in writing the ideas they developed during the dialogues. While it would be good for the students to continue to improve their critical thinking skills in talking with their peers, I want them to become stronger in verbalizing the conclusions they reach clearly on paper. In this way, I could keep the partner discussions, but only use them as a step to help the students reach the deeper levels of thinking and comprehension.
Unlike Phases I and II, Phase III would consist of more lessons, perhaps five to six. I think the repeated practice that did not fit in the timeline for Phase II actually had an impact on the students’ ability to develop strong questions and responses. By allowing for more time – and therefore, more feedback – the lessons would likely be more effective.
The lessons themselves would also be structured differently. First, I would allow for a longer lesson time than what was available in Phases I and II. Also, instead of selecting a new reading each time, I would select two or three readings that could incorporate both “Right There” and “Think & Search” questions to focus on. As a class, we would read the passage and answer comprehension questions together. This would allow me to provide more support to the students by modeling the thought process that I use when working to understand a text. Then, students would work individually or in pairs to write their own questions based on the text, as they did in Phase II. We would use these questions to have a whole-class discussion about the passage, including what types of questions were given, what information best answers them, and how we could develop deeper questions and ideas from the reading. This format would enable me as the teacher to actually model the process for the students, instead of only giving them guidance. I could also provide specific comprehension strategies and provide guided practice in applying those strategies appropriately. At the end of the lesson, I would pose a comprehension question to the students for them to answer individually. However, I would allow for a short discussion of it beforehand to guide them and give them confidence in responding without actually giving them the answer.
To assess the students’ progress throughout this phase, I would collect (1) the student-generated questions and talking points, (2) the students’ answers to the final comprehension question, and (3) my own observation notes of student participation and discussion. These tools will allow me to monitor their growth throughout and identify areas that need to be changed or strengthened earlier on than in the previous phases.
Planning for Phase III
After finding mixed success with Phase II, I developed a Phase III plan that would hone in on the specific strengths and struggles of the students in terms of their comprehension. Phase III was not implemented in this project, but creating an action plan was useful for my personal learning as well as for possible future projects. Phase III would keep the student-led dialogues of Phase II, but give more attention to helping the students apply in writing the ideas they developed during the dialogues. While it would be good for the students to continue to improve their critical thinking skills in talking with their peers, I want them to become stronger in verbalizing the conclusions they reach clearly on paper. In this way, I could keep the partner discussions, but only use them as a step to help the students reach the deeper levels of thinking and comprehension.
Unlike Phases I and II, Phase III would consist of more lessons, perhaps five to six. I think the repeated practice that did not fit in the timeline for Phase II actually had an impact on the students’ ability to develop strong questions and responses. By allowing for more time – and therefore, more feedback – the lessons would likely be more effective.
The lessons themselves would also be structured differently. First, I would allow for a longer lesson time than what was available in Phases I and II. Also, instead of selecting a new reading each time, I would select two or three readings that could incorporate both “Right There” and “Think & Search” questions to focus on. As a class, we would read the passage and answer comprehension questions together. This would allow me to provide more support to the students by modeling the thought process that I use when working to understand a text. Then, students would work individually or in pairs to write their own questions based on the text, as they did in Phase II. We would use these questions to have a whole-class discussion about the passage, including what types of questions were given, what information best answers them, and how we could develop deeper questions and ideas from the reading. This format would enable me as the teacher to actually model the process for the students, instead of only giving them guidance. I could also provide specific comprehension strategies and provide guided practice in applying those strategies appropriately. At the end of the lesson, I would pose a comprehension question to the students for them to answer individually. However, I would allow for a short discussion of it beforehand to guide them and give them confidence in responding without actually giving them the answer.
To assess the students’ progress throughout this phase, I would collect (1) the student-generated questions and talking points, (2) the students’ answers to the final comprehension question, and (3) my own observation notes of student participation and discussion. These tools will allow me to monitor their growth throughout and identify areas that need to be changed or strengthened earlier on than in the previous phases.