Assignment #2: Action Research on Instruction

by Ewing Coleman Green EDD 8113 CRN 30118 Instructional Leadership

Nova Southeastern University March 28, 2014

  2

Action Research on Instruction

This paper is to discuss the author’s work with colleagues investigating an instructional

model and the impact it had on teachers as well as student achievement. The assignment required

choosing a model from Bennett and Rolheiser (2008) and the author chose Complexity of

Thinking, also referred to as Levels of Thinking. This choice sets the stage for subsequent work

the author plans to do in the course for Assignment 6, 7, and 8 on Cooperative Learning and

Assignments 9, 10, and 11 on Framing of Questions. These topics weave a fabric of greater

understanding for the author in these instructional strategies.

Bennett and Rolheiser (2008) suggested that students benefit from active engagement in

the learning process. Among the methods of invoking active participation, Bennett and Rolheiser

(2008) stated, is “engaging students at appropriate levels of difficulty” (p. 56). Therefore, by

involving students in intentional levels of thinking teachers can help students construct meaning

and relevancy.

Following is a paper composed of six sections addressing the author’s work with

colleagues on employing levels of thinking with students. The sections included are the case for

levels of thinking, colleague involvement, participant notes, teacher impact, student

achievement, and conclusion.

The Case for Levels of Thinking

The author is a Grade 8 mathematics teacher and learning community (LC) leader at an

international school in China, which shall be called the International School of China (ISC). His

LC team is comprised of six teachers: mathematics, language arts, social studies, science, EAL,

and orchestra. ISC recently completed a strategic plan update and created a new school mission,

which, in part, calls for the school to engage students in learning that will better prepare them for

  3

21st century workforce requirements. A derivative effort by school administrators resulted in

Project NOW, and a wheel was created to capture key elements of this vision. The wheel, shown

in Appendix A, includes the following two components: critical thinking as a 21st century skill

(middle ring), and project, problem, or inquiry-based engagements in the learning environment

(outer ring). The author’s choice of levels of thinking in this assignment is clearly aligned with

Project NOW.

Furthermore, the author’s learning community is presently implementing a problem-

based learning (PBL) initiative between Social Studies and Science classes. There are four issues

central to the learning engagements over the next four weeks and the curriculum is being

integrated with students choosing one issue to delve into and being placed in focus groups

accordingly.

Therefore, this PBL initiative offered an ideal setting, supported by ISC Project NOW, to

work with colleagues on levels of thinking for this assignment. In addition, two other colleagues

worked with the author on this assignment as detailed below.

Colleague Involvement

Upon deciding on levels of thinking as the model to be investigated in this assignment,

the author first considered which academic areas he wanted to encompass. After considering an

all-mathematics approach he decided on to include as many disciplines as possible so his

learning was maximized, and include English as an Additional Language (EAL), if possible,

since the school where the author will be teaching next year has a higher EAL student

population. This led to choosing the social studies, science, and EAL teachers on his learning

community team plus his mathematics teaching partner, creating a total of four colleagues.

  4

The author asked all four colleagues if they would like to work with him on an

instructional leadership action research project and all said they would. The author then set up

meetings with each colleague and reviewed with each a colleague overview sheet that described

the work to be done. The colleague overview sheet is shown in Appendix B. He also ran copies

of relevant sections of Bennett and Rolheiser (2008), creating a packet of reading for each

colleague. The packet included pages 62 and 72-81 on levels of thinking and pages 57-61 on

framing questions.

Upon reviewing the overview sheet with both the social studies and science teachers the

PBL opportunity quickly emerged and was the focal point. The social studies teacher, Mr. S.,

reviewed the University of Delaware (n.d.) PBL model and it is included in Appendix C. The

author reviewed the Bennett and Rolheiser (2008) reading packet and all parties agreed to get

together in the next week to go over key insights together on employing the instructional model

and to finalize lesson plans that the author could then subsequently observe for Assignment 3.

For the EAL teacher, two options were discussed after reviewing the overview sheet and

Bennett and Rolheiser (2008) packet. One was working with her EAL students within the PBL

arena and the other was in the context of normal EAL instruction within the language arts

setting. For mathematics, after reviewing both the overview sheet and packet the author and his

subject partner quickly recognized that the fourth claim from the Smarter Balanced Assessment

Consortium (n.d.), used in the upcoming shift to Common Core-based standards, represented a

great opportunity for pursuing action research consistent with Project NOW. For both of these

colleagues, and similar to the social studies and science teachers, all parties agreed to get

together in the next week to discuss next steps in implementing the instructional model and

finalizing lesson plans that could be observed shortly thereafter.

  5

With the four colleagues agreeing to participate, and a clear direction established with

each, the work began. Follow-up sessions were held to construct lesson plans and how best to

utilize the levels of thinking model in colleague teaching. Over the next four weeks, the author

engaged with the four colleagues as agreed upon. He arranged substitute teacher coverage for his

mathematics classes so that he could observe colleague classes and he held follow-up discussions

with colleagues. The observations, feedback, and impact on teacher efficacy are components to

be addressed in the next assignment, Assignment 3, and shall therefore not be addressed her.

Following is a discussion of how the action research ensued across each area.

PBL in Social Studies and Science

As described above, the author and the social studies and science teachers collaborated on

an interdisciplinary PBL model where students investigated four global issues (water, energy,

genomics, and living natural resources). The social studies and science teachers included Bennett

and Rolheiser’s (2008) levels of thinking material in the design of learning engagements using

the University of Delaware (n.d.) PBL process as shown in Appendix C. In discussing the

potential fit for this learning engagement with the author’s action research investigation the

social studies teacher suggested the author visit the University of Delaware (n.d.) website, which

states that, “Problem based learning (PBL) is an instructional approach where students learn by

solving challenging, open-ended problems. The problems are authentic tasks and are solved in

socially and contextually based teams of students” and that through the exploration of issues

“students are expected to examine gaps in their own knowledge and skills in order to decide what

information they need to acquire in order to resolve or manage” the problem situation. Upon

reading this and further reflecting, it was clear to the author that the PBL engagement was ideal

for Assignments 2 and 3.

  6

Over the next four weeks the daily class schedule was modified allowing students the

opportunity to blend their social studies and science class time blocks, thereby generating the

availability of both the social studies and science teachers to work with students in cross-

disciplinary fashion. Having held the necessary planning meetings as outlined above, the author

performed colleague class observations, held follow-up sessions with each colleague, and asked

for their feedback on the process. Colleagues were asked for their feedback on the impact that

the model had on their teaching and on student achievement.

English as an Additional Language

The author met with the EAL teacher on his LC team to identify the best way to address

collaborative engagement on levels of thinking from an EAL perspective. They quickly

identified that the PBL initiative is an excellent opportunity to focus on since she, Ms. E., works

with the LC’s EAL students involved in the science-social studies interdisciplinary PBL model

described above. Her daily focus in working with students is supporting student language literacy

development which is an important component to PBL outcomes since much of the research, as

well as problem solution construction, involves relatively complex command of written

language. This serves to double benefits to the author since this addresses the need to collaborate

with colleagues on an instructional strategy, levels of thinking, on Assignments 2 and 3, plus

further develop his competence in addressing learning needs specifically for EAL learners who

comprise a higher proportion of the student population at his school next year.

Furthermore, the author had previously shared with the EAL teacher an applied

dissertation by a doctoral cohort member that was relevant to both her daily work and the

author’s Assignments 2 and 3. McCoy (2014) found five themes in her phenomenological study

involving EAL teachers from K-12. The themes were that the increase in the EAL student

  7

population was a challenge for teachers, student motivation and attitude impact their language

acquisition, students struggle in their acquisition of English and feel frustration and

embarrassment, collaborating with a teaching colleague improves teaching and differentiation,

and the best strategies for working with EAL students involve sound everyday teaching practice.

Relative to good teaching practice, McCoy (2014) reported that, “visual input, repetition,

differentiation, scaffolding, intentional pairings, and preteaching vocabulary were named by

teachers as ways that they meet their students‘ learning needs” (p. 111). Her findings of multi-

sensory approaches and the importance of early command of vocabulary are consistent with

Marzano (2013). The author and the EAL teacher discussed these findings which further

informed their collaborative work on Assignments 2 and 3.

Similar to the process used with Science and Social Studies teachers on the PBL model as

described above, having held the necessary planning meetings the author performed class

observations with the EAL teacher, held follow-up sessions with her, and asked her for feedback

on the process. The EAL teacher was also asked for feedback on the impact that the model had

on her teaching and on student achievement.

Mathematics

As mentioned above the author and his subject partner met to discuss the best way to

engage in levels of thinking action research. They agreed that the fourth claim from the Smarter

Balanced Assessment Consortium (n.d.), used in the upcoming shift to Common Core-based

standards, represented a great opportunity. Upon considering the upcoming curriculum they

determined that an authentic project that they had discussed doing this year, involving the

construction of a parabolic cooker building on student understanding of quadratic functions,

  8

represented an ideal scenario. However, the timing of this project is later than the course

requirements, so they decided to focus on the current curriculum, descriptive statistics.

With the flexibility of an independent school, and the shift toward embracing the positive

aspects of Common Core standards this year, the partners have increasingly embedded real-

world application of mathematics. The study of descriptive statistics, with its many uses in the

real world to quantify relationships, is replete with opportunities to engage levels of thinking.

The partners discussed the Bennett and Rolheiser (2008) packet and designed together the

upcoming lesson plans that incorporated levels of thinking.

Participant Notes

As mentioned above, when the author met with the four colleagues and reviewed the

Overview, as shown in Appendix B, he verbally discussed the need for participant feedback.

Having carried out the action research as detailed above, the author met with all participants for

verbal debrief sessions and during those chats he noted that he would send emails to each

requesting written feedback on the process capturing their thoughts on teacher impact and

student achievement.

The author emailed each colleague and received replies from all four. The return email

headers are provided in Appendix D as evidence of completion. In order to ensure confidentiality

the names of each participant are blocked out with the pseudonyms for each, as used above, hand

written. The email content has been saved and not included here for the same deidentification

reasons.

The content of the four colleague emails were used to craft the following sections. The

author looked for both individual perspectives of the colleagues as well as themes that may have

emerged across the action research.

  9

Teacher Impact

Upon reading the participant notes it is clear that each believed the action research they

engaged in was beneficial to them as educators. Mr. S., the Social Studies teacher, wrote, “I have

used the levels of taxonomy to help push students up the ladder of thought in order to foster

higher levels of thinking.” He also wrote, “the synthesis of new ideas is the highest level of

Bloom’s and our goal is (to) push students towards this state of mind, without ignoring the steps

it takes to get there.”

Ms. S., the Science teacher, wrote,

I strive for engagement of the mind on a deeper and more meaningful level and seek to forge a link between concepts discovered and the student’s own scientific world and their life experiences. I believe an emotional connection is the key to developing an understanding that allows for further higher level thinking of the application, evaluation, analysis, and synthesis kind.

Ms. E., the EAL teacher, stated that she “referenced Beyond Monet to help with scaffolding the

levels of thinking and questioning” and found that when conducting research steps students

discovered that “they must ask good questions to begin with, as the questions drive the research.”

Mr. M., the mathematics teacher wrote, “Careful framing of questions has an effect on student

participation as all students are prepared to respond to questions rather than just the vocal,

confident students in the class.”

These are statements of strong evidence, from all four participants, of the positive impact

that a focus on levels of thinking can have. Threaded throughout these sentiments is a prevailing

understanding that teachers can influence deeper student understanding through the intentional

use of questioning which prompts scaffolded levels of thinking.

  10

Student Achievement

Given the timing and duration of this action research and the absence of multiple

quantitative student assessments across the academic courses involved it was not possible to

conduct a pre-post investigation using levels of thinking as an intervention. Therefore, the author

relied on teacher anecdotal perspectives to gauge the impact that working with levels of thinking

had on student achievement. The statements below suggest that teachers believe the model

positively impacts student achievement.

Mr. S. related in his closing sentence that, “We have now begun to get students to use the

verbiage of levels of questioning so that they are metacognitive of the questioning process and

how it impacts their learning.” Ms. S., wrote, “It is clear to see that students are alert and

interested when the questioning is challenging, thought provoking and varied. Student

achievement is high and their motivation to explore and know more is strong.” In addition, she

related, “When students start to ask YOU questions, challenging ones even, about their own

scientific reading and their own scientific world observations, you know they are ‘hooked.’”

Mr. M., the mathematics teacher wrote, “Another strategy that impacted student

achievement was the use of authentic problems, which motivated students by improving the

interest in the outcome of the problem.” He also stated that, “The scaffolding of questions also

helps to deepen the understanding of student thinking and knowledge. Using the levels of

Bloom’s taxonomy in this scaffolding further enhances student achievement.”

It is clear from these statements that all four colleagues believe that student achievement

is positively impacted by engaging in a broad bandwidth of levels of thinking. They each shared

that when teachers intentionally deploy questioning strategies student understanding is deepened.

  11

It can be inferred, then, that if the subsequent assessments measure this understanding that

student achievement should benefit.

Conclusion

This assignment led the author deep into the world of levels of thinking as an

instructional model. The method for doing so was the engagement of four colleagues on the

author’s learning community team, representing four different academic areas (Social Studies,

Science, English as an Additional Language, and Mathematics).

The timing of this endeavor was fortuitous since the Social Studies and Science teachers

had just begun an inter-disciplinary unit using a Problem-Based Learning platform on four global

issues (water, energy, genomics, and living natural resources). Therefore, the author was able to

engage with these two colleagues in a meaningful way, augmenting a process already focused on

higher-order thinking. The EAL teacher’s role also flexes into supporting the PBL initiative so

this also worked out extremely well. Finally, the author’s mathematics subject partner was a

natural choice and the shift toward integrating deeper understanding through Common Core

curriculum enhancements served so support higher level thinking as well.

As shared in detail above, results of these engagements were quite positive. All four

colleagues reported benefits to themselves and to students by using the levels of thinking model.

The action research on instruction captured in this paper will be extended in the next paper,

Assignment 3, where the author will document classroom observations of all four colleagues and

the impact that using the model had on teacher efficacy.

  12

References

Bennett, B., & Rolheiser, C. (2008). Beyond Monet: The artful science of instructional integration. Bookation Inc.: Toronto, Ontario.

Marzano, R. (2013). Planning for what students don't know. Educational Leadership, 71(3), 80-

81. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/ ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8985b048-bc5a-41e5-ad94-aa23a2c123fa%40 sessionmgr4005&vid=5&hid=4107

McCoy, M. (2014). Teachers‘ experiences with English language learners‘ acquisition of academic

literacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort-Lauderdale-Davie, FL.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (n.d.). Claims for the Mathematics Summative

Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Smarter-Balanced-Mathematics-Claims.pdf

University of Delaware. (n.d.). Problem-Based Learning. Retrieved http://www.udel.edu/inst/

  13

Appendix A

ISC Project NOW wheel

  14

ISC Project NOW wheel

  15

Appendix B

Colleague Overview

  16

Colleague Overview

  17

Appendix C

Problem-Based Learning Model

  18

Problem-Based Learning Model

  19

Appendix D

Evidence of Participant Notes

  20

Evidence of Participant Notes