Teaching inquiry - Writing part 3

Hypothesis of Adjustments to Teaching

Reviewing the strengths and weaknesses stated in the table above, it is crucial to employ this information and fine-tune teaching and learning so it is receptive to the students profile. The following hypotheses are based on the information gathered from students assessments and will be used to modify teaching, learning and design programs as a “lethal mutations” (Lai, 2019 during lecture) to improve students writing outcome. 

Hypothesis:

1,# Knowing your learner

Considering what Jesson (2013) criticised that “knowing your learner” doesn’t end with their assessment achievements or test scores but cutting edge and triggering the ‘known’ to ‘connect’ to the unknown, acknowledging and utilising their expertise. Watson (2014) firm this hypothesis that “ teacher strategies were underpinned by knowing the learner. The involvement of the students was the catalyst to be engaged that boost the acceleration of the students achievement. According to the Guiding Principles of LEAP (http://pasifika.tki.org.nz/LEAP) knowing your learner would allow me as a teacher to help my students learn English as additional language so they can be explicit with their instructions, help my English Language Learners to work more effectively to enhance their learning to reach the expected level.

2# Using technology will improve engagement and the outcome will be raised.

Parr & Limbrick (2010) identified the expertise teachers of writing are to regularly reflect on the purpose of writing for a particular audience and expect the students to be involved too. “Pixton” will engage students in an authentic way where they can create their own characters and backgrounds where they will be enjoying creating stories about their own experience. They will be regulating their own topic which they are going to blog about when finished. 

#3 The use of technology and direct instruction will build on what the students know to enable them to produce better results or outcome.

As evidenced through the teacher and student interviews the students enjoy recount writing tasks where they can write about their own experiences. The use of technology, particularly word processing, can increase the length and quality of written texts, as well as the engagement of students (Lowther et al, 2012; Yang & Wu, 2012, cited in Jesson et al, 2018), in comparison with traditional instructional writing tasks (Jesson et al, 2018).

Description of the digital 

In response to utilise suitable digital tools “Pixton” (Appendix ) to robust the students writing achievements after the data analytic from assessments in regards to the strengths and weaknesses of the learners, and learning context embracing the hypotheses identified above. This program is designed to use this tool “Pixton” https://www.pixton.com/. It is created to incorporate collaboration through deliberate meaningful learning conversation driven by the learner, encouraging say more, tell with detail. After their conversational dialogue they can write their story using the traditional way. My class will plan, draft and re-craft using handwritten before publishing it using their chrome. Our school context is fortunate that we are one to one digital device and they have the opportunity to share their work with an authentic audience. Each and everyone of the students has their own blog where they can blog their work to show progression until the final piece. Their families, friends and other teachers can access it from anywhere in New Zealand or around the globe and can give them feedback which motivates them to write more. Students will be creating their stories and make it come alive using comics. 

Rationale for the Tool.

This tool will be successful because the students have used similar tool such as Explain Everything but the difference is that “Pixton” has paramount real characters, background and other crops you can employ to tell your story. It is a new way to write where you can turn your story into a comic book and I do understand that students embrace comics and have the freedom to create their character about anyone or anything. This program required direct instruction as well as using digital devices to accelerate their writing outcome. Watson (2014) believed that accelerated outcomes and progressing took place when students are involved and engaged. Watson (2014) also talks about taking into consideration students' interest, what they enjoyed and not forgetting the experiences that strike conversations that brighten their faces every day. Digital tools provide opportunities to accelerate learning by using the technological devices and activities together with the expertise and good practise of the teacher.

Teacher inquiry 2019 Term 1-2

Students background:

These three students are all English Language Learners, two of them are boys and they are strong with the first language: the third one is a girl who was born in New Zealand but her family have strong Cook Island and Samoan cultural backgrounds. 

The two boys are literate in their own first language which is Samoan and Filipino.

They are all struggling with their writing as evident in their work products and Asttle
achievements. Detailed analysis of their strengths and weaknesses structuring ideas before
writing was the catalyst.

All three students showed they have done poorly in all writing elements as displayed in the
table below according to the e- asttle writing rubric and writing samples (Appendix I1 and I2).
The table displayed the Strengths and Needs of these students doesn’t focus on one
element but all across.

Personal Learners’ Profile

 Through observations and interviews, these pupils have illustrated that they needed a lot of help

not only with the Writing Elements but also the Writing Process (Appendix J1, J2, J3).

Olinghouse, (2012), Gillespie al (2011) and Graham (2010); Andrews et al, 2009; Graham et al, 2011; Santangelo and Olinghouse, (20019) cited in Department of Education (2012) have clarified that writing process needed to be taught, all my students have identified (Appendix K) that they somehow know about it but there is a need for it to be taught. Daly, (2003); Ofsted, (2005) also agrees that the writing process needs to be taught explicitly such as planning, language topic selection, effective use of drafting and the use of structures. Through surveys and conversations, it is apparent there are things that clouded these students' understanding which they always relied on the teacher’s scaffolding strategies to help them step by step (Appendix K). Students have stated that they like writing but not at school, enjoyed writing about things that they have done or involved with especially with friends or schools.  Bruce Saddler, Susan Moran, Steve Graham & Karen R. Harris (2004) stated: “ good writing is not only hard work, it is also extremely complex and challenging mental task” (pg. 4).

Clark and Dudgale (2009); Clark (2012) cited in the Department of Education Research (2012) firm that theory by describing that a lot of students like writing but only for the family but not at school. These three students felt that writing is hard work (Appendix K)

because they don’t understand what to write, struggle to choose the appropriate language

to use or even follow the writing process.

During my observation student, E is always busy, settles really fast and starts working immediately
and the other two often take up to 5-10 minutes to start. Gilbert & Graham (2010) indicate that primary students in their study spent at least 25 minutes composing one paragraph while my threes will spend 60 minutes writing two incomplete sentences. Again Gilbert & Graham (2010)
recommend that we need to assign a significantly longer period of times for students to
accelerate writing. Brown, M., Morrell, J. & Rowlands, K. D. (2011) pointed out that students who have self-efficacy have confidence they are a good writer and those who are incompetent are less likely to participate. It is urgent to support and encourage students to stay focus during Asttle writing time because I often caught them finishing off tasks within 10-15 minutes which is not enough to produce a complex piece of writing which is expected of them. With student R and G, they would start writing and not for long they will stop, they always say “I know how do write in my own language and struggling to translate into English.” According to Si’ilata (2014), bilingual learners hear the word in English and immediately switch their thinking into Samoan to gain understanding. The lack of engagement and poor quality of output is hard, is seemingly increased because students are disengaged due to completing a task that has no relevance to them. In the Teaching Writing Across the Curriculum, it talks about the need to be purposeful and meaningful for the students’ context, the Education Research (2012) suggested to give opportunities for students to choose the topic they would like to write about and also explore the genre to use. The students also required more time to write, not just completing work. Surprisingly during feedback and feedforward with students, they came up with ideas of “what good writing habits” might look like in the classroom (Appendix L).

The guiding principles of LEAP suggested that bilingual learners learn best when they use their first language which gives them the confidence to complete their writing task (Appendix M).

The guiding principles of LEAP and Si’ilata (2014) believe for these students to be able to succeed at school they need to be able to understand the academic language and make it accessible for them in the classroom. 

Teaching inquiry Term 1-2 (2019)

The first two terms I have decided to focus my Teaching inquiry on my students writing. And this is what I have noticed.

Students learning profile and responsive learning design.

This study is focusing on the use of data triangulation (work products, assessments, and

observation) to build up a comprehensive students’ profile to help determine the design of

the tool that will have that domino effect on the three underachievers in Year 6 students in an

East Auckland primary school. These three underachieving Year 6 students required acceleration

in Writing because they are making very slow progress and are dropping further and further

behind their classmates. The use of formal, informal, formative, and summative assessment

outcomes confirm why these students need acceleration.

According to their Asttle levels, these students have been featured at 2B to 2P since last year.

E-Asttle writing assessment is one of the best tools because it is a diagnostic test that allows

national normative analogies of students' achievements nationally and gives a structure to

inspect and track students' progress in Writing (Parr, 2016). 2B is the curriculum expected level

by the end of Year 3 and 2P is the norm at the end of Year 4 and starting point for Year 5.

Although they are both 2P the mean score can differentiate each level. The mean score for Year

4 is 1421 whereas Year 5 is 1434. The e-Asttle Norms and Curriculum Expectation by Quarter

(Ministry of Education, 2013, n.d., Appendix A)

confirmed that the expected curriculum level at the fourth quarter for my Year 6 students is
3P and the mean score is 1509.  Two of my students were at level 2P at the end of 2018
where they scored 1426 which is equivalent to 2P, the Curriculum level at the end of year 4
and a starting point for year 5 but the third student scored 1468 which is the mean curriculum
level and expected outcome for the end of the third quarter for Year 5 (Appendix B2, B3,
B4 and B5). At the beginning of term 1 2019, one of the threes remain at level 2P with a score
of 1431 that equates to the curriculum level expected at the beginning of the first quarter for
Year 5 students, the second person started off the year by achieving level 2P (score 1431) which is also equal to the first person and the third student has scored 1362 and working at
the expected level at the end of Year 3 students.  This means my first two students who scored
1431 and worked at the curriculum level of the first quarter of the Year 5 students are 12
months trailing and the third person who accomplished level 2B is 27 months which is far
behind the expected achievement for these students.  According to the e-Asttle Norms and
Curriculum Expectation by Quarter (Ministry of Education, 2013, n.d., Appendix A) at this point
of time, these students are expected to be accomplishing level 3B and by the end of the last
quarter, the outcome should be level 3P with a score of 1509.  Consequently, there is a huge
gap of 149 for one of the pupils and the other two people have 78 points to achieve in order to
reach the National Norm. I have even gone through the blogs of the schools and compare their
writing and ours and noticed the differences. I didn’t know where to start so I utilize some
activities from ARBs (https://arbs.nzcer.org.nz/) to test and firm my hunches.   The first thing I
found is that their writing lacks detail, they will have some ideas but can not elaborate it and if
they have some elaboration it only to some extent (Appendix C1, C2, C3).

Referring to the Reading and Writing Standards (http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Archives/Assessment/Reading-and-writing-standards/The-standards/End-of-year-6) it pointed out that the demand of the curriculum for Year 6 students are expected to create more complex texts and demonstrated increased fluency and accuracy as it showed in (Appendix D).  I chose several activities from these formative assessments resources banks (https://arbs.nzcer.org.nz/) which validate the elements in writing which we need to focus on using describing words  in their sentences (Appendix E1, E2, E3), 

writing sentences that utilised speech marks and other punctuations that are needed ( Appendix F1, F2, F3, F4)

and the last part that I really needed them to work on was adding details which will teach them to elaborate their story but I didn’t find any satisfactory activity so I have decided to use an activity that was created by Jude Parks ( Appendix G1, G2, G3). 

These summative, OTJ’s, work products, student interviews, questionnaires, and observations Appendices H1 - H3) were vital tools to inform student profiles indicated by Glasswell and Parr (2009). ARB activities, Asttle outcomes showed on their individual learning pathways and students’
written achievement results are indications of the seriousness of acceleration.