I
used High Tech High teacher-researcher Juli Ruff’s (2010) action research
framework as a guide for my own research.The proceeding table illustrates the general structure I followed in
establishing a community that would collectively decide what elements make up
good work and would then help each other in their production of it.The class activities all students engaged in
are in bold, and then below I describe the data I collected during each type
activity and how I analyzed it.My
research documents two of the critique cycles my students experienced in the
first four months of the school year.
In introducing the
model critique strategy to students, I explained to them that this year we were
going to look at exemplars of beautiful work and generate the criteria for what
made it so, so that we could better understand how to craft our own pieces of
beautiful work.The criteria they
generated became the rubric by which they measured their own work and each
other’s.Creating the criteria as a community
of learners, with me acting as a facilitator, created the semblance of an
executive boardroom coming up with a plan.
During the model critique process, when students analyzed
an exemplar, they looked at a student’s or professional’s work who they did not
know.However, as the critique process
evolved and after first drafts were completed, class members elected to
participate in model critiques using their own work.This became essential and especially helpful
in modeling how to give helpful and specific feedback, a skill my students had
very limited experience doing.
Exit cards and surveys given to the whole class throughout
the drafting, critique and revision process helped me gauge students’
perceptions about comfort level, model critique, peer critique and the quality
of feedback they were receiving.Because
giving feedback was a novel practice to most of my students, this became an
area in which I particularly wanted more information.The exit cards and surveys also gave me
information about what was and wasn’t working so that I could adapt my lesson
plans to fit the needs of my students.You can find examples of these in Appendices A through C.
Student work was another form of data collection that I
relied on heavily.Of the thirty-four
students in my humanities core, twelve returned the action research consent
form.I collected drafts of all twelve
students work and after the second critique cycle I chose five focus students
from a range of abilities to hone in on for my action research.When I collected student work, I collected
all drafts leading up to the final product.Feedback from peer-critique sessions were written on these drafts and
would give me a lens through which I could examine students’ thoughts,
decisions and progress in creating good work.
Data Analysis
Survey data was kept in a three ring binder and organized
by student.Closed-ended survey
questions were tallied and stored on Excel spreadsheets.For open-ended questions I coded for
positive, negative and neutral responses and also recorded comments that struck
me in my inquiry journal.I asked that
students include their names on all surveys so that I could track students’
thoughts and feelings over time about the relevancy of curriculum, the critique
process, collaboration, and our class culture.
Student work was also kept in the three ring binder. I compared drafts of work following whole
class and peer critique and referred to students exit cards and reflections to
help me gain insight into changes that had been made.