Cycle 1 Data
AR Focus Statement
I propose using Web 2.0 tools to increase non-fiction reading comprehension skills in 7th grade students.
Identified Problem and Solution
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) requires students in Grades 4 through 12 to make adequate yearly progress toward meeting state reading standards. In my middle school, this is not occurring. Students are not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on our state’s yearly assessment tool. In addition, the Reading First provision of NCLB dictates that students who are not making adequate progress in the middle-school years be offered research-based interventions to accelerate their learning. To contribute to a solution that helps students make AYP in reading, I want to use a variety of web applications and tools that will motivate and engage my 7th grade students to read more non-fiction and understand what they have read.
Target Audience
My target audience was 78 7th grade students in a rural middle school in Northeast Missouri. The age range was 12-15 years old. With two universities and several factories in the area, our student popular tends to be on the high functioning or low functioning ends, with just a small percentage in the middle. The universities and factories also cause our student population to be transient.
Summary of Cycle 1
Before beginning my implementation, I made sure that my 7th graders were familiar with and comfortable using the Edmodo website, which they were introduced to at the beginning of the semester. I began the implementation by introducing them to RSS Feeds. First, we watched a 2 minute YouTube video about RSS Feeds and how they work. This was followed by a short lesson on how to identify them in Edmodo, and it ended with students picking an article to read. I also had them create a Popplet.com account and a WikiSpace account. Before starting, the students took a pre-test on a non-fiction piece. I followed this with a short video that I put together that visually conveyed what they would be doing.
I implemented this project over an 8-week period, but it was not done on consecutive days, as there were days in between activities. The technology utilized in Cycle 1 was a classroom management website, http://www.Edmodo.com, the brainstorming/organizational website http://www.Popplet.com, and the wiki page creater site http://www.wikispaces.com. The project was broken into three parts: 1) Reading RSS Feeds in Edmodo, 2) Creating brainstorms in Popplet, and 3) Creating a WikiSpace Page.
The first activity students performed was to check their Edmodo account for the RSS feed that I choose for them to read and to read the article on their own. Together, as a class, we went to www.popplet.com and the students logged in to their accounts. I modeled on the board how to create a Popplet with a main idea and 3 supporting details while students gave me their opinions about what to include. This activity took one 45-minute class period
The next step for the students was to read a second RSS Feed, also chosen by me. To make it easier for our first discussion, I made this one the same for everyone. After reading the article, the students had three tasks to complete: 1) Go to Edmodo and post a comment about the article (what they liked or disliked about the article and what they found most interesting). 2) Return to Popplet and create a main idea brainstorm individually, using the Popplet we did in class as an example. Include the main idea of the article along with three supporting details. 3) After the Popplet is complete, post a link on Edmodo to share with your classmates. I then asked the students to view one other Popplet and post a comment in Edmodo under that Poppet’s link. I asked the students if they thought the main idea was correct, if there were three supporting details, and if the supporting details supported the main idea.
The next step was to read a third RSS Feed article, this time of the student’s choice. Since this topic was going to be used for their Wiki page, I want them to be happy with it. The students followed the same three steps above before beginning the last task, which was creating a WikiSpace page.
Before starting the WikiSpace page, the students watched a YouTube video tutorial. This was final task for this project. The students researched their topic using three Internet resources. One resource was to be a journal or peer-reviewed article, but the other two could be their choice (including Wikipedia). The students also added multimedia to their page in the form of video, pictures, or flash animations. Students were free to find pictures or videos or to create their own. After the students were done with their WikiSpace Page, they posted a link on Edmodo. Students were asked to explore other pages and comment. After all was done, the students took the post test.
Overall, I believe the implementation process was successful. Most of my students were excited and engaged throughout most of my action research project. My timeline went as planned for cycle 1, except that I had to extend it a week to allow more time for students to finish their WikiSpace page.
Data Report
I started the semester with a 10-question survey. There were 78 total responses. Highlights of the survey are as follows:
Out of students surveyed, 32.2% said they had at least 2 working computers in their home. I was surprised to find that only 9% of my students did not have a computer in their home. I asked the students how fast they thought their Internet connection was, and 45.7% selected “not too fast, but I can’t take a bathroom break either” as their answer, which is not surprising since we live in a rural community. Thirty-five percent said they use the computer equally between school work, gaming and socializing, and to my surprise they spend most of their time watching videos on sites like YouTube, Google Video, or other (25.7%), over chatting on Facebook (18.8%). It was no surprise that in this age, students automatically turn to the Internet to find information over books, and 74.8% responded “Yep,it sure is…where else would I go?”
I asked the students if they thought “using the Web was a lonely, unsocial activity” and an overwhelming 55.8% said that this statement was “sort of true. I dont’ really talk to or interact with anyone when I am on the Internet.” However, 40.7% said that the Internet improved their connection with friends, classmates, and extended family.
I also asked the students to agree or disagree with several statements relating to my computer technology class compared to last year. The majority of students agreed that there is more collaboration (55.8%), that they were more engaged (60%), and that they are learning more (54.2%). To follow this up, I asked if they thought I was effectively teaching them how to navigate the Internet with ease, and 55.8% answered “You bet, I am learning how to get around the computer and Internet a whole lot better, and I am learning about really cool websites that I can use on my own. Thanks, Mrs. K!” However, I found that 36.0% answered “Sort of. I am no longer completely lost when trying to get around my computer and the Internet. I think that, in time, this class will help me.” This tells me I need to focus on that third of the population who may be struggling with computer and Internet usage, because this may become a stumbling block to successful learning.
My last question was more of a just-for-fun question, but I was somewhat curious about their die-hard needs to be continuously connected. I asked them to rank their morning routine in chronological order from a list of options. Not surprisingly, the most popular answer was: “When I get up in the morning I check email on computer and respond.” Coming in second was “check messages on phone and respond,” followed by “eat breakfast”, “brush teeth,” and ‘get dressed,” followed by the ever so important, “go to the bathroom.”
The pre and post tests that the students took during Cycle 1 contained five multiple choice or fill in the blank questions and one constructed response. I was looking for students who scored a 70% or above. I divided my students into five groups which coincide with the five ability levels used in our state-wide assessment.
I originally had 78 students in my research group, but two are considered “MAP A,” which means they are lower functioning, special-education students that do not take the state-wide assessment test; therefore, I had 76 working subjects. I had six students in the Below Basic group. Only one of these students scored a 70% or higher on the pretest, and two of them scored 70% or higher on the post test. In the Basic student group, I had 11 students, but only four of them scored 70% or higher on the pre test. On the post test, that number raised to nine. In my largest group, Proficient, I had 32 students. This is also the group that had the greatest number of students who increased their scores. Fourteen scored a 70% or better on the pre test, and 12 more joined that group on the post test for a total of 26. I also have a large advanced group of 27 students, and I wasn’t surprised that the majority of them, 24, scored 70% or higher on the pre test. On the post test for this group, all 27 scored 70% or above.
Overall, 56.6% of the 76 students scored a 70% or higher on the pre test. I had a 27.6% increase on the post test, with 84.2% of the 76 students scoring 70% or higher.
Insights
My data showed that my Action Research project was successful. I had an overall increase in students who increased their non-fiction reading comprehension. Although my data focuses solely on using Web 2.0 tools to increase reading comprehension, I believe that other factors, such as motivation and engagement, may also have contributed to the increase in reading comprehension, which is in-line with my literature review. According to Drexler (2010), student motivation increased because students choose their subject. In my AR research, I allowed students to choose their subject for their main project, and all but 2 students turned in a final WikiSpace page.
Surprises
There were no real surprises during the implementation. The only big change I had to make was to allow more time for the students to complete their WikiSpace pages. I am not sure whether it was due to a larger than expected learning curve on the students’ end or whether they just put more time and effort into their pages. Overall, I had 89% of the students say they really liked the project, and 7% said it was okay. The last 4% are the same students I have struggled with all semester trying to get hooked on the project. Not coincidentally, the students who said they did not like the project were the same students who show up multiple times on our school’s D and F list.
Future Development
I have already begun implementation of Cycle 2, and I did make changes – mostly due to the familiarity of the RSS feeds and Popplet. In addition, for Cycle 2, I am having the students play hidden object games instead of creating a WikiSpace page. They will play the games for 15 minutes then immediately read an article, post, and comment. I will repeat this process as many times as I can for Cycle 2.
Evaluate and Reflect
The only adjustment I made to my timeline for Cycle 1 was to give the students an additional week to create their WikiSpace page. Having evaluated Cycle 1 data and results, I am pleased with the outcome. Looking at the data, my biggest increase was in my proficient level students, followed by the basic level students. There was only one additional below basic student that scored above a 70% on the post-test. In the big picture, this is a small increase, yet it still tells me I need to find another approach to help these students understand the content they are reading. Yet, on the other hand, seeing even one of these lower-functioning students raise their score is still a huge deal.
I am looking forward to Cycle 2 because I am going to have the students play hidden object games before doing the reading.
Stacey Kramer 