Action Research Project
Introduction | Understandings | Methods | Instruments | Timeline | Findings | Implications | Final Reflection | References
The Beginning of a Test-Taking Nation
When the National Commission on Excellence in Education released their publication A Nation at Risk in 1983, teachers, administrators, and students found themselves under pressure to raise student achievement; the report vilified public schools for their poor performance and lack of academic growth. (Slavkin, 2003) The truth was unsettling, and the need for education reform had been raised. For 8 years, our country searched for answers to fill in gaps to help our students succeed, and in January of 2001, shortly after taking office, President Bush signed into legislation the No Child Left Behind Act. Paul Hill and James Harvey (2004) state that the movement around “systematic reform” emphasized the “alignment of standards, curriculum, assessments, textbooks, and materials, and teacher training” (p. 1). This movement and the NCLB legislation had brought about a change of educational practices none of which anyone would have ever anticipated.
The extreme pressures for teachers to raise test scores have pushed them to change their practices to address the high stakes assessments their students face at the end of every school year. Michael Slavkin (2003) has found that “in the past, U.S. schools have demonstrated student achievement through grades and performances on assignments, but states are increasingly moving toward a system of accountability that mandates high scores on state-mandated standardized tests as indicators of achievement” (p.24). It is within these systems that teachers have changed their methods to promote rote learning as to better prepare students to score well on tests. But regardless of the years of stagnant growth, the push for accountability through standardized test scores continues to be the method in which our public schools operates and focuses on.
A School under Pressure
One area that has seen major change due to the pressures of high-stakes accountability has been elementary education. More and more primary schools concentrate only on language arts and mathematical development. While these subjects are important and should take precedence, other subject areas have experienced serious neglect. In order to prepare ourselves for the California Standardized Test, my school has resorted to implementing a summative assessment program that is given every 6-8 weeks. Along with these tests, our students are also subjected to district mandated local measure writing samples, as well as end-of-the-year reading comprehension and mathematic assessments. One would think, with all these tests, that my district would stop there, but unfortunately that wasn’t the case. In the spring of 2010, a new assessment mirrored after the CSTs was released and given to students. This assessment paralleled the state wide test, question for question, standard for standard. Students in my class were given the 65 and 75 question tests twice, once in January and the other a few weeks before the actual CST. Teachers and students at my site are faced with a battery of assessments that are constantly on the minds of all parties, and the pressures to teach well and more importantly test well have become the focus at our school. Instead of connecting the learning to our students to promote ownership, we are showing them how to test well and regurgitate information, thus forcing our teachers to teach passively (Sacks, 1999) and promoting the development of student apathy for our public school system.
Because of our constant testing, students at my school are lacking authentic experiences with connecting their lives with the curriculum. They are turning into sponges, taught to only regurgitate information without conversing in thoughtful discussions of the “whys” and “what ifs” of learning. This lack of participation puts serious implications for our students and their lives beyond our school; they are only learning to let others [teachers] examine the issues of learning, and make the decision about those issues for them (Westerhhof & Weisner, 2004). Students need to be invited into the curriculum so that they will be able to process it for themselves to find connections and relevance to their own lives. Slavkin (2003) believes that “students who are in charge of their learning are more likely to make deeper connections with material. Although this is sound pedagogical practice, it is important for another reason: In changing their relationship with material, students also may be changing the way they think” (p.21). Exposing students to new ways of learning can yield great returns, not all of which can be assessed on a standards test. But once they start to make meaningful learning connections with material, students will be more willing to take risks and explore.
Promising Practices
One particular method to invite students to become part of their curriculum is through the engagement of shared inquiry through authentic dialogue. Inquiry in this case is beyond investigation and answering questions, it is a “sense making process” in which students discuss about a problem, an issue, or an experience (Jones & Yonezawa, 2002). Authentic Dialogue can be defined as: (1) all the participants’ experiences offer equally important lessons regardless of their status within the school (e.g., “low achiever”); (2) participants are open to hearing and learning from varying perspectives; and (3) participants’ assumptions are made explicit without criticism or ridicule (Yankelovich, 1999). Creating opportunities for authentic dialogue through conversations and discussions allows students to find their voices and practice becoming articulate speakers.
Many factors influence the reasons why students struggle with articulating their thoughts both in writing and speaking. One major factor is that our students are growing up in a technological world filled with gadgets and gizmos. Diana Coyl (2009) has found that the “increasing importance of media and technology in children’s lives affects social and communicative development” (p.405). Because children are exposed to and acquire electronic games, personal computers, and cell phones at such a young age (Coyl, 2009), they spend less time talking with others, and more time engrossed in the technology. Students whose second language is English also struggle with articulation, both in thought processes and spoken language. Through Linda Blair’s (1991) work with student voices and multicultural literature, she has found that:
Developing a fluent narrative voice is difficult for all students especially language-minority students whose fluency depends upon their ability to manipulate English, their second language. In order to write succinctly and to express a sense of “intimacy” (Rodriguez, 1983), students must become acquainted with their own voices and learn to mold them into various forms, depending upon the nature of the assignment (p.24).
As students discover the power of their voices, it is pertinent that teachers provide opportunities for them to practice articulating their thoughts through a variety of mediums. Blair (1991) has also found that when students narrate stories about personal and pressing issues, she better understands the “intricate link among personal experiences, reading, speaking, and writing” (p.28).
Voice, Confidence, and Ownership
One major struggle that students at my school experience is the lack of teacher and student confidence with voice and articulation. Not enough opportunities are given to our students to present their interpretations of their learning experiences. Once students start to believe in themselves, and teachers foster that belief, students will open up in ways that will surprise everyone. In researching small group discussions Douglas Barnes (1993) concluded that:
Children who have learned to value talk in their learning are more likely to explore beyond facts, into situations, causes, and consequences. [They] know more about the language in which knowledge is expressed;…have a greater repertoire of learning strategies;…have greater insight into the relationships among bits of information;…have a greater understanding of how they acquire knowledge;…have a better understanding of the possibility of multiple solutions to problems or questions;[and]…have a greater understanding of why they are working within a particular area of knowledge. (29)
Ownership of learning only strengthens the ability to speak and write about the learning experiences that are happening. As the student and teacher relationship evolve and take on a new role of shared practice and discussion, students find themselves in new areas of learning that will require them to participate in ways they are not used to. These “classroom communities of practice” will shift student-teacher roles where learning is understood to be “socially distributed” rather than as a process occurring within individuals (Moll, 1990).
Once this community is established within a classroom, and all participants understand the importance of shared learning, the focus shifts to the learners’ ability to communicate their understanding of content to each other. Engaging in conversations about learning, or academic discourse allow students to further take control of their learning, promoting a new sense of ownership. Graff and Birkenstein (2006) state that discourse can come in the forms of explanation, elaboration, evaluation, argument, and questions. Teaching students how to communicate using these forms with regards to their learning, allows teachers to turn into facilitators of learning rather than lecturers. Hyland (2009) states that the significance of academic discourse “lies in the fact that complex social activities like educating students, demonstrating learning, disseminating ideas and constructing knowledge, rely on language to accomplish.” Providing authentic practices in respectful academic conversation will allow students to change the way they experience learning, by gaining a deeper understanding and connection to content material.