Conclusion
All in all, the data demonstrates the role of genius hour projects in the development of upper elementary students’ research skills. Data shows that research skills, such as categorizing sources and digital note taking increase when students conducted genius hour projects. From phase 1, data demonstrates that time was a paramount issue in the development of research skills. The length of a genius hour project and each of its phases can hinder the quality of student performance and engagement. Henceforth, time management became a research skill that was taught in phase 2. Time management strategies, such as project phase planning through hard copy planners and digital calendar applications were vital to the completion of student products. Additionally, student choice projects played a large role in student stamina and engagement during the genius hour intervention. Since student choice was a leading factor for student engagement, the distribution of data shows an increase in student retention and research skill development. Student retention was scored through conferences and rubric scores of students’ presentations of learning after every genius hour project. One unexpected finding was the increase in positive self-efficacy in students. Throughout the genius hour project, students’ positive beliefs in their abilities and skills became more apparent through each genius hour projects. During projects, students of various abilities and skills tutored each other. All genius hour projects lead to authentic exchanges of skills and information among students without minimal teacher facilitation. In the final analysis, various data points were triangulated understand the role of student choice learning projects in developing student research skills.
In essence, the intervention of genius hour has many implications for student-centered, technology infused classrooms. Firstly, genius hour projects and technology go hand in hand. Technology provides vast range of sources for various learning styles. Students can watch videos, read articles, image search to gather information that might have been not accessible due to distant to museums, science centers, text books or libraries. Additionally, technology provides variation in student products. With a large quantity of free applications and programs, students can choose to create unique products for an audience outside the four walls of a classroom. Through the three phases of genius hour projects, teachers can teach different research skills. For this reason, the research skills developed through genius hour can influence student-learning abilities in other subjects. For instance, teaching students to create, save and upload word documents during genius hour can transfer to projects in writing, social studies, science or language arts. Another key point in genius hour projects is student choice. With this in mind, teachers must have clear expectations and structured genius hour projects to maximize learning. A poorly directed genius hour project can be detrimental to student regulated learning and attitude.
There were several limitations in this action research. Firstly, it is important to consider the amount of time genius hour implementation can take in an elementary classroom. Time is one of the limitations of genius hour. With a busy elementary schedule, it can be difficult to implement a quality genius hour project. Secondly, the range in student abilities in regards to research and technology skills can be huge. Teaching mini-lessons on both research and technology skills must be planned and made time for. I found that planning mini-lessons as part of other subject area lessons helped reduced time constraints. Given its limitations genius hour is still a powerful intervention to use with students. From the growth I have seen in my students’ ability to collaborate, think critically and communicate their ideas while developing research skills, genius hour has won a spot in my classroom schedule.
More importantly, this action research has made me more conscious of my researcher qualities. As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, collecting, analyzing and interpreting data has been extremely difficult. This action research forced me to triangulate data points to focus on key points for a class versus individual student. I learned quickly that not all data collection tools are created equal or that more data tools means better data. As a researcher, I have learned that every action must have a thoughtful reflective data point supporting it. The reflective and analytical quality of action researcher has made my teaching practice more reflective. I find myself thinking about my actions or collaborating with others before implementing a new strategy. I can honestly say that I am not eager to repeat a new action research but my teaching perspective has changed. I know that as each new school year I will have a different group of students who will have different needs and strengths. Knowing that action research is a reflective cyclical process based on data analysis to improve my teaching practice, I can say for certain that the skills I have gained motivate and facilitate my continuous role as researcher and teacher. This action research has given me the opportunity to continue my self-regulated learning just as genius hour projects have been for my students.
At the same time, there were many valuable teaching moments for myself in this action research. I have grown to understand the power of student-centered projects. Through this journey, I have developed stronger personal relationships with my students. Thus allowing me to personalize other subject area assignments. Students mentored and collaborated to conduct genius hour projects. Initially, the projects were difficult and overwhelming to manage. From my struggles, I learned and created a more uniformed approach to collecting and assessing student learning. Upon reflection of each lesson and genius hour project, I realized that every genius hour allowed me differentiate instruction to a range of needs. Through student choice in final products, students were able to create a presentation of learning they felt comfortable with. I was able to group students based on interest and needs. Also, each individual student mapped out the three phases of the project. I found it fascinating how students tailored their project planning according to their needs. Students who struggled with reading use the majority of their time researching versus students who struggled with presenting or writing took up more time in product creation. Yet, the end goal was the same. Research a topic you are interested in and present what you have learned. Consequently, the research skills I taught gave students independence. As we progressed with genius hour projects, I began to see students taking charge of their learning. Many students took it upon themselves to take genius hour for homework. My passion is to provide students opportunities to become life-long learners. This action research allowed me to take a professional risk in allowing students to learn what interest or inspires them. Genius hour does not teach to the test but encourages an authentic learning experience. Given these points, I will continue to use genius hour projects to teach research skills with upper elementary students.
In essence, the intervention of genius hour has many implications for student-centered, technology infused classrooms. Firstly, genius hour projects and technology go hand in hand. Technology provides vast range of sources for various learning styles. Students can watch videos, read articles, image search to gather information that might have been not accessible due to distant to museums, science centers, text books or libraries. Additionally, technology provides variation in student products. With a large quantity of free applications and programs, students can choose to create unique products for an audience outside the four walls of a classroom. Through the three phases of genius hour projects, teachers can teach different research skills. For this reason, the research skills developed through genius hour can influence student-learning abilities in other subjects. For instance, teaching students to create, save and upload word documents during genius hour can transfer to projects in writing, social studies, science or language arts. Another key point in genius hour projects is student choice. With this in mind, teachers must have clear expectations and structured genius hour projects to maximize learning. A poorly directed genius hour project can be detrimental to student regulated learning and attitude.
There were several limitations in this action research. Firstly, it is important to consider the amount of time genius hour implementation can take in an elementary classroom. Time is one of the limitations of genius hour. With a busy elementary schedule, it can be difficult to implement a quality genius hour project. Secondly, the range in student abilities in regards to research and technology skills can be huge. Teaching mini-lessons on both research and technology skills must be planned and made time for. I found that planning mini-lessons as part of other subject area lessons helped reduced time constraints. Given its limitations genius hour is still a powerful intervention to use with students. From the growth I have seen in my students’ ability to collaborate, think critically and communicate their ideas while developing research skills, genius hour has won a spot in my classroom schedule.
More importantly, this action research has made me more conscious of my researcher qualities. As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, collecting, analyzing and interpreting data has been extremely difficult. This action research forced me to triangulate data points to focus on key points for a class versus individual student. I learned quickly that not all data collection tools are created equal or that more data tools means better data. As a researcher, I have learned that every action must have a thoughtful reflective data point supporting it. The reflective and analytical quality of action researcher has made my teaching practice more reflective. I find myself thinking about my actions or collaborating with others before implementing a new strategy. I can honestly say that I am not eager to repeat a new action research but my teaching perspective has changed. I know that as each new school year I will have a different group of students who will have different needs and strengths. Knowing that action research is a reflective cyclical process based on data analysis to improve my teaching practice, I can say for certain that the skills I have gained motivate and facilitate my continuous role as researcher and teacher. This action research has given me the opportunity to continue my self-regulated learning just as genius hour projects have been for my students.
At the same time, there were many valuable teaching moments for myself in this action research. I have grown to understand the power of student-centered projects. Through this journey, I have developed stronger personal relationships with my students. Thus allowing me to personalize other subject area assignments. Students mentored and collaborated to conduct genius hour projects. Initially, the projects were difficult and overwhelming to manage. From my struggles, I learned and created a more uniformed approach to collecting and assessing student learning. Upon reflection of each lesson and genius hour project, I realized that every genius hour allowed me differentiate instruction to a range of needs. Through student choice in final products, students were able to create a presentation of learning they felt comfortable with. I was able to group students based on interest and needs. Also, each individual student mapped out the three phases of the project. I found it fascinating how students tailored their project planning according to their needs. Students who struggled with reading use the majority of their time researching versus students who struggled with presenting or writing took up more time in product creation. Yet, the end goal was the same. Research a topic you are interested in and present what you have learned. Consequently, the research skills I taught gave students independence. As we progressed with genius hour projects, I began to see students taking charge of their learning. Many students took it upon themselves to take genius hour for homework. My passion is to provide students opportunities to become life-long learners. This action research allowed me to take a professional risk in allowing students to learn what interest or inspires them. Genius hour does not teach to the test but encourages an authentic learning experience. Given these points, I will continue to use genius hour projects to teach research skills with upper elementary students.
References
Bland, D., & Sharma-Brymer, V. (2012). Imagination in school children's choice of their learning environment: An Australian study. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 75-88.
Boyle, J. R. (2011). Thinking strategically to record notes in content classes. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 51-66.
Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2014). Enriching project-based learning environments with virtual manipulatives: A comparative study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 201-222. http://dx.doi.org/ 0.14689/ejer.2014.55.12
Chamely-Wiik, D., Dunn, K., Heydet-Kirsch, P., Holman, M., Meeroff, D., & Peluso, J. (2014). Scaffolding the development of students' research skills for capstone experiences: A multi-disciplinary approach. Council On Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 34(4), 18-25.
Chu, S., Chow, K., Tse, S., & Kuhlthau, C. (2008). Grade 4 students' development of research skills through inquiry-based learning projects. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(1), 10-37.
Driscoll III, T. F., & Petty, K. A. (2013). Student-driven education with flipped learning and 20-time. Practical Applications and Experiences in K-20 Blended Learning Environments, 120.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 368-379.
Igoa, L. B., & Kiewra, K. A. (2007). How do high-achieving students approach web-based, copy and paste note taking? Selective pasting and related learning outcomes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 512-529.
Juliani, A. J. (2014). Making Time for Project-Based Learning: Using 20% Time, Genius Hour, and PBL to Drive Student Success. Routledge.
Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Classroom and technology-supported help seeking: The need for converging research paradigms. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 290-296.
Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching Of Psychology,32(2), 129-131
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 23.
Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LDA synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105-118.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1),1-32.
Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2011). Note-taking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200-216.
Marty, P. F., Alemanne, N. D., Mendenhall, A., Maurya, M., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Schellinger, J. (2013). Scientific inquiry, digital literacy, and mobile computing in informal learning environments. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 407-428.
Nicholl, B., Flutter, J. A. E., Hosking, I. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2013). Transforming practice in Design and Technology: evidence from a classroom-based research study of students' responses to an intervention on inclusive design. Curriculum Journal, 24(1), 86-102.
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2012). How Teens Do Research in the Digital World. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2011). Effects of note-taking training on reading comprehension and recall. Reading, 11(2), 116-128.
Ravitz, J., & Blazevski, J. (2014). Assessing the role of online technologies in project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,8(1), 9.
Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York: Scribner.
Yamzon, A. (1999). An examination of the relationship between student choice in project-based learning and achievement,
Boyle, J. R. (2011). Thinking strategically to record notes in content classes. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 51-66.
Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2014). Enriching project-based learning environments with virtual manipulatives: A comparative study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 201-222. http://dx.doi.org/ 0.14689/ejer.2014.55.12
Chamely-Wiik, D., Dunn, K., Heydet-Kirsch, P., Holman, M., Meeroff, D., & Peluso, J. (2014). Scaffolding the development of students' research skills for capstone experiences: A multi-disciplinary approach. Council On Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 34(4), 18-25.
Chu, S., Chow, K., Tse, S., & Kuhlthau, C. (2008). Grade 4 students' development of research skills through inquiry-based learning projects. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(1), 10-37.
Driscoll III, T. F., & Petty, K. A. (2013). Student-driven education with flipped learning and 20-time. Practical Applications and Experiences in K-20 Blended Learning Environments, 120.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 368-379.
Igoa, L. B., & Kiewra, K. A. (2007). How do high-achieving students approach web-based, copy and paste note taking? Selective pasting and related learning outcomes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 512-529.
Juliani, A. J. (2014). Making Time for Project-Based Learning: Using 20% Time, Genius Hour, and PBL to Drive Student Success. Routledge.
Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Classroom and technology-supported help seeking: The need for converging research paradigms. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 290-296.
Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching Of Psychology,32(2), 129-131
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 23.
Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LDA synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105-118.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1),1-32.
Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2011). Note-taking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200-216.
Marty, P. F., Alemanne, N. D., Mendenhall, A., Maurya, M., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Schellinger, J. (2013). Scientific inquiry, digital literacy, and mobile computing in informal learning environments. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 407-428.
Nicholl, B., Flutter, J. A. E., Hosking, I. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2013). Transforming practice in Design and Technology: evidence from a classroom-based research study of students' responses to an intervention on inclusive design. Curriculum Journal, 24(1), 86-102.
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2012). How Teens Do Research in the Digital World. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2011). Effects of note-taking training on reading comprehension and recall. Reading, 11(2), 116-128.
Ravitz, J., & Blazevski, J. (2014). Assessing the role of online technologies in project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,8(1), 9.
Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York: Scribner.
Yamzon, A. (1999). An examination of the relationship between student choice in project-based learning and achievement,
