Data Analysis
Figure 1: Student Feedback 1
This section is divided into two phases. Phase 1 includes data results from the students’ first genius hour project. Phase 2 includes data results from the second and third genius hour project. The first phase of the project lasted four weeks while phase two lasted almost ten weeks.
Phase 1
From various data collection tools, it was apparent that the students struggled with note taking. Results from the student feedback form, Figure 1, demonstrate that 88% of the class ranked their note taking ability at average to proficient. When asked about graphic organizers as a note taking strategy, 67% of students ranked themselves as novice or below average. From student work, I observed that most students did not use a digital tool to take notes. Students wrote on loose sheets of paper and index cards. Less than five students used an actual notebook to record notes. Additionally, 82% of the students copied verbatim from online searches. Some students were able to categorize information but became frustrated with having to look up their online source daily, since they did not write the link on their notes. According to data from edmodo snapshot assessments, 22% of students met the criteria for retrieving information from digital or print sources, while 52% of students did not meet the criteria. (Figure 5) Furthermore, only 21% of students met the criteria for quoting text accurately while 48% did not meet the criteria. (Figure 3) Every Friday, students were asked to demonstrate their notes. Many students had lost their single sheets of paper or index cards. I conduct one-on-one conferences for student feedback on project. Students were not able to recall most of the information from their notes or the location of their notes. Many students expressed that they needed more guidance with note taking. Therefore, students believed based on previous experience that they knew how to annotate notes proficiently, which is represented in the student feedback form. Yet, from teacher observations and one-on-one conferences, students reported they needed more instruction on graphic organizers and annotation strategies. Henceforth, when confronted with the choice during research, students still required some guidance and instruction tailored to their current note-taking abilities.
Additionally, the use of new technological platforms and tools slightly increased students’ research skill performance. For instance, in Figure 1, 76% of students stated that they could look for answer by themselves. During the first genius hour project, students were grouped in partnerships and groups based on genius hour topic. From teacher observations, students worked together to use resources like google, Wikipedia, and edmodo to gather information. When given the choice, students opted for an electronic device versus a hard copy print. Moreover, 76% of students stated that they could identify main idea and important details from websites. The majority of the time was spent using electronic devices during the first genius hour project. In Figure 2, we can see that 32 students received a one in the category of building knowledge. Level one scores on the genius hour rubric in Building Knowledge category stands for “using the usual or provided list of sources to research.” Data retrieved from edmodo assessments, Figure 4, indicate that 22% of students could draw information from print or digital sources. The assessment asked students questions about different tools, such as, atlas, Internet search engines, encyclopedias and etc. Overall, the data indicates that students’ use of digital tools slightly increased their research skills when it came to retrieving information for genius hour projects.
Phase 1
From various data collection tools, it was apparent that the students struggled with note taking. Results from the student feedback form, Figure 1, demonstrate that 88% of the class ranked their note taking ability at average to proficient. When asked about graphic organizers as a note taking strategy, 67% of students ranked themselves as novice or below average. From student work, I observed that most students did not use a digital tool to take notes. Students wrote on loose sheets of paper and index cards. Less than five students used an actual notebook to record notes. Additionally, 82% of the students copied verbatim from online searches. Some students were able to categorize information but became frustrated with having to look up their online source daily, since they did not write the link on their notes. According to data from edmodo snapshot assessments, 22% of students met the criteria for retrieving information from digital or print sources, while 52% of students did not meet the criteria. (Figure 5) Furthermore, only 21% of students met the criteria for quoting text accurately while 48% did not meet the criteria. (Figure 3) Every Friday, students were asked to demonstrate their notes. Many students had lost their single sheets of paper or index cards. I conduct one-on-one conferences for student feedback on project. Students were not able to recall most of the information from their notes or the location of their notes. Many students expressed that they needed more guidance with note taking. Therefore, students believed based on previous experience that they knew how to annotate notes proficiently, which is represented in the student feedback form. Yet, from teacher observations and one-on-one conferences, students reported they needed more instruction on graphic organizers and annotation strategies. Henceforth, when confronted with the choice during research, students still required some guidance and instruction tailored to their current note-taking abilities.
Additionally, the use of new technological platforms and tools slightly increased students’ research skill performance. For instance, in Figure 1, 76% of students stated that they could look for answer by themselves. During the first genius hour project, students were grouped in partnerships and groups based on genius hour topic. From teacher observations, students worked together to use resources like google, Wikipedia, and edmodo to gather information. When given the choice, students opted for an electronic device versus a hard copy print. Moreover, 76% of students stated that they could identify main idea and important details from websites. The majority of the time was spent using electronic devices during the first genius hour project. In Figure 2, we can see that 32 students received a one in the category of building knowledge. Level one scores on the genius hour rubric in Building Knowledge category stands for “using the usual or provided list of sources to research.” Data retrieved from edmodo assessments, Figure 4, indicate that 22% of students could draw information from print or digital sources. The assessment asked students questions about different tools, such as, atlas, Internet search engines, encyclopedias and etc. Overall, the data indicates that students’ use of digital tools slightly increased their research skills when it came to retrieving information for genius hour projects.
Figure 2: Genius Hour Project 1 Rubric Sores
|
Figure 3: Informational Reading Standard 1 Assessment
|
Figure 4: Informational Reading Standard 8 Assessment
Similarly, several data collection tools were used to track retention. From teacher observations and formative assessments, I was check in with each student about their project. About 58% of students struggle with recalling their genius hour driving question in the first week. At the end of the project, 17% of students struggled with recall of their genius hour question. From Figure 2, data indicates that 32 students had received a score of one in launching, building knowledge, and developing a product. Additionally, students were asked to take edmodo assessments based on Common Core Anchor standards. In Figure 4, data indicates that 50% of students are able to recall information gather information from print or digital sources. From Figure 2, all students received a 0 score in presenting. This score is vital to record student retention. Since this score was not received during this phase of the project, teacher observations and student conferences indicated that 85% of the study population could recall several facts and made inferences about their genius hour project. From those 85% of students, 38% could recall web sources, list of steps, and what they had learned in their research. In whole, the data tools to collect demonstrate students’ ability to retain information regarding their genius hour projects.
Another factor that influenced the results of this study was student choice. From Figure 1, data indicates that 94% of students were interested in genius hour projects. During the initial class, students were presented with Caines Arcade, a young child in south Los Angeles who created an arcade out of cardboard. From teacher observation and discussion, students were interested in researching a topic of their choice versus an assigned research topic. Figure 1 demonstrates 82% of students indicated their ideas as original. Student engagement was over 90% from the presentation of Caines Arcade to the last day of the four-week timeline of project. From both the data and student conferences, it is evident that students highly regarded their ideas and interest more applicable to research projects than assigned researched projects.
Figure 5: Informational Reading Standard 7 Assessment
Conclusion
In essence, phase I indicated several factors that hindered the development of student research skills in the sample studied. Although, the initial hypothesis is supported by the findings of the data collection tools, it was limited by the timeline of phase 1. Figure 2 represents the grade of each student’s genius hour project. Many students were still in research phase of their projects. Therefore, all students received a zero score in product creation, presentation and reflection of their projects. Time was one of the factors that hinder student research skill development when using the intervention of Genius Hour.
Secondly, data indicates that student retention was not very high. Many of the students struggled to recall and synthesize information. Note-taking skills and reading skills affected the pace of the project. Also, from Figure 3, 4, and 5 demonstrate students’ current research skill in reading and synthesizing information class average is less than 50%. An implication from the data is that students require more scaffolding during lessons on research skills. Student products demonstrate attempts to synthesize and classify information researched but none were fully developed due to time allotted and students’ current skill level.
Thirdly, data indicates that student choice was a leading factor in student engagement. Figure 1 and student conferences made it clear that students were more inclined to research a topic of their choice versus an assigned topic. Students reported enjoyment when conducting genius hour research. Comments like “I would like to do genius hour for longer time” and “I enjoy learning about things I like” were common during student conferences. Since student engagement was high, I intended to modify the intervention guidelines to better suit students’ needs.
Lastly, all data collection tools allowed for a triangulation of data. Many of the implications of this study allowed me to understand the research needs of my students. From the data, I can clearly see that students will need more scaffolding and research skill lessons in whole class format. One limitation in the data collection tools is edmodo assessments. One in congruency for students is taking an edmodo snapshot assessment as part of genius hour projects. Since the intervention relies purely on student choices, the edmodo snapshot is seen as out of place in the students’ research cycle. The snapshot was taken during rotation in language arts as not to take up students’ genius hour time. In all, the intervention of genius hour projects has increased students’ awareness of the necessary research skills needed to conduct a research project.
Reflection
Moreover, there were some limitations in the study. As mentioned previously, time was a major issue for both student and teacher planning. I encountered several time conflicts when teaching mini-lessons to students during the genius hour time. For instance, during the twenty-minute sessions, the range in student need was very high. After walking around and assisting students, there was less than five minutes to teach a mini-lesson on a specific research and technology skill. I will plan for specific research skill lessons, such as annotating, saving documents and source reliability with my students. Secondly, students had difficulty with time management of their own project. It was clear that planning a project is an essential skill that students should learn about. I will be including a mandatory calendar outline assignment as part of the intervention. For the next phase of this action research, I will be adding more weeks to the project timeline.
Additionally, the use of new technological platforms and tools increased students’ interest in research and collaboration. Students became intrigue in the ability to Google search. I observed that many students had used technology to play games or communicate with family members. Many students became aware of the vast information available to them. During the first genius hour project, there was one device for every two students. Students were grouped based similar topics to facilitate device sharing. I had not accounted for the amount of collaboration that device sharing contributed to students’ learning. Students with technology schema were able to assist their partners. Concurrently, I introduced edmodo reply post. Students begin to post doubts about research or technology skills. Again, students would reply and help each other out. Technology has been a major tool when using this intervention. I am eager to see how many students continue to use technology as a tool in research projects.
Based on the themes that have emerged from Phase I of this study, I plan to make the following changes in project timelines and scaffolding mini-lessons for students. Much of the data and student conferences gave me insight to student needs during genius hour projects. All students have become extremely engaged during genius hour projects. Yet, it is apparent that when confronted with a technological or research skill challenge they are set back in their learning. Creating scaffolding lessons for the whole class allows me to deliver content in technology and research skills that can benefit not only genius hour projects but also other subjects. For instance, many students struggled to keep their notes. I can teach a mini-lesson on opening a word document and saving on their backpack in edmodo. Additionally, I have noticed that time management is a huge issue for my students. For instance, students did not abide to a four-week timeline for researching, creating and presenting a genius hour project. Many students chose to create a research product that was too elaborate. While other students did not have skills to conduct research and became stuck thus elongating the timeline. At this time, I will change two factors in my action research, which is increase project timeline and schedule whole class lessons for research skills. The data collected indicates that choice has increased students attitude towards research skills but I need to focus my next phase on fine tuning all aspects of genius hour project guidelines to further understand which research skills are being developed.
From phase 1, my role in the classroom has shifted. Before beginning phase 1, I was very confident of my action plan. As I carried out phase 1 implementation, my role as teacher shifted in the classroom. I became a project manager and it made facilitation very difficult. My focus was collecting data. My fear of missing or forgetting an observation drove my actions. During genius hour, it seemed that I was managing this action research along with 34 students’ action research. I begin to see resemblance in the cyclical phases of my action research and the method in which I was implementing genius hour. At some point, I begin to resent my role as a researcher because my role became more of a static observer than an active facilitator. Learning to take on the responsibilities of a researcher while trying to teach using new instructional strategies and technology implementation was extremely overwhelming. After reflecting on the final day of this phase I realized that I needed to plan a structured genius hour and increase the project timeline if I want to succeed in being a teacher and researcher.
My action research question will be the following: What role does uniform guidelines play in student choice learning projects to support upper elementary students’ research skills?
In essence, phase I indicated several factors that hindered the development of student research skills in the sample studied. Although, the initial hypothesis is supported by the findings of the data collection tools, it was limited by the timeline of phase 1. Figure 2 represents the grade of each student’s genius hour project. Many students were still in research phase of their projects. Therefore, all students received a zero score in product creation, presentation and reflection of their projects. Time was one of the factors that hinder student research skill development when using the intervention of Genius Hour.
Secondly, data indicates that student retention was not very high. Many of the students struggled to recall and synthesize information. Note-taking skills and reading skills affected the pace of the project. Also, from Figure 3, 4, and 5 demonstrate students’ current research skill in reading and synthesizing information class average is less than 50%. An implication from the data is that students require more scaffolding during lessons on research skills. Student products demonstrate attempts to synthesize and classify information researched but none were fully developed due to time allotted and students’ current skill level.
Thirdly, data indicates that student choice was a leading factor in student engagement. Figure 1 and student conferences made it clear that students were more inclined to research a topic of their choice versus an assigned topic. Students reported enjoyment when conducting genius hour research. Comments like “I would like to do genius hour for longer time” and “I enjoy learning about things I like” were common during student conferences. Since student engagement was high, I intended to modify the intervention guidelines to better suit students’ needs.
Lastly, all data collection tools allowed for a triangulation of data. Many of the implications of this study allowed me to understand the research needs of my students. From the data, I can clearly see that students will need more scaffolding and research skill lessons in whole class format. One limitation in the data collection tools is edmodo assessments. One in congruency for students is taking an edmodo snapshot assessment as part of genius hour projects. Since the intervention relies purely on student choices, the edmodo snapshot is seen as out of place in the students’ research cycle. The snapshot was taken during rotation in language arts as not to take up students’ genius hour time. In all, the intervention of genius hour projects has increased students’ awareness of the necessary research skills needed to conduct a research project.
Reflection
Moreover, there were some limitations in the study. As mentioned previously, time was a major issue for both student and teacher planning. I encountered several time conflicts when teaching mini-lessons to students during the genius hour time. For instance, during the twenty-minute sessions, the range in student need was very high. After walking around and assisting students, there was less than five minutes to teach a mini-lesson on a specific research and technology skill. I will plan for specific research skill lessons, such as annotating, saving documents and source reliability with my students. Secondly, students had difficulty with time management of their own project. It was clear that planning a project is an essential skill that students should learn about. I will be including a mandatory calendar outline assignment as part of the intervention. For the next phase of this action research, I will be adding more weeks to the project timeline.
Additionally, the use of new technological platforms and tools increased students’ interest in research and collaboration. Students became intrigue in the ability to Google search. I observed that many students had used technology to play games or communicate with family members. Many students became aware of the vast information available to them. During the first genius hour project, there was one device for every two students. Students were grouped based similar topics to facilitate device sharing. I had not accounted for the amount of collaboration that device sharing contributed to students’ learning. Students with technology schema were able to assist their partners. Concurrently, I introduced edmodo reply post. Students begin to post doubts about research or technology skills. Again, students would reply and help each other out. Technology has been a major tool when using this intervention. I am eager to see how many students continue to use technology as a tool in research projects.
Based on the themes that have emerged from Phase I of this study, I plan to make the following changes in project timelines and scaffolding mini-lessons for students. Much of the data and student conferences gave me insight to student needs during genius hour projects. All students have become extremely engaged during genius hour projects. Yet, it is apparent that when confronted with a technological or research skill challenge they are set back in their learning. Creating scaffolding lessons for the whole class allows me to deliver content in technology and research skills that can benefit not only genius hour projects but also other subjects. For instance, many students struggled to keep their notes. I can teach a mini-lesson on opening a word document and saving on their backpack in edmodo. Additionally, I have noticed that time management is a huge issue for my students. For instance, students did not abide to a four-week timeline for researching, creating and presenting a genius hour project. Many students chose to create a research product that was too elaborate. While other students did not have skills to conduct research and became stuck thus elongating the timeline. At this time, I will change two factors in my action research, which is increase project timeline and schedule whole class lessons for research skills. The data collected indicates that choice has increased students attitude towards research skills but I need to focus my next phase on fine tuning all aspects of genius hour project guidelines to further understand which research skills are being developed.
From phase 1, my role in the classroom has shifted. Before beginning phase 1, I was very confident of my action plan. As I carried out phase 1 implementation, my role as teacher shifted in the classroom. I became a project manager and it made facilitation very difficult. My focus was collecting data. My fear of missing or forgetting an observation drove my actions. During genius hour, it seemed that I was managing this action research along with 34 students’ action research. I begin to see resemblance in the cyclical phases of my action research and the method in which I was implementing genius hour. At some point, I begin to resent my role as a researcher because my role became more of a static observer than an active facilitator. Learning to take on the responsibilities of a researcher while trying to teach using new instructional strategies and technology implementation was extremely overwhelming. After reflecting on the final day of this phase I realized that I needed to plan a structured genius hour and increase the project timeline if I want to succeed in being a teacher and researcher.
My action research question will be the following: What role does uniform guidelines play in student choice learning projects to support upper elementary students’ research skills?
Phase 2
Literature Review
For the most part, note taking has become an integral part of research. Students are focusing the majority of their time finding sources and pulling information they see as important. In order to support student retention and research skill development, the following literature supports the use of multi-media note taking strategies. According to Boyle, data reported an increase in quantity and performance for students who use strategic note taking. (2011, p. 15) Also, Boyle study the SN pare model where students record notes using five meta-cognitive cues. Additionally the article, Graphic Organizers and Their Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with LD: Synthesis of Research, reports findings from 21 different studies which support the use of graphic organizers to help students extract important information from text. (Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. 2004, p.1-13)The majority of studied classified graphic organizers as an intervention tool that does not support reading comprehension development but supports recall of reading passages. Instead the data supports the use of graphic organizers as an intervention to help students chunk reading passages into small groups. Additionally, the article Effects of Note Taking Training on Reading Comprehension and Recall report the higher recall scores for students who reviewed notes and graphic organizers versus students who took conventional notes. (Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K., 2011, p.13) For the purpose of this action research, the literature supports the use of strategic note taking and graphic organizers to categorize information for future use.
Ultimately, providing students with self-regulated learning opportunities drives this action research. According to the book, Creating Innovators by Tony Wager, he states the importance of play, passion and purpose. Throughout his book he shares interviews from several social and STEM innovators. Each element is important in the development of innovation. Wagner describes play as the environment in which one tests limits to understand and passion as intrinsic motivation to continue understanding. Finally, he describes purpose as the glue that gives play and passion a reason to exist. (Wagner, 2012, p.1-50) The goal of genius hour is for students to research a topic they are interested. The underlying goal is to for students to become self-regulated learners. As an educator, genius hour projects allow us to teach students how to become self-regulated learners. For the focus on this action research, my goal as an educator is teach students research skills that can help them create understanding of the topics they are passionate about.
Procedures
Given the results of phase 1, I have decided to create uniform guidelines for research and increase project timelines for genius hour projects 2 and 3. Instead of the original six weeks planned for phase 2. I will conduct phase 2 over ten weeks for two genius hour projects. Student will have four weeks for GHP2 and six weeks for GHP3. During the first four weeks, I will introduce graphic organizers, digital note taking, project proposal and calendar planning. Students will be required to turn in via edmodo a calendar planner, project proposal and notes. Each document will be provided as a word document. Students will download and turn in as an assignment in edmodo. I have chosen edmodo because I can return revisions and provide feedback instantly. Students will not be allowed to move into different phases without their required assignments. For instance, in order to move from the first phase of genius hour, student must have completed a project proposal including revisions. Once their proposal has been approved, they can begin to work on the second phase of genius hour. The three phases of genius hour will continue as describe in the previous phase. It should be noted that students have received individual ipads during this phase. I will still give students the option to work at an in computing station in case they decide to use computer software. Additionally, I will change the structure of mini-lessons. Each mini-lesson will be held during the one-hour GHP block or during other subject areas. Since students are conducting other projects, I will teach mini-lessons in other subject areas where the targeted research skill is applicable or transferable. All mini-lessons will be given whole class using projector, computer, and reflector application software. In all, I will be implementing longer time periods for projects, uniformed guidelines and whole-class mini-lessons in phase 2 of this action research.
Interpretations
From the data, student note-taking skills improved in the second phase. Figure 6 shows that 96% of students were able to use information from two or more unusual sources. Teacher observation and student samples demonstrate a categorization of information. Student work contained graphic organizers and digital notes. From figure 2, 100% of the students were ranked in level one for note taking. In figure 8, data indicates that 66% of students are still in level one score and 33% of students are ranked as a level 2. Where as, Figure 9, 40% are ranked in level two and 46% are ranked in level three on rubric score. The data indicates students’ note-taking abilities such as finding sources and ranking information has increased in Phase 2 of this action research. Additionally, in comparison to Figure 2, both Figure 6 and 7 indicate a change in the distribution of the data. In Figure 1, data distribution is skewed right in the category of graphic organizer development. Whereas, Figure 8 and 9 show data skewed to the right. Many students
reported mastery or proficiency in developing graphic organizer in Figure 9. Furthermore, 74% of students reported note-taking proficiency or mastery in comparison to 64% reported in Figure 8. From teacher observations, only 55% of students provided a copy of their notes for genius hour project 2, while 83% students turned in notes during genius hour project 3. Also, 58% of students transferred notes to index cards for their presentation. In total, student note-taking abilities were increased during phase 2.
Literature Review
For the most part, note taking has become an integral part of research. Students are focusing the majority of their time finding sources and pulling information they see as important. In order to support student retention and research skill development, the following literature supports the use of multi-media note taking strategies. According to Boyle, data reported an increase in quantity and performance for students who use strategic note taking. (2011, p. 15) Also, Boyle study the SN pare model where students record notes using five meta-cognitive cues. Additionally the article, Graphic Organizers and Their Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with LD: Synthesis of Research, reports findings from 21 different studies which support the use of graphic organizers to help students extract important information from text. (Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. 2004, p.1-13)The majority of studied classified graphic organizers as an intervention tool that does not support reading comprehension development but supports recall of reading passages. Instead the data supports the use of graphic organizers as an intervention to help students chunk reading passages into small groups. Additionally, the article Effects of Note Taking Training on Reading Comprehension and Recall report the higher recall scores for students who reviewed notes and graphic organizers versus students who took conventional notes. (Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K., 2011, p.13) For the purpose of this action research, the literature supports the use of strategic note taking and graphic organizers to categorize information for future use.
Ultimately, providing students with self-regulated learning opportunities drives this action research. According to the book, Creating Innovators by Tony Wager, he states the importance of play, passion and purpose. Throughout his book he shares interviews from several social and STEM innovators. Each element is important in the development of innovation. Wagner describes play as the environment in which one tests limits to understand and passion as intrinsic motivation to continue understanding. Finally, he describes purpose as the glue that gives play and passion a reason to exist. (Wagner, 2012, p.1-50) The goal of genius hour is for students to research a topic they are interested. The underlying goal is to for students to become self-regulated learners. As an educator, genius hour projects allow us to teach students how to become self-regulated learners. For the focus on this action research, my goal as an educator is teach students research skills that can help them create understanding of the topics they are passionate about.
Procedures
Given the results of phase 1, I have decided to create uniform guidelines for research and increase project timelines for genius hour projects 2 and 3. Instead of the original six weeks planned for phase 2. I will conduct phase 2 over ten weeks for two genius hour projects. Student will have four weeks for GHP2 and six weeks for GHP3. During the first four weeks, I will introduce graphic organizers, digital note taking, project proposal and calendar planning. Students will be required to turn in via edmodo a calendar planner, project proposal and notes. Each document will be provided as a word document. Students will download and turn in as an assignment in edmodo. I have chosen edmodo because I can return revisions and provide feedback instantly. Students will not be allowed to move into different phases without their required assignments. For instance, in order to move from the first phase of genius hour, student must have completed a project proposal including revisions. Once their proposal has been approved, they can begin to work on the second phase of genius hour. The three phases of genius hour will continue as describe in the previous phase. It should be noted that students have received individual ipads during this phase. I will still give students the option to work at an in computing station in case they decide to use computer software. Additionally, I will change the structure of mini-lessons. Each mini-lesson will be held during the one-hour GHP block or during other subject areas. Since students are conducting other projects, I will teach mini-lessons in other subject areas where the targeted research skill is applicable or transferable. All mini-lessons will be given whole class using projector, computer, and reflector application software. In all, I will be implementing longer time periods for projects, uniformed guidelines and whole-class mini-lessons in phase 2 of this action research.
Interpretations
From the data, student note-taking skills improved in the second phase. Figure 6 shows that 96% of students were able to use information from two or more unusual sources. Teacher observation and student samples demonstrate a categorization of information. Student work contained graphic organizers and digital notes. From figure 2, 100% of the students were ranked in level one for note taking. In figure 8, data indicates that 66% of students are still in level one score and 33% of students are ranked as a level 2. Where as, Figure 9, 40% are ranked in level two and 46% are ranked in level three on rubric score. The data indicates students’ note-taking abilities such as finding sources and ranking information has increased in Phase 2 of this action research. Additionally, in comparison to Figure 2, both Figure 6 and 7 indicate a change in the distribution of the data. In Figure 1, data distribution is skewed right in the category of graphic organizer development. Whereas, Figure 8 and 9 show data skewed to the right. Many students
reported mastery or proficiency in developing graphic organizer in Figure 9. Furthermore, 74% of students reported note-taking proficiency or mastery in comparison to 64% reported in Figure 8. From teacher observations, only 55% of students provided a copy of their notes for genius hour project 2, while 83% students turned in notes during genius hour project 3. Also, 58% of students transferred notes to index cards for their presentation. In total, student note-taking abilities were increased during phase 2.
Figure 6: Genius Hour Project 2 Rubric Sores
|
Figure 7: Genius Hour Project 3 Rubric Sores
|
Additionally, data indicates an increase in student technology skills for research purposes. During phase 2, all genius hour projects mini lessons focused on technology skills. From teacher observations and edmodo assignments, at least 96% of students could do the following: create and save a word document, educreation, power point, website, imovie trailer, evernote, pages, slides, poplet and pixie. Additionally, 73% of students were able to upload digital notes or creations to edmodo proficiently, while 27% required help from a friend. Students’ ability to present using digital platforms is demonstrated in Figure 6, where 56% of students were ranked at level one. In Figure 7, we see a jump in student technological skills. Figure 7 show only 23% students ranked in level 1 while 43% of students moved to level 2 and 40% to level 3. (Figure 7, Category Presenting) There is a 20% increase across categories that included the use of technology in the genius hour rubric. (Figure 6 & 7, Category Value, Style, Originality) In all, the implementation of technological mini lessons and choice in applications allowed students to develop technological skills to benefit student research.
Figure 8: Student Feedback 2
Furthermore, an increase in student retention caused by student choice is supported by data and student presentations of learning. During phase 2, 94% students were able to recall their question, topic, and at least three facts from their research. Additionally, during one-on-one feedback sessions, students synthesized the value of their research and product. Initially, 52% of students were ranked in level 1. (Figure 6) During the third genius hour project, 50% of students were ranked level 2 and 33% were ranked level 3. Students demonstrated growth when explaining the real world value of their findings and final products. Also, 70% of students were able to reflect and offer modifications for their third genius hour feedback session. Overall, scores for genius hour projects and presentations ranked approaching standard and at standard.
One triangulation that data demonstrates is an increase in positive student attitudes. During the initial student feedback, 44% of students reported genius hour projects as enjoyable. (Figure 1) At the end of each genius hour project 58% of students reported genius hour as enjoyable. (Figure 9) Although, student feedback data shows no change in flexibility towards collaboration, student attitudes and behaviors did change. Teacher observation listed 19 students who needed to be redirected more than three times during the first genius hour project. During final project, only 9 students required redirection more than 3 times. In this phase, teacher observation records 90% correct usage of device and applications. Moreover, student risk-taking with devices and applications increased to 28 students versus 13 in first genius hour project. Using edmodo blogs, student feedback reports changes in student attitudes about research and presenting. Each teacher blog post contained over sixty student responses with 100% student participation. Student comments “I am good at presenting and creating a presentation but struggle with finding a good source” or “I am good at research but I have trouble finishing on time” were common. Through blog responses and student check-ins it was apparent that students were proud about their research and presentation skill. Students who were below grade level in writing participated in blog replies without help from the teacher or friend. Additionally, a beginning English Language Learner participated in blog replies without teacher guidance. Initially, only 3 students participated in geek squad, a group of students who would teach technical skills during genius hour. At the end of phase 2, at least 24 students were members of the geek squad. In all, student perception of their research skills and knowledge was positively correlated to their success in genius hour projects.
Conclusion
As a result phase 2 had an increase in student technology skills; which influenced their research skills. Students were able to collect, create and organize their notes using various applications. Many of the students used their edmodo backpack to save links and word documents. Mini-lessons on applications and device functions enabled students to take full advantage of their device. All mini-lessons were structured as a whole class discussion that occurred in 15-minute sessions outside of the students’ genius hour 20-minute session. Mini-lessons provided students opportunities to play with application or device to learn a specific technical skill. The increase in quality and technological fluency is represented by the data distribution of the genius hour rubric. (Figure 6 & 7) The use of applications to collect and organize helps students synthesize information. Students spent an average of 10 to 12 days researching information and student note assignments had 90% turn in rate via edmodo. All things considered, the increase in student technology skills helped the development of student research skills.
Under the circumstances of phase 2, student note-taking skills improved. Students were able to categorize information from online sources, such as, YouTube videos, websites and blogs. From edmodo, 90% of students turned in notes digital while 5% of students turned in a hard copy. As a result, student presentations dramatically improved. Students used various note taking styles. The class was divided between digital journaling, voice recordings with digital notes and digital process notes. Many of the students were able to create notes on multiple platforms and were able to share notes with others. Therefore, the implementation of uniformed guidelines, mini-lessons and increased time benefitted the students’ note taking abilities through the implementation of genius hour.
Consequently, student choice did play a role in student retention. In comparison to other projects in class, students were able to recall more information from their genius hour projects. During the needs assessment and other projects in class, students were able to recall assignment instructions and two facts. During one-on-one conferences, students were able to recall their genius hour question, purpose and value of topic. Also, students were able to carry conversations in classroom discussions and edmodo blogs about their topics without referring to notes. During presentations in phase 2, students presented product without reading index cards or notes. In phase 2, presentations typically lasted 10 minutes and five minutes of audience questions. After the second genius hour question, 80% students reported to feeling extremely comfortable with genius hour projects. (Figure 8) Teacher observations note that students asked about genius hour time daily and students were willing to do genius hour for homework. During one-on-one conferences, 96% of students reported preference to genius hour compared to any subject and made comments like, “I like genius hour because I learn about something that is important to me.” For these reasons, student choice influence student retention.
One factor that I have not considered was a change in students’ attitudes. During this phase, many students perception of self changed. The genius hour period became a free for all in abilities and skills. Students with reading skills were able to help students with writing and reading of online sources. Students with technical skills helped those who were less tech-savvy. Artistic students helped with poster presentation or website design. At the end of this phase, students became learners and teachers for other students without teacher micro managing. Students placed themselves in groups of common topics or presentation style versus friend groups. In all, the interventions of genius hour lead to changing of students’ attitude of their skills and abilities.
Given the triangulation of data in phase 2, the hypothesis of this action research was supported. As data shows, genius hour projects did support upper elementary students development of research skills. Some limitations in the study included time management and application of edmodo assessments. During the second phase of this research, negative attitudes and week long holiday breaks made it difficult to conduct edmodo assessments. Additionally, three students were taken out of the second phase due to unforeseen circumstances. Due to the learning success of my students I will continue using the intervention of genius hour to support students research skills.
Reflection
Ultimately, the modifications of phase 2 enabled students to develop research skills in an authentic yet structured manner. The increase of time helped both the teacher and student organization of genius hour projects. From online resources, I was able to create uniform documents that were turned in as assignments via edmodo. The use of uniform documents allowed me to assess and monitor student progress. On the other hand, students were able to create their own documents and fill out forms because of their acquired technologic skills. Upon reflection, I realized that my teaching practice would benefit from creating custom documents for genius hour projects that are relatable to the technology tools and research skills I am teaching.
Additionally, their technological skills led to speed and fluency when using technology; which allowed them to create various documents to annotate and present. The integration of whole class mini-lessons made teaching technology and research skills more practical for student learning. From phase 1, I learned that taking up their genius hour time to teach mini-lesson was not conducive to student learning or genius hour project timelines. Also, students became very negative or unmotivated when genius hour times were not respected. A deep reflection of the mini-lessons made it clear that my teaching style and students benefitted from whole class instruction. I was able to teach technology and research skills as their own segment of the schedule, which benefitted genius hour and other subjects. Thus, the structure and curriculum of the technology and research skill mini-lessons will be part of my future lessons in other classrooms.
During this phase, I had to remove data from edmodo snapshots as they were seen as a distraction from genius hour projects. Student attitudes towards the edmodo snapshot were completely negative. The edmodo snapshots were taken before Thanksgiving break and there was less than a 60% turn in rate. For students who took edmodo snapshot many tested in less than 3 minutes for 15-minute test. Although, the edmodo assessments are important, they were removed from phase 2 due to environment and student attitudes. My experience with edmodo assessment and genius hour helped me understand the importance of congruency in project expectations and performances tasks. Upon reflection, I could understand my students point-of-view towards the edmodo assessment. I would like to use edmodo assessments but will have to remove them from genius hour completely.
With this in mind, phase 3would include an online digital portfolio based the structure and expectations for future genius hour projects. With a digital portfolio students can have access to forms, videos and previous student work. Since phase 2 was successful due to accountability measures and uniform guidelines a digital portfolio is an ideal hub for students. I could link student work to the digital portfolio. Additionally, filming students during presentations would allow me to provide models for future genius hour projects. Lastly, a major component of project –based learning is an authentic audience. I would like to incorporate an activity where students could present in other classrooms or to their parents. Based on the data collected from phase 2, I have reflected that phase 3 must include a digital classroom portfolio and opportunities for authentic audiences.
After implementing both phases of this action research, I can see why teachers would hesitate to incorporate genius hour. Assessing and monitoring genius hour projects take up a good chunk of class time and preparation time. Since Genius Hour projects are typically not part of school curriculum it could be seen as extra work for teachers. I spent many nights reviewing and conferencing students on their proposals via edmodo. Sometimes I had to help students with research because the discrepancy between students current reading level and their complexity of their topic. During phase 2, the increase in project timeline helped me collect data but also facilitate learning. Additionally, I was able to plan my data collection and mini-lessons in a manner that allowed me to feel successful. I did not have a guilty feeling of leaving my students in the dark because I was trying to collect data for this action research. From this phase, I enjoyed observing my students both physical and online interactions. This phase allowed me to truly see Genius Hour at work.
Finally, there is a large sense of control that is lost as a teacher during genius hour. When I was searching for information on this intervention, there is a vast discrepancy in the implementation of genius hour. I spent numerous hours connecting with teachers on twitter, livebinder, digital portfolios and wikipages to get some consistency on how to implement genius hour. My teaching fear was that there was not enough teacher-centered instruction to control genius hour. As educators, we are accustomed to having the teacher edition book with the answers. With genius hour students’ learning grew organically not following a curricular guide. I had many questions about the implementation process. What if my students picked topics that were not interesting or inappropriate? Could they give up and not complete the assignment? Or worse what if they failed to learn anything. Through out my research I had a nagging fear that if students were in complete control of their research project, I would not be able to guide them. What I had failed to realize initially was the value student choice has over teacher control. This phase demonstrated that it didn’t matter what topics my students chose. It was the scaffolding and facilitation that I provide based on my students needs that made a teaching difference. All I needed to do was let my students control their own learning and the rest was up to me.
Conclusion
As a result phase 2 had an increase in student technology skills; which influenced their research skills. Students were able to collect, create and organize their notes using various applications. Many of the students used their edmodo backpack to save links and word documents. Mini-lessons on applications and device functions enabled students to take full advantage of their device. All mini-lessons were structured as a whole class discussion that occurred in 15-minute sessions outside of the students’ genius hour 20-minute session. Mini-lessons provided students opportunities to play with application or device to learn a specific technical skill. The increase in quality and technological fluency is represented by the data distribution of the genius hour rubric. (Figure 6 & 7) The use of applications to collect and organize helps students synthesize information. Students spent an average of 10 to 12 days researching information and student note assignments had 90% turn in rate via edmodo. All things considered, the increase in student technology skills helped the development of student research skills.
Under the circumstances of phase 2, student note-taking skills improved. Students were able to categorize information from online sources, such as, YouTube videos, websites and blogs. From edmodo, 90% of students turned in notes digital while 5% of students turned in a hard copy. As a result, student presentations dramatically improved. Students used various note taking styles. The class was divided between digital journaling, voice recordings with digital notes and digital process notes. Many of the students were able to create notes on multiple platforms and were able to share notes with others. Therefore, the implementation of uniformed guidelines, mini-lessons and increased time benefitted the students’ note taking abilities through the implementation of genius hour.
Consequently, student choice did play a role in student retention. In comparison to other projects in class, students were able to recall more information from their genius hour projects. During the needs assessment and other projects in class, students were able to recall assignment instructions and two facts. During one-on-one conferences, students were able to recall their genius hour question, purpose and value of topic. Also, students were able to carry conversations in classroom discussions and edmodo blogs about their topics without referring to notes. During presentations in phase 2, students presented product without reading index cards or notes. In phase 2, presentations typically lasted 10 minutes and five minutes of audience questions. After the second genius hour question, 80% students reported to feeling extremely comfortable with genius hour projects. (Figure 8) Teacher observations note that students asked about genius hour time daily and students were willing to do genius hour for homework. During one-on-one conferences, 96% of students reported preference to genius hour compared to any subject and made comments like, “I like genius hour because I learn about something that is important to me.” For these reasons, student choice influence student retention.
One factor that I have not considered was a change in students’ attitudes. During this phase, many students perception of self changed. The genius hour period became a free for all in abilities and skills. Students with reading skills were able to help students with writing and reading of online sources. Students with technical skills helped those who were less tech-savvy. Artistic students helped with poster presentation or website design. At the end of this phase, students became learners and teachers for other students without teacher micro managing. Students placed themselves in groups of common topics or presentation style versus friend groups. In all, the interventions of genius hour lead to changing of students’ attitude of their skills and abilities.
Given the triangulation of data in phase 2, the hypothesis of this action research was supported. As data shows, genius hour projects did support upper elementary students development of research skills. Some limitations in the study included time management and application of edmodo assessments. During the second phase of this research, negative attitudes and week long holiday breaks made it difficult to conduct edmodo assessments. Additionally, three students were taken out of the second phase due to unforeseen circumstances. Due to the learning success of my students I will continue using the intervention of genius hour to support students research skills.
Reflection
Ultimately, the modifications of phase 2 enabled students to develop research skills in an authentic yet structured manner. The increase of time helped both the teacher and student organization of genius hour projects. From online resources, I was able to create uniform documents that were turned in as assignments via edmodo. The use of uniform documents allowed me to assess and monitor student progress. On the other hand, students were able to create their own documents and fill out forms because of their acquired technologic skills. Upon reflection, I realized that my teaching practice would benefit from creating custom documents for genius hour projects that are relatable to the technology tools and research skills I am teaching.
Additionally, their technological skills led to speed and fluency when using technology; which allowed them to create various documents to annotate and present. The integration of whole class mini-lessons made teaching technology and research skills more practical for student learning. From phase 1, I learned that taking up their genius hour time to teach mini-lesson was not conducive to student learning or genius hour project timelines. Also, students became very negative or unmotivated when genius hour times were not respected. A deep reflection of the mini-lessons made it clear that my teaching style and students benefitted from whole class instruction. I was able to teach technology and research skills as their own segment of the schedule, which benefitted genius hour and other subjects. Thus, the structure and curriculum of the technology and research skill mini-lessons will be part of my future lessons in other classrooms.
During this phase, I had to remove data from edmodo snapshots as they were seen as a distraction from genius hour projects. Student attitudes towards the edmodo snapshot were completely negative. The edmodo snapshots were taken before Thanksgiving break and there was less than a 60% turn in rate. For students who took edmodo snapshot many tested in less than 3 minutes for 15-minute test. Although, the edmodo assessments are important, they were removed from phase 2 due to environment and student attitudes. My experience with edmodo assessment and genius hour helped me understand the importance of congruency in project expectations and performances tasks. Upon reflection, I could understand my students point-of-view towards the edmodo assessment. I would like to use edmodo assessments but will have to remove them from genius hour completely.
With this in mind, phase 3would include an online digital portfolio based the structure and expectations for future genius hour projects. With a digital portfolio students can have access to forms, videos and previous student work. Since phase 2 was successful due to accountability measures and uniform guidelines a digital portfolio is an ideal hub for students. I could link student work to the digital portfolio. Additionally, filming students during presentations would allow me to provide models for future genius hour projects. Lastly, a major component of project –based learning is an authentic audience. I would like to incorporate an activity where students could present in other classrooms or to their parents. Based on the data collected from phase 2, I have reflected that phase 3 must include a digital classroom portfolio and opportunities for authentic audiences.
After implementing both phases of this action research, I can see why teachers would hesitate to incorporate genius hour. Assessing and monitoring genius hour projects take up a good chunk of class time and preparation time. Since Genius Hour projects are typically not part of school curriculum it could be seen as extra work for teachers. I spent many nights reviewing and conferencing students on their proposals via edmodo. Sometimes I had to help students with research because the discrepancy between students current reading level and their complexity of their topic. During phase 2, the increase in project timeline helped me collect data but also facilitate learning. Additionally, I was able to plan my data collection and mini-lessons in a manner that allowed me to feel successful. I did not have a guilty feeling of leaving my students in the dark because I was trying to collect data for this action research. From this phase, I enjoyed observing my students both physical and online interactions. This phase allowed me to truly see Genius Hour at work.
Finally, there is a large sense of control that is lost as a teacher during genius hour. When I was searching for information on this intervention, there is a vast discrepancy in the implementation of genius hour. I spent numerous hours connecting with teachers on twitter, livebinder, digital portfolios and wikipages to get some consistency on how to implement genius hour. My teaching fear was that there was not enough teacher-centered instruction to control genius hour. As educators, we are accustomed to having the teacher edition book with the answers. With genius hour students’ learning grew organically not following a curricular guide. I had many questions about the implementation process. What if my students picked topics that were not interesting or inappropriate? Could they give up and not complete the assignment? Or worse what if they failed to learn anything. Through out my research I had a nagging fear that if students were in complete control of their research project, I would not be able to guide them. What I had failed to realize initially was the value student choice has over teacher control. This phase demonstrated that it didn’t matter what topics my students chose. It was the scaffolding and facilitation that I provide based on my students needs that made a teaching difference. All I needed to do was let my students control their own learning and the rest was up to me.
