Research Questions
1. If the Participatory Action Research (PAR) team collaborates reviewing the mid-year data in our dual immersion program identifying the achievement of students academically at-risk, what effect, if any, will it have in our daily practices?
Literature review
In cycles One and Two, the PAR team stressed the importance of reviewing transition practices and determining academically at-risk groups, as well as surveying teachers, students, parents, and community members -scholars- to improve transition practices as a whole. Cycle Three revolves around the idea of implementing teacher practices that would help the achievement for struggling students in DI programs. In this effort, data-informed decisions have been made to identify the struggling students and to design the intervention. The underlying idea is that identifying and providing specific intervention for these students would help in the process of transitioning into middle school (Cauley & Jovanovich, 2010;Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, 2012), and eventually in their achievement. Interestingly, technology has gained a crucial role in every stage of the learning process, and it appears inseparable from almost any educational action. Schauffhauser (2012) contends that there is a chasm between the data collected technologically and the teachers who could use it. (An in-depth literature review for this cycle is available in the final paper)
Actions Taken
Basically, the action taken in this cycle have been the Analysis of the students performance data and the identification students academically at-risk. Also, the PAR team has designed and implemented a after school workshop for students, the impact of which has been analyzed with students surveys and performance data after 5 weeks, The PAR team have met and identified struggling 7th graders using the mid-year data from two sources; the first semester grades from the online gradebook combined with the mid-year data a from the district’s progress monitoring system - called i-Ready-. Personalized letters and emails have been sent to the students’ homes, and parent consent has been collected in both forms. An after-school workshop for these students has been designed and implemented during February 2017 to create the habit of completing online lessons at home and involve parents in the process. A pretest and posttest survey about the workshop goals has been applied. Finally, the PAR team has reviewed the selected students’ grades before and after the intervention -5 weeks span-.
Measurement of Actions
The measurements of actions in Cycle Three have been performed in three ways. Firstly, measured in rate of response and participation. Secondly, with a students’ pretest -posttest survey. Thirdly, reviewing the student's GPA growth after the intervention in a five weeks span. The PAR team has selected 22 students academically at-risk in 7th grade, and has sent the students’ home 22 letters of participation.
Outcomes
Primarily, the main outcome of this Cycle Three has evolved around the daily practices of the PAR team members and its implications for the students’ outcomes. An ongoing teacher reflection on their daily practices related to the student’s progress has been introduced. The PAR team realized the importance of a mid-year data review of incoming students into the DI programs. In addition, new instructional practices have introduced to help the transition process, tailored to their individual needs that eventually boosted the student’s achievement.
In regards of the students’ participation and outcomes, out of a total of 47 7th graders in the 2016-2017 school year, a group of 22 students (46%) have been identified as pertaining to one or more of the four academically at-risk groups. The rate of response has been a 100%, 22 out the 22 parent letters were signed and returned to school. Only three students refused to participate in the workshops, leaving a total of 19 students enrolled to participate. This represents an 86% of acceptance rate.
In regards of the survey data, it revealed that 82% of the students have been in the dual immersion program four years or more. Conversely, an 18% of participants have been in three or less years. Regarding question #2 of the survey, the transition activities that students report to have participated, the most salient ones that have been consistent in the two surveys are: “visiting my future middle school while in elementary”, “attending orientation day in middle school”, “attending orientation day in elementary about middle school”, “and visiting my future middle school with my parents”. A majority of students felt highly or extremely prepared after the intervention. Regarding question #4, the students’ perception of the usefulness of the workshops remained the same, with 75% considering highly or extremely useful. However, a significant 19% changed their perception, decreasing it from somewhat useful to slightly useful. Regarding question #5 results showed that students biggest concerns before coming to middle school (Cauley & Jovanovich, 2010) remained consistent during the pre and posttest. An average of 75% of students marked down academic concerns such as “getting good grades”, “homework”, “keeping track of assignments” as their biggest concerns, leaving social and procedural concerns combined to a 25% of the total responses. Finally, in question #6, an average of 77% of students marked down as their strengths (Cauley & Jovanovich,2010) coming to middle school aspects such as “I always follow rules and adult directions” and “I was a hard worker, independent, industrious and diligent.”
Finally, after four weeks of intervention, the PAR team compared data from the student's gradebook of the five weeks progress report compared to the ten weeks progress report for the selected 21 struggling students. Data have shown that an average increase of 7.5% (0.30 points in a scale 0-4) occurred in the Grade Point Average (GPA) of all 19 academically at-risk students enrolled in the workshops. In contrast, the three remaining students originally selected that declined to participate in the workshops have had an average increase of 0%, they remained unaffected by the intervention. To the right, the increase in transition practices within the program can be seen in image summarizing the two year process.
Key Learnings
1- Importance of reflection on daily instructional practices with students.
2- Students are not aware of the concept of transition, but they can identify transition practices.
3- Student workshops with I-ready lessons worked well. An overall increase of 7,5% (2.88 to 3.18) in their GPA average after a month.
4- On pretest/posttest survey students considered the workshops highly/extremely useful (84%).
The next section unveils the conclusions to this study.
Cycle Three Story
