Conclusion
Significance
From this action research study, I determined that introducing literacy activities during an independent study period increased student engagement as measured by the amount of time students remained engaged in the different literacy activities. Based on these results, my primary conclusion was using this independent study period for literacy activities promoted learning and was a more effective use of classroom time. Prior to this intervention, students rushed to complete individual seatwork assignments during group reading time to maximize the amount of time available for play activities once their individual seatwork assignment was completed. Some students spent as few as 10 minutes on a 30-minute seatwork assignment in order to play with manipulatives like blocks, Legos, trains, Mr. Potato Head, and other small toys for as long as possible during the remainder of the 60-minute group reading time period. Additionally, students tended to become rowdy while playing, which interfered with the small reading groups. By adding literacy centers, students not only remained engaged for the entire period, I observed a marked improvement in the students’ ability to work independently and collaboratively. Most importantly, this action research experience taught me that it is possible to rigorously challenge kindergarteners while keeping activities fun and engaging.
As part of this action research study, students had the opportunity to participate in a variety of literacy activities, including collaborative group games, applications with an iPad, as well independent writing and phonics development. Not surprisingly, there were variations in the level of student engagement from activity-to-activity. For example, collaborative group games kept students engaged for a longer period of time compared to independent activities with overly simplistic rules. Consistent with research findings published in the book, Literacy Work Stations: Making Centers Work (Diller, 2003), literacy activities that were explained in advance to students through modeling were more engaging, particularly when there were clear expectations – e.g., a defined start and finish to a game. As long as students understood exactly what was expected, they remained engaged in the activity. Conversely, when rules for a game were not well defined, students exhibited signs of frustration and frequently lost interest in completing the activity. By far, the least engaging activities for students were games with overly simple rules, such as read around the room. This experience suggests that activities need to exceed a minimum “intellectual challenging” threshold; otherwise, students disengage quickly from lack of interest.
Another key finding from this action research study is students remained engaged for a longer period of time when given a choice in selecting the activity. In general, students reacted positively when they were provided with options rather than being told what to do, as if it was “free play” time. As Deci and Ryan concluded from their research (1987), in order to make learning relevant, students must be given choice. My experience supports the conclusions of Deci and Ryan and further demonstrated that giving students a choice translates in a greater sense of accountability for the activity. For example, student work samples were markedly better when students were able to select among different literacy activities. The students not only spent more time on the activity, they were also more likely to do a more thorough job.
Last but not least, I discovered that students were more likely to choose an activity on the day that I first introduced it. Similar results were found in a study conducted by Green, Britt, and Parker (2002) when introducing books. This finding is particularly relevant in that it gives me as the teacher a method by which to influence students to practice a particular literacy skills without having to restrict their ability to choose the activity. For example, if students need to work on the /ea/ sound, I can introduce a literacy activity based on the /ea/ sound knowing that the majority of students will choose to participate in that particular literacy activity.
Overall, I found the addition of literacy activities did not severely compromise the fun associated with free play time that students were accustomed to having during the group reading period. As Miller and Almon (2009) advocated, I too believe that students need to play in kindergarten. From my perspective, the literacy activities balanced the need for play with the need to develop literacy skills by essentially giving students an opportunity to “learn by playing.” In my future classroom, I plan to use this type of approach whenever possible – integration of academic pursuits with playful activities.
Citations
Deci, E., Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037
Diller, D. (2003). Literacy work stations; Making centers work. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Green, S. K., Britt, C. & Parker, P. (2002). When Do They Choose the Reading Center? Promoting Literacy in a Kindergarten Classroom. Reading Horizons, 43(2), 103-113.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 75(1), 42-45.
Limitations
Although my action research study provided useful insights about implementing literacy activities in a controlled setting, there were a number of limitations with my research that may have affected my findings. First, the lack of time to more fully conduct my research was a limiting factor. After completing my needs assessment in mid-March, I was unable to implement Phase 1 until half way through April due to a number of class-related scheduling conflicts. Fortunately, I was able to collect four weeks of data for the Phase 1 implementation. For Phase 2, however, I was not able to collect the same amount of data as a result of an unforeseen natural disaster (fire) during the first week of implementation that resulted in a school evacuation and closure. Consequently, I lost this entire week. Additionally, as a result of an unplanned engineering program, the time allotted for the daily group reading workshop was reduced from 1 hour to 45 minutes, and my own time was redirected to help with report card assessments. Although I tried to minimize these impacts as much as possible, I may have been able to gather additional data had there been more time, and thus, have a better holistic picture of the efficacy of my intervention.
My second limitation was access to iPads. In my original intervention plan, I expected that each student would have access to an iPad at least once per week based on the sharing arrangement among the Kindergarten and Grade 1 classes. As a result of various issues – not all iPads working, iPads being delivered without the battery being charged, applications not being loaded – the actual amount of time I originally anticipated for iPad use was approximately half of what I had expected. I believe if I had more time to collect iPad usage data, I would have been able to obtain more complete and compelling data about the effect of iPad usage on student engagement.
Last, being a teacher-researcher was a limiting factor in that there are inherent biases associated with each of these roles, particularly when doing both concurrently. As a researcher, we often want our research findings to reinforce our preconceived notions. As a teacher, we want our interventions to promote learning, so there is the potential that we influence the outcomes based on our actions. Although I tried to remain impartial throughout the process and, in particular, when analyzing the data, it is possible that I unintentionally inserted my biases into the findings.
Reflection
This action research study has been a valuable exercise. At the onset, my approach for implementing anything new or different in the classroom would have been based solely on trial and error. This experience taught me the value of using a more scientific methodology to address a classroom problem, including assessing the need, forming an essential question, collecting data, and forming actionable themes based on the results of the intervention. For complex classroom issues, I believe using the action research study framework is not only more efficient than a trial and error approach, it will yield better, more definitive results. Even if I do not necessarily have the time to go through the entire process for certain problems, I believe that thinking about solving the problem from the perspective of a research will help me develop better solutions.
Another important takeaway from this action research study is that our preconceived notions about what works and does not work in a classroom setting are not necessarily correct and need to be tested. For instance, before conducting this research, I assumed that playing collaborative games during a group reading session would have distracted the reading group. This assumption proved false. Collaborative games turned out to be less distracting, particularly compared to other so-called “silent” activities like doing puzzles, because the students participating in the collaborative game remained engaged and were therefore less disruptive.
This action research study also reinforced the need to be flexible in conducting research or implementing a classroom change. In a constantly changing environment like a classroom, things rarely proceed as planned, and my action research project continually reminded me that being adaptable and flexible are critically important traits for both teachers and researchers.
Last but not least, I learned through this experience that all students, even those who are kindergarten-aged, can be an effective source of feedback. Not only did I learn from my own observations, I also gained valuable insights by listening to my students. If nothing else, I hope that I remember this important lesson that my action research study taught me throughout my teaching career.
From this action research study, I determined that introducing literacy activities during an independent study period increased student engagement as measured by the amount of time students remained engaged in the different literacy activities. Based on these results, my primary conclusion was using this independent study period for literacy activities promoted learning and was a more effective use of classroom time. Prior to this intervention, students rushed to complete individual seatwork assignments during group reading time to maximize the amount of time available for play activities once their individual seatwork assignment was completed. Some students spent as few as 10 minutes on a 30-minute seatwork assignment in order to play with manipulatives like blocks, Legos, trains, Mr. Potato Head, and other small toys for as long as possible during the remainder of the 60-minute group reading time period. Additionally, students tended to become rowdy while playing, which interfered with the small reading groups. By adding literacy centers, students not only remained engaged for the entire period, I observed a marked improvement in the students’ ability to work independently and collaboratively. Most importantly, this action research experience taught me that it is possible to rigorously challenge kindergarteners while keeping activities fun and engaging.
As part of this action research study, students had the opportunity to participate in a variety of literacy activities, including collaborative group games, applications with an iPad, as well independent writing and phonics development. Not surprisingly, there were variations in the level of student engagement from activity-to-activity. For example, collaborative group games kept students engaged for a longer period of time compared to independent activities with overly simplistic rules. Consistent with research findings published in the book, Literacy Work Stations: Making Centers Work (Diller, 2003), literacy activities that were explained in advance to students through modeling were more engaging, particularly when there were clear expectations – e.g., a defined start and finish to a game. As long as students understood exactly what was expected, they remained engaged in the activity. Conversely, when rules for a game were not well defined, students exhibited signs of frustration and frequently lost interest in completing the activity. By far, the least engaging activities for students were games with overly simple rules, such as read around the room. This experience suggests that activities need to exceed a minimum “intellectual challenging” threshold; otherwise, students disengage quickly from lack of interest.
Another key finding from this action research study is students remained engaged for a longer period of time when given a choice in selecting the activity. In general, students reacted positively when they were provided with options rather than being told what to do, as if it was “free play” time. As Deci and Ryan concluded from their research (1987), in order to make learning relevant, students must be given choice. My experience supports the conclusions of Deci and Ryan and further demonstrated that giving students a choice translates in a greater sense of accountability for the activity. For example, student work samples were markedly better when students were able to select among different literacy activities. The students not only spent more time on the activity, they were also more likely to do a more thorough job.
Last but not least, I discovered that students were more likely to choose an activity on the day that I first introduced it. Similar results were found in a study conducted by Green, Britt, and Parker (2002) when introducing books. This finding is particularly relevant in that it gives me as the teacher a method by which to influence students to practice a particular literacy skills without having to restrict their ability to choose the activity. For example, if students need to work on the /ea/ sound, I can introduce a literacy activity based on the /ea/ sound knowing that the majority of students will choose to participate in that particular literacy activity.
Overall, I found the addition of literacy activities did not severely compromise the fun associated with free play time that students were accustomed to having during the group reading period. As Miller and Almon (2009) advocated, I too believe that students need to play in kindergarten. From my perspective, the literacy activities balanced the need for play with the need to develop literacy skills by essentially giving students an opportunity to “learn by playing.” In my future classroom, I plan to use this type of approach whenever possible – integration of academic pursuits with playful activities.
Citations
Deci, E., Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037
Diller, D. (2003). Literacy work stations; Making centers work. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Green, S. K., Britt, C. & Parker, P. (2002). When Do They Choose the Reading Center? Promoting Literacy in a Kindergarten Classroom. Reading Horizons, 43(2), 103-113.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 75(1), 42-45.
Limitations
Although my action research study provided useful insights about implementing literacy activities in a controlled setting, there were a number of limitations with my research that may have affected my findings. First, the lack of time to more fully conduct my research was a limiting factor. After completing my needs assessment in mid-March, I was unable to implement Phase 1 until half way through April due to a number of class-related scheduling conflicts. Fortunately, I was able to collect four weeks of data for the Phase 1 implementation. For Phase 2, however, I was not able to collect the same amount of data as a result of an unforeseen natural disaster (fire) during the first week of implementation that resulted in a school evacuation and closure. Consequently, I lost this entire week. Additionally, as a result of an unplanned engineering program, the time allotted for the daily group reading workshop was reduced from 1 hour to 45 minutes, and my own time was redirected to help with report card assessments. Although I tried to minimize these impacts as much as possible, I may have been able to gather additional data had there been more time, and thus, have a better holistic picture of the efficacy of my intervention.
My second limitation was access to iPads. In my original intervention plan, I expected that each student would have access to an iPad at least once per week based on the sharing arrangement among the Kindergarten and Grade 1 classes. As a result of various issues – not all iPads working, iPads being delivered without the battery being charged, applications not being loaded – the actual amount of time I originally anticipated for iPad use was approximately half of what I had expected. I believe if I had more time to collect iPad usage data, I would have been able to obtain more complete and compelling data about the effect of iPad usage on student engagement.
Last, being a teacher-researcher was a limiting factor in that there are inherent biases associated with each of these roles, particularly when doing both concurrently. As a researcher, we often want our research findings to reinforce our preconceived notions. As a teacher, we want our interventions to promote learning, so there is the potential that we influence the outcomes based on our actions. Although I tried to remain impartial throughout the process and, in particular, when analyzing the data, it is possible that I unintentionally inserted my biases into the findings.
Reflection
This action research study has been a valuable exercise. At the onset, my approach for implementing anything new or different in the classroom would have been based solely on trial and error. This experience taught me the value of using a more scientific methodology to address a classroom problem, including assessing the need, forming an essential question, collecting data, and forming actionable themes based on the results of the intervention. For complex classroom issues, I believe using the action research study framework is not only more efficient than a trial and error approach, it will yield better, more definitive results. Even if I do not necessarily have the time to go through the entire process for certain problems, I believe that thinking about solving the problem from the perspective of a research will help me develop better solutions.
Another important takeaway from this action research study is that our preconceived notions about what works and does not work in a classroom setting are not necessarily correct and need to be tested. For instance, before conducting this research, I assumed that playing collaborative games during a group reading session would have distracted the reading group. This assumption proved false. Collaborative games turned out to be less distracting, particularly compared to other so-called “silent” activities like doing puzzles, because the students participating in the collaborative game remained engaged and were therefore less disruptive.
This action research study also reinforced the need to be flexible in conducting research or implementing a classroom change. In a constantly changing environment like a classroom, things rarely proceed as planned, and my action research project continually reminded me that being adaptable and flexible are critically important traits for both teachers and researchers.
Last but not least, I learned through this experience that all students, even those who are kindergarten-aged, can be an effective source of feedback. Not only did I learn from my own observations, I also gained valuable insights by listening to my students. If nothing else, I hope that I remember this important lesson that my action research study taught me throughout my teaching career.