Description of Implementation
The focus of Phase 1 was to determine the types of literacy activities that promote student engagement during independent work time as a means to more effectively use this time for learning rather than merely keeping students occupied with free play activities. Specifically, my intervention was designed to answer the question: How will student engagement be affected by the addition of different literacy activities during independent work time? To make this assessment, I introduced various literacy activities over a three week period and measured the impact these activities had on student engagement based on the choices students made, as well as the amount of time students remained engaged in more formal learning activities during the independent work time period.
Week 1:
During the first week of implementation, I introduced a set of new group literacy games. On the first day of the week, I showed students the appropriate way to play each of these games using students to model the desired outcome. We also discussed the reasons the games were important. The students appeared to be genuinely excited to have new games to play during independent work time. The games were placed in green tubs with the name of the game or activity marked on the outside of the tub. The available options included a vowel game, a story sequencing game, a sight word game, a writing game with dice, a sound switch game, a word blackout game, a parking lot game, and a rhyming game.
On the second day of implementation, right before group reading time, I divided the class into four equal groups so that each group would have an equal opportunity to use the seven iPads available to the class on Tuesdays and Thursdays – see discussion regarding Integration of iPad Devices below.
When reading groups met on the second day, students who were not part of a scheduled reading group were given a typical seatwork assignment to complete. For example, the seatwork assignment on this particular day involved identifying /et/ words (e.g., net, wet, met). The students were also instructed to select one of the group literacy games when their seatwork assignment was completed. To monitor the quality of the seatwork assignments, I had students turn in their competed seatwork assignment directly to me.
With group literacy activities replacing free play, I began to measure the amount of time students spent on their seatwork assignment. In the first week, these measurements indicated that students were spending more time on their seatwork assignment in comparison to prior weeks when students tended to rush to finish the seatwork assignment in order to maximize the amount of time available for free play. I also noticed that students were completing their entire seatwork assignment instead of leaving certain portions blank.
During the first week, I also recorded which games students chose and how students engaged with other students while playing collaboratively. Three games – parking lot, sight word bingo, and sound switch – were the most popular choices. In addition, I observed that students tended to join a literacy game in progress if no other students finished their seatwork assignment at the same time. However, when multiple students completed their seatwork concurrently, these students tended to start a new literacy game as a group. Somewhat unexpectedly, students were often concerned about the maximum number of participants who could play a particular game at the same time. When this question arose, I let students decide the appropriate number of participants as long as no more than five were playing the same game. By the end of the first week, I had introduced approximately 10 new group literacy games.
Week 1:
During the first week of implementation, I introduced a set of new group literacy games. On the first day of the week, I showed students the appropriate way to play each of these games using students to model the desired outcome. We also discussed the reasons the games were important. The students appeared to be genuinely excited to have new games to play during independent work time. The games were placed in green tubs with the name of the game or activity marked on the outside of the tub. The available options included a vowel game, a story sequencing game, a sight word game, a writing game with dice, a sound switch game, a word blackout game, a parking lot game, and a rhyming game.
On the second day of implementation, right before group reading time, I divided the class into four equal groups so that each group would have an equal opportunity to use the seven iPads available to the class on Tuesdays and Thursdays – see discussion regarding Integration of iPad Devices below.
When reading groups met on the second day, students who were not part of a scheduled reading group were given a typical seatwork assignment to complete. For example, the seatwork assignment on this particular day involved identifying /et/ words (e.g., net, wet, met). The students were also instructed to select one of the group literacy games when their seatwork assignment was completed. To monitor the quality of the seatwork assignments, I had students turn in their competed seatwork assignment directly to me.
With group literacy activities replacing free play, I began to measure the amount of time students spent on their seatwork assignment. In the first week, these measurements indicated that students were spending more time on their seatwork assignment in comparison to prior weeks when students tended to rush to finish the seatwork assignment in order to maximize the amount of time available for free play. I also noticed that students were completing their entire seatwork assignment instead of leaving certain portions blank.
During the first week, I also recorded which games students chose and how students engaged with other students while playing collaboratively. Three games – parking lot, sight word bingo, and sound switch – were the most popular choices. In addition, I observed that students tended to join a literacy game in progress if no other students finished their seatwork assignment at the same time. However, when multiple students completed their seatwork concurrently, these students tended to start a new literacy game as a group. Somewhat unexpectedly, students were often concerned about the maximum number of participants who could play a particular game at the same time. When this question arose, I let students decide the appropriate number of participants as long as no more than five were playing the same game. By the end of the first week, I had introduced approximately 10 new group literacy games.
Week 2:
During the second week of implementation, I reintroduced different independent literacy activities that had been available to students as a free play activity. The available options included independent reading, puzzles, reading activities, and writing activities. To ensure the students understood how to do activities, I asked different students to model each activity, such as using a wand to find touch different reading words that had been posted around the classroom. The students seemed genuinely excited to try some of these options, even though most of students had previously never elected to do one of these activities during free play. In addition, I brought in a set of journals that students could use to make free writing entries at a designated writer’s workshop table.
On the first day of the week, after completing their seatwork assignment, students were only permitted to choose an independent activity. For the remainder of the week, however, students had the option of choosing a group or independent activity. Without exception, when it was a student’s designated day to use an iPad, he or she elected to use the iPad over any of the other available group or independent activities. When an iPad was not an option, the vast majority of students elected to go the writer’s workshop table and write in their journals. Many of the students used their journal to write about their family, friends, or school. Even though this activity was intended to be done independently, I observed many students talking at the table and sharing with one another the subject matter they planned to write about in their journal. Students also expressed excitement when they found out they could also draw pictures in their journal. At the beginning of the week, I set out five journals. By the third day, I needed to set out 10 journals because so many students were choosing this option. Consistent with my findings during the first week, I found that students spent more time on their seatwork assignment, as I believe that students felt less of a need to rush by eliminating free play as an option.
During the second week of implementation, I reintroduced different independent literacy activities that had been available to students as a free play activity. The available options included independent reading, puzzles, reading activities, and writing activities. To ensure the students understood how to do activities, I asked different students to model each activity, such as using a wand to find touch different reading words that had been posted around the classroom. The students seemed genuinely excited to try some of these options, even though most of students had previously never elected to do one of these activities during free play. In addition, I brought in a set of journals that students could use to make free writing entries at a designated writer’s workshop table.
On the first day of the week, after completing their seatwork assignment, students were only permitted to choose an independent activity. For the remainder of the week, however, students had the option of choosing a group or independent activity. Without exception, when it was a student’s designated day to use an iPad, he or she elected to use the iPad over any of the other available group or independent activities. When an iPad was not an option, the vast majority of students elected to go the writer’s workshop table and write in their journals. Many of the students used their journal to write about their family, friends, or school. Even though this activity was intended to be done independently, I observed many students talking at the table and sharing with one another the subject matter they planned to write about in their journal. Students also expressed excitement when they found out they could also draw pictures in their journal. At the beginning of the week, I set out five journals. By the third day, I needed to set out 10 journals because so many students were choosing this option. Consistent with my findings during the first week, I found that students spent more time on their seatwork assignment, as I believe that students felt less of a need to rush by eliminating free play as an option.
Week 3:
Rather than giving students the option to select from all of the group and independent activities that had been introduced during the first two weeks, I assigned an activity to student during the third week of implementation using the “check your name” board we use in the classroom so that I had could assess student engagement across a broader set of group and independent activities, particularly after so many student elected to write in their journals during the second week of implementation. Each day, after students completed their seatwork assignment, they went over to the “check your name” board to find their assigned literacy activity. By dividing the students into five groups, I was able to rotate the literacy activities in a controlled manner each day. This approach also helped me to identify the types of activities that excited students based on their reaction when they saw their name assigned to a particular literacy activity. For example, when students were assigned to an iPad activity, they unanimously expressed excitement and rushed over to pick-up an iPad. I also found that certain group games like parking lot and sight word bingo were distinctly more popular than the independent literacy activities. Only one student expressed disappointment that there was no longer a free period to play with toys like Legos, blocks, and trains. After the first day during which this particular student was visibly upset and pouted about not being able to play with toys, however, even this student appeared to be excited to try the different literacy activities.
Rather than giving students the option to select from all of the group and independent activities that had been introduced during the first two weeks, I assigned an activity to student during the third week of implementation using the “check your name” board we use in the classroom so that I had could assess student engagement across a broader set of group and independent activities, particularly after so many student elected to write in their journals during the second week of implementation. Each day, after students completed their seatwork assignment, they went over to the “check your name” board to find their assigned literacy activity. By dividing the students into five groups, I was able to rotate the literacy activities in a controlled manner each day. This approach also helped me to identify the types of activities that excited students based on their reaction when they saw their name assigned to a particular literacy activity. For example, when students were assigned to an iPad activity, they unanimously expressed excitement and rushed over to pick-up an iPad. I also found that certain group games like parking lot and sight word bingo were distinctly more popular than the independent literacy activities. Only one student expressed disappointment that there was no longer a free period to play with toys like Legos, blocks, and trains. After the first day during which this particular student was visibly upset and pouted about not being able to play with toys, however, even this student appeared to be excited to try the different literacy activities.
Integration of iPad Devices:
On Tuesday and Thursday each week, there were seven iPad devices available for classroom use during the reading group period. On these days, I used the iPads as a tool to introduce new literacy applications for the students to explore. For the three week implementation period, one-half of the students used an iPad each Tuesday, while the other half of the used an iPad each Thursday, such that each group of students spent approximately 25 minutes per week performing literacy activities using three iPad applications: Teach Me Kindergarten; RazKids’ and Toontastic. Before students were permitted to use one of these applications, I provided a short demonstration of the application. As indicated above, students were eager to use the iPads, and none of the elected to give up time on the iPad time for another literacy activity. Compared to other literacy activities, students were most consistently engaged in activities while using the iPads, remaining intently focused on the specific activity for the entire period.
Results
Based on my personal observations, review of student work samples, and student feedback, I was pleasantly surprised by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to this intervention. By replacing free play time with a literacy activity, there was not only a marked increase in the amount of time students spent on their seatwork assignments, students were equally content to engage in learning activities, provided the activities were stimulating across different dimensions. For instance, I found that students favor group activities over independent activities. On the other hand, certain independent activities like finding reading words posted around the room or doing a puzzle did were considerably less engaging for students, in which case students tended to either do nothing or become disruptive – for example, using the wands provided to find reading words for a sword fight. Perhaps most surprisingly, I found that, when given a choice, students elected to express themselves in words and pictures through the writing journals I provided more often than I anticipated. Perhaps least surprising, students were the most engaged and exhibited the most satisfaction with literacy activities using an iPad.
One of the measures that I used for assessing the impact of my intervention was the amount of time students spent each day on their seatwork assignment before and free play time was replaced by literacy activities. For this purpose, I recorded the length of time (in minutes) it took each student to complete their seatwork assignment on a daily basis. I then compared my findings with the baseline I established before the intervention. Below is a graph that shows how long students spent on their seatwork assignment before the intervention and for each week during the intervention (X axis) categorized in five minute increments (Y axis). As depicted by the graph, at the end of three week intervention, the weighted-average amount of time students took to complete their seatwork assignment was approximately 19 minutes compared to approximately 15 minutes before the intervention.
On Tuesday and Thursday each week, there were seven iPad devices available for classroom use during the reading group period. On these days, I used the iPads as a tool to introduce new literacy applications for the students to explore. For the three week implementation period, one-half of the students used an iPad each Tuesday, while the other half of the used an iPad each Thursday, such that each group of students spent approximately 25 minutes per week performing literacy activities using three iPad applications: Teach Me Kindergarten; RazKids’ and Toontastic. Before students were permitted to use one of these applications, I provided a short demonstration of the application. As indicated above, students were eager to use the iPads, and none of the elected to give up time on the iPad time for another literacy activity. Compared to other literacy activities, students were most consistently engaged in activities while using the iPads, remaining intently focused on the specific activity for the entire period.
Results
Based on my personal observations, review of student work samples, and student feedback, I was pleasantly surprised by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to this intervention. By replacing free play time with a literacy activity, there was not only a marked increase in the amount of time students spent on their seatwork assignments, students were equally content to engage in learning activities, provided the activities were stimulating across different dimensions. For instance, I found that students favor group activities over independent activities. On the other hand, certain independent activities like finding reading words posted around the room or doing a puzzle did were considerably less engaging for students, in which case students tended to either do nothing or become disruptive – for example, using the wands provided to find reading words for a sword fight. Perhaps most surprisingly, I found that, when given a choice, students elected to express themselves in words and pictures through the writing journals I provided more often than I anticipated. Perhaps least surprising, students were the most engaged and exhibited the most satisfaction with literacy activities using an iPad.
One of the measures that I used for assessing the impact of my intervention was the amount of time students spent each day on their seatwork assignment before and free play time was replaced by literacy activities. For this purpose, I recorded the length of time (in minutes) it took each student to complete their seatwork assignment on a daily basis. I then compared my findings with the baseline I established before the intervention. Below is a graph that shows how long students spent on their seatwork assignment before the intervention and for each week during the intervention (X axis) categorized in five minute increments (Y axis). As depicted by the graph, at the end of three week intervention, the weighted-average amount of time students took to complete their seatwork assignment was approximately 19 minutes compared to approximately 15 minutes before the intervention.
As a qualitative measure, I compared student work samples before and after the intervention to assess whether there was any change in the quality of work. For this assessment, I used similar seatwork assignments to remove as much potential bias from the comparisons as possible. I found that students were completing their entire seatwork assignment on a more regular basis after the intervention. I also found that students seemed to be doing more work on their seatwork assignment after the intervention – e.g., coloring a picture in a seatwork assignment even when the seatwork assignment did not require coloring. To illustrate my findings, below is a sample of a seatwork assignment in which students were asked to show different ways to make 10 before and after the intervention. As is evident, the student spent more time and showed more ways to make 10 after the intervention.
Finally, to help with the assessment, I solicited student feedback about the literacy activities by asking questions, such as, “What is your favorite activity? What activity do you like the least? “What activity do you feel you learn the most?” Answers to these questions varied considerably. However, the majority of students indicated they liked the iPads best. When I asked about specific group or independent literacy activities, students typically responded that they preferred group activities because it was an opportunity to “play with their friends.” However, a small group of students indicated that group activities can get “crazy” and it “is not a good thing because we can get in trouble.”