The three data points I selected for my research were chosen because, within my second-grade classroom, the highest academic need was within writing. After looking into MAP scores, baseline writing assessment scores, and interviews about writing I found that writing has a great need in my classroom. A difficult factor, I realized, when researching writing was how individualized the subject was. Within writing, there is no one right or wrong answer, growth and success were based upon the individual student and their writing ability. The reason I selected my data collection points was they all supported one another very well. I felt that each point of data clearly linked with the other pieces of data within my study. When I looked at my data collection methods, I wanted to collect information that would show me a clear picture of student success. I also wanted a clear picture when a child didn’t succeed to understand what went wrong. Through the pre and post-test, the writing goals, and the climate survey, I felt that a child’s results would show where more help was needed or what was done well.

 

 

Pre and Post Writing Test

 The pre and post-test showed me the overall growth made among students over the six week period. I scored the pre and post assessment with a district-provided rubric as it was consistent among grade levels. When the children advance grades, the district looks for the same writing skills, just more in-depth as the grade level progresses. Knowing this information, it provided me the clarity that this study wasn’t advancing students for only a six week period. Rather, it prepared them to be successful in applying writing skills they will be expected to know for years to come. Using a district-provided rubric was fair and equitable to how they will be evaluated to prove mastery by the district. The pre-test also allowed me to see the skills students acquired before any instruction was given. I was able to see the skills that students had already mastered and were correctly applying. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The highest score achieved on the pretest was 12. The lowest score achieved on the pretest was a 4. This data showed a large learning gap among my students. To understand where this gap was rooting, I decided to look more in-depth into each category within the writing rubric. After looking into each category, the data showed the highest area of need in the whole class was organization. There were 7 students that scored a 1, and 7 students that scored a 2. While it was great that 5 students were able to score at a 3, those students still had room to improve and move to a score of 4. With this information, I was able to purposefully plan more lessons targeted to organization. Key skills at a second-grade level are the ability to group content into paragraphs with indents and having information flow in a sequenced order. With this data, I made an informed instructional decision to benefit the high need within my class. 

 

Individual Writing Goals  

 

After reflection of the overall focus point for the classroom as a whole, I knew I also needed to address different skills among each writer in the classroom. A student that scored a 4 on the pre-test,  needed very different instruction than the student who scored a 12.  From this data, I chose to track goal setting and achievement for each individual student. When I monitored individual needs throughout the study, I made instructional decisions based on each writer's ability. The data informed me when students demonstrated mastery so they could continue to be challenged. The data also indicated when students required reteaching or remediation. It was crucial that this was provided in a timely manner to support growth toward our overall goal of proficiency on the grade-level rubric. Using goal setting and monitoring was important to my study as writing is a very individualized subject. By setting goals specific to each students level, I provided differentiation of content to meet the specific needs among each writer in my classroom to promote positive growth.

 

Over the six week period, I monitored each student individually. I gave each student a recording document that we filled out during individual writing conferences. The students and I held mutual conversations about their story, a strength in their writing, their current score on the rubric, and a goal for their writing. The students kept this document on their desk over the entire six week period. Each time I met with them I started the conversation with, “What skill are you working on today as a writer?” Most times, the students talked to me about their writing goal and the rate of their application. If the student showed me that they correctly applied their goal, we celebrated success then began to conference in order to find s new strength and goal to record. This document was kept on the student’s desk and they utilized it during writing time. Through observation I saw many students reference this sheet each day before they began writing. It was a tool that helped me track and monitor progress with students and how many goals they achieved; it also helped the student monitor themselves to keep their writing focused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When observing student work, I had to be purposeful in the part of their story that needed to be enhanced. While there were many parts of student’s stories that needed work, I picked what was most beneficial in the writing process as well as what they were developmentally ready for. There were students working towards mastery of the same writing goal at points during the study. I was able to utilize this data and conference with all the students at once with the creation of a small group, mini-lesson conference. The data showed this need and I was able to plan instruction for these students in order to promote further understanding of the topic. Rather than being on their own, students were also able to converse with one another about the skill and work together in the application. It made students hold each other accountable for applying the skill as well as helping others apply the skill. From the data recording sheets, I was also able to tell when a whole class was working on a similar goal. This occurred once throughout the story where the majority of the class worked towards mastering the writing skill of showing our reader instead of telling. Instead of holding 15 different conferences that all taught this same skill, an instructional decision was made to reteach the skill as a whole group lesson where students could be re-exposed and have guided practice of the skill. The data was also utilized to inform differentiated instruction from day to day. Each student was taught a specific skill during conferences based on the need portrayed in their writing. Their writing goals provided insight for me, as an educator, the instruction that needed to be taught to each student.

 

The climate survey was selected in order for me to understand the feelings students had when they are in the classroom. Through the climate survey, I gained data on each child’s feelings and was able to accommodate how I interacted each child based on these feelings. The data of the climate survey also took me further than their feelings. It provided me insight on how I had students engaged with learning, and how I had them collaborate with one another. One student, in particular, answered “disagree” to the question “I have fun learning”. From this data, I understood that changes in content needed to occur in order to increase the desire to learn. The climate survey data allowed me to understand how a child felt which can give a great explanation to the effort they put forth in their acadmic work.