Kim's Conclusions - sorry for the length!

Despite the original implementation plan, there were some changes to the original form of assessment. This includes the decision to use the same rubric for the theme statement and supporting evidence in both the pre-lesson and the implementation lesson that utilized technology. The reason for this was because of the realization that many of the criteria from the rubric that incorporated the discussion board no longer applied to the in-class implementation lesson. Instead, much of that rubric focused on out-of-class postings, and in an effort to keep the recording of data somewhat standardized, the rubric for this information remained the same throughout. Of additional importance, and in order to understand the results in the appendixes, it is necessary to note that a week after the pre-lesson, an additional student switched into the sample class, making the number of students now 23, rather than the 22 students that were present for the Catcher in the Rye pre-lesson.

One contextual factor that could have interfered with the success of this implementation was the student’s’ comfort in working with their peers in their groups, as this could hinder their ability to openly share their perspectives and ideas. However, during the lesson, I heard each student in the class add at least one comment to the group’s discussion. Another contextual factor was the technological hardware. Some of the computers had difficulty working during the theme creation, and later, when working on the discussion boards to add support to the alternative group, one group accidentally hit a button on the keyboard that deleted their work. This group spent about ten minutes trying to get the work back, at which point they realized they needed to re-do the work. As a result, the group became very frustrated.

Additionally, there were two video cameras rolling throughout the lesson. As this is something the students are not used to on a daily basis, this contextual factor took some time for them to become comfortable with, and it was obvious that some students were more comfortable with having the cameras in the room than others were. A final contextual factor was centered on their reading of the text, especially if they had actually read the assigned passages up until the practicum lesson. Also, this is not an “easy” text, as it is written in the minimalistic style, meaning that nearly everything mentioned in the novel some sort of deeper meaning. If students had difficulty understanding the nuances of the text, this could be another factor that could obstruct their development of a powerful theme statement.

The first initial objective was:

1: When placed in heterogeneous groups determined by comfort level pre-surveys on using technology, a minimum of six pairs (twelve students) from this class will be able to use the discussion board threads on our class BlackBoard page to develop a theme statement that merits a numeric score of four on the “Collaborative In-Class Group Work: Development of Theme Statements Using Discussion Board” rubric, found under the section entitled “Good/Fair: Meets Standard.”

Based on the implementation of the lesson, 11/23 students received a 4/4 on their theme statements. While this does not meet the original objective (12 students), this is still an increase from the pre-lesson’s data, where zero students received a 4/4 on their theme statements. According to this data, students are improving on their development and support of theme statements, but students will need to continually work on this skill in order to become entirely proficient at this task.

The second objective stated:

2: When placed in heterogeneous groups determined by comfort level pre-surveys on working in collaborative groups, a minimum of twelve individuals from this class will be able to numerically score a four in terms of their ability to self-manage, self-monitor and self-modify, as described in the “Collaborative In-Class Group Work Rubric,” found under the section entitled “Good/Fair: Meets Standard.”

As a whole, most students improved on their initial ability to self-manage, self-monitor and self-modify when working in collaborative groups (see Appendix 2b and 2c for pre- and post-implementation results). Students went above the initial expectations from the objective, and hence, they have improved upon their individual contributions during collaborative group work.

The third objective stated:

3: After the completion of the day’s lesson, at least one student will increase his comfort levels of using discussion boards to develop his understanding of creating and supporting a theme statement, as determined in his responses to the pre- and post-survey on technology comfort levels.

Based on the results from the post-lesson comfort surveys concerning the use of discussion boards, most students increased their comfort level with their use of this technology (see Appendix 3 b and 3c for pre- and post- implementation results). Because of the results of this data, it is clear that students have become more comfortable in using the discussion board during the day’s lesson to create a statement of theme. This also became quite clear in their responses on an anonymous “Reflection” thread on the discussion board (see later discussion).

The fourth objective stated:

4: After the completion of the day’s lessons, at least one student will increase his comfort levels of using collaborative groups to develop his understanding of creating and supporting a theme statement, as determined in his responses to the pre- and post-survey on collaboration comfort levels.

Many students increased their comfort levels of working in collaborative groups during the implementation (see Appendix 4b and 4c for pre- and post-implementation results). There were no students that rated their comfort as below a 3/5 when working with collaborative groups during the implementation, and some of the commentary on the surveys concerning the group work included “My group helped me understand what a theme actually is” and “If I did this by myself, my ideas would not be as developed as they were when we worked together.” Such commentary continued within the anonymous postings on the “Reflections” thread in the discussion board.

Despite the anonymity of the reflections, the responses to the anonymous reflective prompts indicated that using the technology while working in collaborative groups helped to enhance individual understanding of how to create and support theme statements (see Appendix M for prompts). Some of the post-lesson responses included the following commentary:

1) “I like using discussion boards because if I'm stuck or need help with an idea I can view other people's threads and see their point of view which helps me view something differently and helps me get an idea. I thought that this was a cool way to share information and learn more. I really liked it”; and 2) “I liked how we used technology. We made better use of our time and energy by just one person typing, and it was a lot easier than writing it out. I also liked how we used the discussion board to communicate with our other groups and how we could access the themes of others to further understand their ideas. Using this technology really helped in terms of our discussions, and we went more in depth.”

As shown by their commentary, most students saw the discussion boards as a tool to facilitate their learning, rather than their seeing the use of technology as being the focus of the lesson. Instead, the implementation of the technology furthered the group’s collaborative discussion of ideas, and allowed for the viewing of alternative peer models before finalizing and posting their ideas. In this sharing of ideas between groups, a kind of social cognition of the lesson’s content was created, aided by the technology.

After reflecting on the implementation of this technology, and in reviewing students’ anonymous reflections on the discussion boards, there are some definitive revisions to be made in implementing this technology in the future. Some of these revisions are based on additional commentary from the anonymous reflection postings on the discussion board. A few of the comments reflected the following notions:

1) Using the discussion board was okay, but I prefer taking notes as a class while we have a discussion. It was frustrating that you cannot really edit it after it is submitted”, and 2) “My group became very flustered and annoyed when the computer didn't respond.”

While I believe that the discussion boards are an efficient way to create student artifacts of information for future writing assignments and to track student progress, I think I need to stress that students are still allowed to take notes during the discussion board process. In this way, I will be differentiating the lesson to the variety of students’ learning needs. I would also like to research the possibility of editing posts that have already been posted to allow only final posts, rather than drafts, to be made public. Not only this, but to avoid potential technological issues with the computers, I will need to check the computers in the carts before usage to ensure that all laptops work, as this will avoid student frustration during the lesson implementation. Also, instead of having each student have their own computer during the group work, I would rather each group have a shared computer, as this would further the group’s collaborative efforts. As a matter of fact, most groups ended up sharing one computer during the lesson without my prompting, and in watching these groups, I realized the added collaboration within the group when the computer was shared during this process.

Based on the implementation of technology in this lesson, I have found that the content of the lesson yielded many positive results, and is appropriate for use within the high school setting, especially with the target audience of the sophomore students. However, I also realized that some students felt rushed to find appropriate text for supporting their alternative group’s theme, and then to post their reflection. In the future, I may have the groups only find one rather than two quotes of support with analysis, then that night for homework, they could choose another group’s theme and find an additional quote to analyze. Students should also complete the reflection at home. In this way, students would further understand the variation of themes that can exist within a text, and how their finding appropriate support is a crucial element of making a theme statement viable. I would also like to have a follow-up lesson to discuss the process of the collaborative groups’ work after the implementation.

The rubrics used during the lesson, both the individual assessment for the collaborative group work as well as the collaborative theme group work, allowed for the initial objectives to be achieved in this implementation. Also, both rubrics represent content in the course that remains as constant despite the passage of time (i.e., how to develop a theme statement; how to self-manage, self-monitor, self-modify). For other educators, I recommend that the discussion board threads for each group is created ahead of time. Some students ended up posting each segment of their collaborative group work in a different thread, cluttering the discussion board and making it difficult to locate the necessary information. This became especially problematic when some students tried to find their alternative group’s theme. I also would recommend that a model thread with all steps be provided for students to see what is expected of them during the lesson, as this provides a template for their collaborative work and discussion.

Perhaps most importantly, the work from the implementation of the technology needs to be connected to an authentic assessment in the future. In this way, students will understand the utility of using a discussion board as a workspace to gather perspectives, ideas and class work. In following the implementation with a writing assessment, the boards will actually have the added purpose of pre-writing activities that models what students must do individually in their writing.