Method of Assessment

Quantitative data was collected by the scoring of written responses to open response questions that students completed after each session. These were scored with the use of a rubric that assigned a point value based on the number of explicit and implicit references to the text. Two teachers scored each response. The baseline phase, teacher-facilitated and student-led responses were scored and graphed to visually present the changes with each intervention. The scores were also used to derive the mean score for each treatment of the investigation (student-led and teacher facilitated) as well as a comparison of the baseline phase and discussion treatments in general (combined teacher facilitated and student-led).

 Student self-reflective surveys were conducted with the class as a whole. The focus group surveys were analyzed for their preferences of discussion formats and the reasons for their preference. The class results were analyzed quantitatively for student perceptions as to which method of discussion they preferred. Percentages were derived from the student surveys to compare student's preferred discussion format, their perception of the formats effectiveness in aiding written responses to open ended questions and the amount of engagement in conversation during the discussion formats.

            Verbal flow charts were taken to note the amount of student engagement that was present in each format of discussion. A check was made for each comment made during student-led discussion that related to the text read that day. A check was made each time a student contributed to a teacher facilitated class discussion or raised his hand in an attempt to do so.

        The verbal flow chart data was analyzed for the student single subject research group and the whole class. This was done to see the amount of engagement for the individual students and the large group they participated in.

Discussion of Findings

Summary of Findings of Single Subject Research

Written response scores summary

     Two of the four students involved in the single subject research attained their highest mean score in written responses that followed student-led discussion sessions. The other two showed an equal mean score improvement in written responses that followed both teachers facilitated or student-led discussion formats. All students showed an improvement range of 1 to 2.1 points in student-led discussion mean scores over the no discussion baseline phase. All students showed a 0 to 2 point improvement range in teacher facilitated mean scores over the no discussion baseline phase.

  (Comparison of mean scores table)

          Carly, the student with high ability in interpretive skills (rank 3) of
          text attained

·                      A baseline phase mean score of 4

·                      A teacher facilitated discussion mean score of 4

·                      A student-led discussion mean score of 5

·                      A combined discussion score of 4.5.

·                      Her highest mean score, 5, was in student-led discussion
                             responses, which was a positive 1-point mean difference from
                             the baseline phase of no discussion.

David, the student ranked with good interpretative ability (rank 2) attained

·                      A baseline phase mean score of 2

·                      A teacher facilitated discussion mean score of 4

·                      A student-led discussion mean score of  4

·                      A combined discussion mean score of 4

·                      David's mean scores in both discussion formats were 4 and a
                            positive 2-point difference from the baseline phase of discussion.

       Brandi, the student ranked as having considerable difficulty with comprehending
            text independently and unable to share basic story understanding with peers
            (rank 1) attained

·                     A baseline phase mean score of 2.1

·                     A teacher facilitated discussion mean score of 3.1

·                     A student-led discussion mean score of 3.1

·                     A combined discussion mean score of 3.1

·                      Brandi attained a 1 point positive mean score improvement
                            in discussion formats over the baseline phase of no discussion.

       Chase, the special needs student, who was described as having low (rank 1)
            interpretative ability and having considerable difficulty with comprehending
            text independently attained

·                     A baseline phase mean score of 1.1

·                     A teacher facilitated discussion mean score of 2

·                     A student-led discussion mean score of 3.2

·                     A combined discussion mean score mean score of 2.6 

·                     Chase attained a  .9 positive mean score difference in teacher
                            facilitated discussion over the baseline phase, a positive 2.1
                            point mean score difference in student-led discussion over
                            the baseline phase of no discussion.
 

Discussion of Student Written Responses

Carly's written responses to open response questions showed her strong ability to interpret text. She remained consistently strong whether the format did or did not included discussion. There was a mean one-point improvement in the area of student-led discussion formats. During the investigation the student led discussion format was consistently, the highest scoring response format for Carly.

Carly's graph of written responses     (Samples of Carly's written responses)

David's written responses to open response questions showed a two point mean increase (4) when either format of discussion, teacher facilitated or student led, was implemented over the non-discussion phase (2).  David's responses became consistently stronger over time as each discussion session was administered in a counterbalanced manner through out the investigation. He attained a mean score of 4 for both discussion phase treatments.

David's graph of written responses  (Samples of David's written responses)

Brandi's written responses to open response questions showed a one point mean increase (3.1) when either format of discussion, teacher facilitated or student-led was implemented over the non-discussion phase (2.1). When the individual responses are examined there was as much as a four point spread in the teacher facilitated discussion responses but only a two point spread in the student led discussion session responses.

 Brandi's graph of written responses  (Samples of Brandi's written responses)

Chase's written responses to open response questions showed a .9 mean score increase (2) when teacher facilitated discussion was implemented, and a 2.1 mean score increase (3.2) when student-led discussion was implemented over the non-discussion phase score (1.1).

         Chase's graph of written responses  ( Samples of Chase's written responses)

Group Comparison Graph of Non-Discussion Treatment and Alternating
          Discussion Treatments


Single Subject Response to Self Reflective Survey

Student Self Reflective Survey (link to sample survey)

Summary of  findings of survey of focus group

·         All of the students in the focus group felt that discussion helped them to understand the story they read better.

·         All of the students in the focus group felt that discussion helped them to write a better response to the question that was posed after they read.

·         All of the students wished to continue using discussion formats.

·         None of the students felt that discussion led them to change their minds about an idea they had about the story.

·         Two students, Chase and David felt they spoke more during student-led discussions.

·         Two of the students, Brandi and David, felt they spoke the same amount during both formats of discussion.

·         Two students, Carly and Chase preferred student-led discussion formats.

·         Two students, Brandi and David, preferred teacher facilitated formats.

·         Two students, Carly and Chase, preferred student-led discussions prior to writing a written response.

·         Two students, Brandi and Chase, preferred teacher-facilitated discussion prior to writing a written response.

Summary of Findings from Self-Reflective Survey for Classroom

    Responses from the entire class, of 19 students, to the student questionnaire were analyzed for quantitative data. The survey consisted of questions to which students responded with a yes or no answer. These responses were analyzed quantitatively by counting the number of yes and comparing them to the number of negative responses. Percentages were derived from this data.

 Click here to view graph of responses

Whole Class Response to Student Reflective Survey

 Summary of data from verbal flow charts

 of student-led and teacher facilitated discussion group formats for focus group

     In the comparison of teacher facilitated and student-led discussion engagements, the following data was collected by charting the number of both student-led and teacher facilitated student comments, questions, and remarks relating to the story (engagements). Two sessions of each discussion format, teacher facilitated and student-led, were charted. The verbal flow charts presented data that seems to indicate more student engagement in oral conversation about the text when student-led discussion groups are implemented for three out of the four students. In the table below a comparison is seen between the two discussion samples. Participation is noted as any response, comment, question or contribution to the discussions. 

verbal flow chart samples

Focus Group Comparison of Verbal Participation

·         Carly was absent for the first verbal flow chart in the teacher-facilitated and student-led sessions.

     Carly's totals for the session were

     teacher-facilitated engagements 6

     student-led engagements 7.

·         David's totals for the sessions were

     teacher-facilitated engagements 9

     student-led engagements 8.

·         Brandi's totals for the sessions were

     teacher-facilitated engagements 7

     student-led engagements 11.

·         Chase's total for the sessions were

     teacher-facilitated engagements 6,

     student-led engagements 9.

 Summary of data of verbal flow charts

from whole class teacher facilitated and student-led discussion formats

       In the comparison of teacher facilitated and student-led discussion engagements, the following data was collected by the teacher charting the number of both student-led and teacher facilitated student comments, questions, and remarks over two sessions of each discussion format. The verbal flow charts presented data that seems to strongly indicate more student engagement in oral conversation about the text when student-led discussion groups are implemented with in the whole classroom. In the table below a comparison is seen between the two discussion samples. An engagement is noted as any response, comment, question or contribution to the discussion.

Whole Class Comparison of Verbal Participation