This semester I read Action Research: Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom by Craig A. Mertler (2009).  As I was writing my action research paper, I appreciated the examples that Mertler provided throughout the text.  The chapters were organized so that readers could walk systematically through the action research process.  Mertler provided concrete examples of research questions that helped me focus my action research question. 

     What I found most helpful were his descriptions and definitions of data collection.  He clearly explained the difference between quantitative and qualitative research, along with the kinds of data collection that go with each type of data.  His examples helped me determine which kind of research I was conducting, and what kind of data collection would be most appropriate to use.  Mertler also provides information about how to analyze and interpret results once the data collection period was over.

     Mertler’s text was easy to understand.  He defined many commonly used research terms and included many examples to help his readers understand the entire action research process.  I felt that Mertler had a lot of experience with research and his experiences allowed him to explain how to avoid common mishaps that may occur while conducting research.

     In general, I would recommend use of this text in future classes.  It was not a very engaging text, but it served its purpose.  I think it works well as a reference guide for writing action research, and as I write more of my action research paper, I will be referring to it more.  Because I had prior experience conducting action research, I felt that the first few chapters were a bit long, because information was repetitive, but I think the information would be useful for someone who has never conducted action research. 

     My biggest complaints about this text were the additional supports that were available.  Resources such as videos and Power Points were available online, but I did not think they were useful, nor did I feel they helped expand my learning.  I initially listened to/looked over the information, but later I felt like I was misusing my time; I stopped looking at the additional resources after the third or fourth chapter.  I don’t think the supplemental supports added anything to what the text already offered.

     The outside articles that we used throughout class this semester have been helpful.  I found the articles to be relevant and applicable to my current learning.  Many of the articles helped expand on the learning I was doing through Mertler’s text; the articles provided more examples of real life situations with which I could connect what I was learning.  Overall, I’m glad I had the opportunity to read Mertler’s text and the other articles that were provided for this course. 

Reference:

Mertler, C.A.  (2009).  Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd

      ed.).  Los Angeles:  Sage Productions

My Topic:

What is the most effective way to use centers as a means to improve spelling proficiency with special education elementary age students?

Why I Chose This Topic:

I love literacy.  Over the past five years or so, I have been building my understanding of reading and writing instruction.  I feel I have greatly improved my ability to increase my students’ performance in reading and writing.  The area that still needs improvement, both in my understanding and in my students’ performance, is spelling.  I have done some research on my own and have found little information on how best to teach spelling.  I use a mix of word study and high frequency words to build my students’ spelling capabilities.  I know that centers can be a useful tool in learning other academic subjects, so I wanted to see how to best use them when learning how to spell. 

I chose to compare students using one center against students using multiple centers because I know that students have different learning style preferences.  I wondered how strongly those learning preferences affect our ability to learn and if students would perform better when they had choice and the centers are novel, or if they would build consistency and patterning using the same centers. 

I currently teach students with special needs.  While I believe all students need to know how to spell, and have seen that spelling is a difficult skill to master, this is incredibly true with students in special education.  Since my students struggle so much with spelling, I want to find an effective way for them to learn so that they have one less battle to fight while in school.  Most of my students are good writers, but their lack of spelling skills inhibits the readability of their writing.  If I can find a way to help build their spelling skills, writing in all academic areas should improve and they should be able to communicate in written form much easier. 

Writing My Proposal:

Writing my proposal helped me think through how I wanted to lay out my entire research project.  While I knew what I wanted my topic to be, it took some time for me to decide how I was going to implement my project- how I was going to assess the use of centers.  The most difficult part of the proposal was identifying what data collection and data analysis methods I would be using.  I knew what I wanted to do, but I hadn’t thought about how it aligned with best research practices.  Determining what methods I was using took some time and thought as I reviewed my different options.  I also had to include additional data collection avenues, to ensure I could triangulate my data.  While I had read about the importance of data triangulation, I hadn’t thought about how I would use it in relation to my project.  Going through this process helped me clearly think through the different aspects of my project and ensure that I was heading in the same direction that I had initially planned. 

Writing My Literature Review:

Out of all of the writing we have done so far, I enjoyed writing the literature review the most.  I have always enjoyed research writing, and the literature review was no exception.  This review, however, provided some challenges for me.  When I began my initial search, I found numerous articles related to my topic.  As I began to write my draft, though, I realized that most of my articles were not empirically based.  Many of the articles I found were summaries of others’ research, not original research that had been conducted.  I had a moment of panic.  I had spent a lot of time researching, only to have to eliminate most of the articles I had found.  I went back to researching, this time with a more critical eye.  I was able to find some very informative studies that directly related to my topic and became the basis for much of my literature review.  While the additional research was frustrating, it also helped me create a more informative literature review and read research more critically.

I found the actually writing of the literature review easy.  I was able to organize the articles in a way that made sense to me, and found excerpts from the texts to support my thoughts.  I had some difficulty, initially, becoming re-familiar with APA style, but quickly became reacquainted with the APA formatting website.  I found it refreshing to find research that supported my topic but weren’t directly related to my research question.  This shows me that there is a need to look at how using centers can affect student learning in spelling, and I hope my project will provide some useful insight into this area. 

Peer Writing Feedback:

I found the peer writing feedback to be a mostly positive experience.  It was helpful to get feedback from others, especially when I was given feedback on how to improve.  I also found that while I was reviewing others’ pieces, I was thinking about my own writing piece and how I could change it.  Reading others’ writing helped me identify areas where I could improve my own writing. 

Some aspects of the process were frustrating- when the feedback I received was minimal or non-specific.  I did not find this helpful or an equal use of time.  I feel that I am a good writer, but I also know that I can improve; getting feedback that states I did a great job can’t help me improve.  This process has made me think about the kind of feedback I provide to my students, and how I need to give them as much specific feedback as possible so that they can grow as writers; if this is the kind of feedback I want as a writer, then it is the kind of feedback I need to provide. 

                                                                         Action Research Proposal

Spelling has always been a difficult area for me to teach and has been a difficult area for my students to learn; it is an area where I have found few resources or recommendations leaning one way or another toward a specific form of best practice.  Because I currently teach students with special needs, this lack of preparation becomes even more problematic.  Not only do my students struggle with spelling, but I also need to adapt my instruction to meet their learning needs.  My problem is determining the best way to use a center-based approach to teach spelling.  Center-based instruction in spelling involves the use of various hands-on activities through which students practice their spelling words using multiple modalities.  I am currently using a variety of centers as part of my spelling instruction, but I am not sure I am using them in the most effective way.  Students are given their words, and then each day they can choose which center to visit, as long as they do not visit the same center two days in a row.  Students may choose to practice their words using play-doh (by writing the words in the play-doh or rolling out the play-doh to make the letters), using letter stamps, using magnetic letters, or by writing their words twice on either a white board, chalk board, or paper.  I am not sure whether this is an effective practice, so I would like to know what is the most effective way to use centers as a means to improve spelling proficiency with special education elementary age students?

Researching the most effective way to use centers as a means to improve spelling instruction is based on both cognitivist theory and multiple intelligence theory.  Cognitivist theory focuses on memory development and how the brain functions while creating memories (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005).  This is relevant because learning how to spell relies heavily on the memorization of rules and patterns.  In addition, many words do not follow spelling rules and their spelling must be memorized independently from other words.  It is important to understand how the brain forms memories in order to build the strongest pathways to solidify learning.  Multiple intelligence theory focuses on the different ways that students learn and emphasizes building upon individual strengths when creating lessons so that students can perform in ways they are most comfortable (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005).  Since this study is looking at using multiple modalities at the different centers, considering the multiple intelligences is important.  Students need to have the option to choose a center that best fits their learning needs in order to have the greatest possibility for improvement.

This research study will be conducted in a resource room setting at a K-7 elementary school.  Ten fourth and fifth grade students will be participating in the study.  Of the 10 students, two are fourth graders and eight are fifth graders; one student is female and nine students are male.  The majority of the students are minorities; two are African American, five are Hispanic, and three are Caucasian.  The students qualify for special education under various categories; they are either emotionally impaired or learning disabled.  During the study, students will be identified using a letter of the alphabet (example:  Student A).  No student names, or any other identifying information, will be used while reporting to ensure student confidentiality. 

I will be conducting a quantitative research study, using the group comparison design with the one group pretest-posttest method.  Students will be given a pretest, the intervention will be provided, and a posttest will be given.  Pretest and posttest data will be compared to see if students’ skills increased, decreased, or remained the same.  This method was chosen because I want to determine which method of using centers is a more effective way for students to practice spelling.  In order to show progress, data must be collected prior to and after changes have been made (Mertler, 2009).  Data will be collected using pre and posttests, evaluating spelling in student journals, and weekly spelling tests.  I may also use a VAKT (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile) survey along with an observational checklist to track which centers students most prefer.  The researcher can ensure the data is reliable it will be collected over an extended period, rather than once or twice.  Data will also be taken from multiple sources- spelling tests and writing journals, to see if students are learning and applying lessons, or simply memorizing for a test.  Consistency in performance across various tasks will ensure reliable data (Mertler, 2009). 

Data will be analyzed using the repeated-measures t test.  I will be comparing my students’ scores on both their pretests and posttests to determine growth on their spelling skills.  Because I have a small number of students, I will be using inferential statistics.  My results should help me compare the effects of using one center for the entirety of the study against the effects of using multiple centers throughout the study.  This study and its data are limited by the small sample size and the lack of generalizability because there are only 10 students in the study and I am only studying students in special education.  While the results may be applicable to students in other special education classrooms, there is no guarantee that they will be applicable to larger classrooms, or to general education classrooms.  My sample is also limited in that I am only sampling two grade levels out of the typical K-5 elementary school setting.

Expected Timeline:
Pretest:  Week of March 14
Implementation of Centers/Data Collection:  Weeks of March -19 April 9th
Posttest: Week of April 16
Data Analysis:  Week of April 23

References:

Mertler, C.A. (2009).  Action research:  Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd

            Ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. 

Trumbull, E. & Pacheco, M.  (2005).  The teacher's guide to diversity: Building a

                knowledge base (Vol. 1).  Providence, RI: Brown University.