Reflecting on my Inquiry so far


Have I used a range of sources to understand my students learning in a detailed way?
I have drawn upon multiple sources of data to inform my understanding of my students learning. It is important to use at least three sources to 'triangulate' the data and ensure that it is reliable. I have used two forms of standardised summative testing, a formative assessment and an interview/ survey of the students. As the students are only with me for literacy and we have multiple classes, I have not engaged with their whānau as much as my home class. While a strong home/school relationship is important for student success, I didn't identify whānau voice as a tool for gathering information about my students learning. Perhaps this is something I should reconsider in the future.

Do I understand their strengths as much as I understand their areas for development?
I have identified some of the students strengths; I was able to identify more strengths in some students than others, due to having more time with them. Two of the students in my target group have very poor attendance: I only taught one child for five literacy lessons in term one! I was able to identify strengths from the tests and interviews however, understanding the aspects of reading that my students are confident in. 
For the students whose attendance is not an issue, particularly those who I also taught in 2020, I am aware of far more of their strengths. This awareness has come from the sources that I used specifically to collect data (as mentioned before), but also from my observations of their classwork and contribution to our reading group lessons. For example, I have awareness of my bilingual learners and how confident they are in their first languages. 

Have I developed a strong profile of their achievement based on sound theories?
I have mostly drawn upon theories that relate to assessment for learning. I have considered using both summative and formative assessment methods and triangulating my data to increase the reliability of this. I have used norm referenced testing methods (PAT) and criterion based methods (Probe) which align with levels of the curriculum. I have also used both quantitative (PAT, Probe) and qualitative methods (Google from, interview) to gather data. I have done this in response to theories of assessment for learning, as referenced in Darr, 2005 and Earl, 2003. 

My chosen data sources are similar to those used in studies regarding increasing self-regulation in reading. I have been drawing upon Nash-Ditzel (2010) and Spörera and Schünemannb (2014).

While my chosen sources match those used in similar inquiries and align with theories of assessment in general, a critique could be of their relevance to these learners. Should I have assessed their reading ability in their first languages, if they are bilingual? Should I have assessed their ability to understand oral texts as this is more culturally responsive? I believe that my chosen sources align with my inquiry question, but this is something to consider in the future.

Three measures that I am using pre/ post intervention?
I am using Probe data (with a different assessor), PAT data, an ARBs assessment task with accompanied interview and a student voice survey with accompanied interview. You can see my first results here.

What opportunities have presented themselves during this time to collect evidence of students' learning?
One opportunity that arose in term one was to identify my students ability to comprehend a text from home. This was really interesting, as my target students generally tended to have poorer online attendance than the higher performing students in the class. Some of them also completed less of the assigned tasks/ to a lesser degree. They expressed a lack of motivation, although some did have whānau support. However, two of my target students were motivated and attempted the tasks, despite finding it very challenging to comprehend the texts independently. 
This enabled me the opportunity to observe both the students attitudes to reading, as well as their (completely) independent tasks.

I have also listened to all of my students read in class, observed their classwork and discussed how they have found the texts/ activities that I have given them.

Darr, C. (2005). A hitchhiker’s guide to reliability. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 59-60.

Darr, C. (2005). A hitchhiker’s guide to validity. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 55-56.

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning. In Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (pp. 21-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nash-Ditzel, S. (2010). Metacognitive Reading Strategies Can Improve Self-Regulation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 45-63. doi:10.1080/10790195.2010.10850330

Spörer, N., & Schünemann, N. (2014). Improvements of self-regulation procedures for fifth graders reading competence: Analyzing effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and motivation for reading. Learning and Instruction, 33, 147-157. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.002


Popular posts from this blog

Unpacking Our Reading Journey

Inquiry 2018

Running out of time!