Final Reflections
Overall, I am very satisfied with the results of my cycles. I saw continuous improvement in achievement throughout the cycles. I am also content with the engagement reports of my students. I am aware that not every activity or project satisfies every student’s wants, but I view the engagement scores of cycles two and three as a major success. During cycles two and three, I also experienced very little resistance from students, which indicates a high level of engagement.
The results of my cycles do not surprise me based on the research I conducted in my literature review. I tried to leverage what I learned through the research to have positive results in my classroom. The literature review indicated that engagement and achievement of students correlates with student-centered use of technology, appropriate applications, and teacher training in technology.
To create a student-centered environment, I allowed a significant amount of student choice in their projects. I allowed students to choose which standard they addressed in their project. I also allowed students to explore the technology with the least amount of direct instruction as possible. Even though I gave more direct instruction in cycles two and three, the guidelines for students were still broad. In my research, I realized that I needed to balance student-centered projects with clear teacher expectations.
To choose appropriate applications, I surveyed students’ interests before selecting applications. I chose the top three choices based on the survey results. Google Sites, iMovies, and Scratch were the top three and they all allowed the projects to be student-centered. These applications also opened opportunities that only technology can open; they were not a substitute for another activity. In my classroom, I noticed that this significantly affected student engagement and ownership. With student interest high and new, innovative technologies, students were excited to begin their projects.
Regarding teacher training in technology, I felt very comfortable implementing the technologies. When I was unfamiliar with an application, such as Scratch, I reached out for help. Meeting with the district technology coach made me more confident and capable as a teacher. I also found that creating my own projects with the technologies first was essential and allowed me to troubleshoot before introducing the projects to my students. This is not to say that I knew everything about each application. Some students were actually more familiar with Scratch than I was. Instead of allowing this to overwhelm me, it excited me. I could learn from my students and see my students help others with the program. When none of us knew how to solve a problem, we conquered it as a team. As a teacher, I think it is beneficial for students to see their teacher when the teacher does not have an answer because the students can see him or her problem solve and gain problem-solving skills. That said, it is necessary to have experience and knowledge before implementing technologies, and I did have enough background knowledge and training before beginning the projects.
Throughout my cycles, I discovered some other factors that affect student engagement and achievement. I first realized that student achievement increases with clear teacher expectations and scaffolding. In my first cycle, I thought that giving my students limited instructions would inspire creativity and innovation, but most students’ projects looked the same and were minimal. Some students resisted starting because they claimed they did not remember the content. In cycles two and three, I created an example project and clearly stated my expectations and requirements. I also provided more scaffolding. For the iMovie and Scratch, I showed students how I planned my projects and provided graphic organizers. I also allowed students to help one another and share their ideas, which allowed stubborn students to easily begin their projects. By providing expectations and scaffolding, I saw achievement rise significantly. Projects were more thorough in cycles two and three. In cycle one, the average score was 3.75, while in cycles two and three, they were 4.22 and 4.24.
In my research, I also realized that engagement relies on easily accessible applications. During cycle one, students experienced problems creating their Google site on an iPad. The technology was not intuitive, which led to students losing interest and motivation. This also led to students doing the minimum amount required for the website. In cycle two, since students had scaffolding and premade iMovie trailer outlines, they could easily start and finish their projects. I experienced only positive feedback from students while they created iMovies. In cycle three, after students started on Scratch, no student complained. Students even looked to each other for help before asking me questions.
It is evident that engagement and achievement are linked as well. The factors mentioned previously probably affect both engagement and achievement. Engagement also will affect achievement. If students feel comfortable, capable, and motivated, the chances of high quality work increase. In my cycles, when engagement increased in cycles two and three, achievement also increased.
Another observation I made throughout this process is that I care significantly more about my students’ engagement than their achievement. In the classroom, student engagement seemed tangible to me. I could see in their faces that they were excited. I myself felt more joyful when students were engaged. I had more time to celebrate and explore with students instead of trying to motivate students to work. I remember why I love teaching when I see my students learning and caring about their work. When students receive a test back with a grade, they stay happy for a minute. When students are engaged, they can be happy for the whole class period. I realized that achievement and grades are just numbers to me. I care more about my students’ intrinsic motivation and ownership. I think that engagement also encourages more students to pursue passions than achievement does.
Looking ahead, I want to continue to incorporate technology in my classroom. Next, I want to look at how to spur student collaboration and creativity through technology. My literature review indicates that technology can improve student collaboration. Ideally, I would like students to maintain the level of ownership and independence they had during my action research, while attaining a certain level of collaboration. A more challenging goal is to inspire creativity through the use of technology. I saw students making their projects unique, especially with Scratch, but I also saw students mainly choosing the standards that I chose in my example projects. In upcoming projects, I hope to find ways to empower students to be more creative and confident with the content they produce in their projects.
The results of my cycles do not surprise me based on the research I conducted in my literature review. I tried to leverage what I learned through the research to have positive results in my classroom. The literature review indicated that engagement and achievement of students correlates with student-centered use of technology, appropriate applications, and teacher training in technology.
To create a student-centered environment, I allowed a significant amount of student choice in their projects. I allowed students to choose which standard they addressed in their project. I also allowed students to explore the technology with the least amount of direct instruction as possible. Even though I gave more direct instruction in cycles two and three, the guidelines for students were still broad. In my research, I realized that I needed to balance student-centered projects with clear teacher expectations.
To choose appropriate applications, I surveyed students’ interests before selecting applications. I chose the top three choices based on the survey results. Google Sites, iMovies, and Scratch were the top three and they all allowed the projects to be student-centered. These applications also opened opportunities that only technology can open; they were not a substitute for another activity. In my classroom, I noticed that this significantly affected student engagement and ownership. With student interest high and new, innovative technologies, students were excited to begin their projects.
Regarding teacher training in technology, I felt very comfortable implementing the technologies. When I was unfamiliar with an application, such as Scratch, I reached out for help. Meeting with the district technology coach made me more confident and capable as a teacher. I also found that creating my own projects with the technologies first was essential and allowed me to troubleshoot before introducing the projects to my students. This is not to say that I knew everything about each application. Some students were actually more familiar with Scratch than I was. Instead of allowing this to overwhelm me, it excited me. I could learn from my students and see my students help others with the program. When none of us knew how to solve a problem, we conquered it as a team. As a teacher, I think it is beneficial for students to see their teacher when the teacher does not have an answer because the students can see him or her problem solve and gain problem-solving skills. That said, it is necessary to have experience and knowledge before implementing technologies, and I did have enough background knowledge and training before beginning the projects.
Throughout my cycles, I discovered some other factors that affect student engagement and achievement. I first realized that student achievement increases with clear teacher expectations and scaffolding. In my first cycle, I thought that giving my students limited instructions would inspire creativity and innovation, but most students’ projects looked the same and were minimal. Some students resisted starting because they claimed they did not remember the content. In cycles two and three, I created an example project and clearly stated my expectations and requirements. I also provided more scaffolding. For the iMovie and Scratch, I showed students how I planned my projects and provided graphic organizers. I also allowed students to help one another and share their ideas, which allowed stubborn students to easily begin their projects. By providing expectations and scaffolding, I saw achievement rise significantly. Projects were more thorough in cycles two and three. In cycle one, the average score was 3.75, while in cycles two and three, they were 4.22 and 4.24.
In my research, I also realized that engagement relies on easily accessible applications. During cycle one, students experienced problems creating their Google site on an iPad. The technology was not intuitive, which led to students losing interest and motivation. This also led to students doing the minimum amount required for the website. In cycle two, since students had scaffolding and premade iMovie trailer outlines, they could easily start and finish their projects. I experienced only positive feedback from students while they created iMovies. In cycle three, after students started on Scratch, no student complained. Students even looked to each other for help before asking me questions.
It is evident that engagement and achievement are linked as well. The factors mentioned previously probably affect both engagement and achievement. Engagement also will affect achievement. If students feel comfortable, capable, and motivated, the chances of high quality work increase. In my cycles, when engagement increased in cycles two and three, achievement also increased.
Another observation I made throughout this process is that I care significantly more about my students’ engagement than their achievement. In the classroom, student engagement seemed tangible to me. I could see in their faces that they were excited. I myself felt more joyful when students were engaged. I had more time to celebrate and explore with students instead of trying to motivate students to work. I remember why I love teaching when I see my students learning and caring about their work. When students receive a test back with a grade, they stay happy for a minute. When students are engaged, they can be happy for the whole class period. I realized that achievement and grades are just numbers to me. I care more about my students’ intrinsic motivation and ownership. I think that engagement also encourages more students to pursue passions than achievement does.
Looking ahead, I want to continue to incorporate technology in my classroom. Next, I want to look at how to spur student collaboration and creativity through technology. My literature review indicates that technology can improve student collaboration. Ideally, I would like students to maintain the level of ownership and independence they had during my action research, while attaining a certain level of collaboration. A more challenging goal is to inspire creativity through the use of technology. I saw students making their projects unique, especially with Scratch, but I also saw students mainly choosing the standards that I chose in my example projects. In upcoming projects, I hope to find ways to empower students to be more creative and confident with the content they produce in their projects.