South End Schools

2017-2018: Brian Davidson will facilitate the South End Schools (Forest Grove and Lac La Hache) this year.

• Forest Grove: Focus: Individualized balanced literacy
• Checking:
  • Marked each term’s school-wide write on the same rubric in different coloured highlight to view progress
  • Observations of student ability in spelling
  • Classroom observation of student progress
  • Used phonics and spelling program to track progress
  • Use of our school continuum (rubric for whole school)
• Reflection:
  • We only got to team-mark one SWW this year. We found the first earlier than last year. We had 4 teachers so we were able to break into primary and intermediate and confer about what our particular needs and goals were. The information was most helpful for report cards.
  • We found the use of Explode the Code helped students become more confident with spelling and this was visible in their term spelling assessment.
  • Students have moved from only being able to recognize beginning and end sounds to using vowels, diagraphs and blends correctly.
  • We will plan on using Reading Assessment next year
  • We felt that time was a limiting factor for us in this process. Nearly all of our meeting times took place after school or at noon hour. We did not take advantage of release time that was available to us this year because we did not fully understand how this worked. In the upcoming year we hope to utilize release time to better meet and collaborate throughout the year.
• Lac La Hache: Focus: Social-Emotional learning (ownership of learning; independence); school vision
• Checking: Overall, we noticed that many students benefitted from the implementation of the Zones of Regulation program. Students were better able to acknowledge and describe how they were feeling and which zone they were in. Students became very comfortable with the program and would often do a “zone check in” in the morning without being prompted to do so. Many students would also move their name on the check-in bulletin throughout the day to reflect their changing zones. Students became better able to monitor their emotions and some students learned to recognize their need to use “tools” to help them return to the “green zone”. At the beginning of the year, we rated how well each student was able to self-regulate and we did this again at the end of the year. Overall, we noticed improved self-regulation in about ½ of our students. Most students whom we had little or no concern regarding their self-regulation at the beginning of the year, we continued to have little or no concern with at the end of the year. There were a few students who regulated less well at the end of the year than they did at the beginning of the year. Overall, however, we noticed that students benefited from the implementation of the Zones of Regulation Program.
• Reflection: As a staff, we felt that the Zones of Regulation program was quite easy to implement and that it provided a common language between classes that would continue to be beneficial in coming years. Both classes were not able to get through the entire Zones of Regulation Program and have decided that it would be a good idea to review the program in the fall and then continue where they left off. We felt that it was unfortunate that the self-regulating “tools” are not taught until near the end of the Zones of Regulation program. We want to make sure that we cover this part of the program early next year so that students become aware of more strategies that can help them become even better self-regulators.

2016-2017: Brian Davidson will facilitate Forest Grove this year (Lac La Hache joined the 'East' Schools this year).

• How does individual assessment drive students’ reading and writing progress?
• Analysis: In regards to writing: We have noticed that now that our teaching is directed to students identified weaknesses that the output of writing has noticeably increased across the board. All teachers emphatically reiterated this point that they have noticed this.

Reading: Teachers have truly now noticed where students are at in their reading levels. This has had noticeable benefits in student reading progress.

• Reflection: We found this process kind of rushed. In regards to when we do collaborative assessment, we unequivocally need more time. Especially if we are going to do this with both reading and writing. Not to mention that our school population has grown. In order to do proper assessment, conferencing, tallying, charting and to do this with quality, we need at least two days per write in the future.

2015-2016: Brian Davidson will facilitate the South End Schools (Bridge Lake, Forest Grove, and Lac La Hache) this year.

• How will implementing a focused writing structure help students’ writing improve?

Forest Grove:

• Analysis: As a staff, we used the three SWW’s over three terms to assess if students’ writing improved. We tallied each class’s “missing pieces” and targeted our instruction to those areas. Then, we looked at the next SWW to see if those things appeared in writing. We also conferenced with individual students to discuss their strengths and the next steps to improve their individual writing. We made goals with individual students and worked on these on a week-by-week basis. We would also look for evidence of this in the student’s next SWW.

Teachers found that independence didn’t improve very much. However, in these classes, we started tracking and recording independence late in the year.

In terms of the SWW, we found great improvement. Team marking and tallying of class needs helped us to better target students’ individual and class needs and direct our teaching to address that. Apart from a few anomalies, we found that the majority of students’ writing improved. At the beginning of the year, we had some students whom we marked on a rubric below their grade level. By the third term, all our students were at least minimally meeting expectations within their grade level.

• Reflection: We thought that we should have paid more attention to our SWW topics. For instance, if the majority of our students needed to improve their sequencing, we should have chosen a topic that would work well with a clear beginning, middle and end. We also wondered about narrowing the writing genre (narrative, informative, etc.). All of our topics this year were imaginative/creative writing, but if students’ informative writing was weak would the same process work?

Some other anomalies we noticed were with the grades that were split between two rooms/teachers. Even though we were all marking everything, we thought that perhaps we marked the second SWW grade 2’s from the 2/3/4/5 class harder than those from the K/1/2. So, in the third term, we marked by grade from the bottom up and tried to be more consistent. We also didn’t look at their names until after marking.

Even though the continuum worked well, we thought that the rubric was lacking in some ways. For instance, we thought that in the third term certain students should have grown more, but it wasn’t represented in the rubric so they stayed at the same level but we could tell their writing was more solid. We ended up creating a 2.25 and a 2.75 section!

Bridge Lake:

• Analysis: In reviewing the writing samples that have been collected, I see there has been some progress toward students starting their writing assignments more quickly after a discussion of the topic with examples of ideas presented.

I have also noticed that, among some students there has been growth towards using a beginning middle and end. Some students, particularly the younger ones, still lack a clear delineation between the beginning, middle and end. Many writing samples continue to be a collection of thoughts spilled out on a page without a focus.

• Reflection: I think the diversity of the group contributed significantly to the difficulty in achieving significant progress with the goals trying to be reached during this inquiry. It was difficult to find appropriate strategies that would incorporate students in a grade range from K to Gr.7 and little experience with writing, speaking and comprehending the English Language.

Lac La Hache:

• Analysis: At LLH we analyzed several writing pieces for each student. Overall we noticed that students in Grade 3 to 7 were able to answer questions regarding an Outer Space unit in greater detail and use complete sentences. We had our vulnerable students supported with iPads in order for them to use voiced information. K /1 students worked on using sentence frames to develop proper convention and form. Most K/1 students were able to use a period at the end of a thought, and to remember that capital letters did not go in the middle of words.
• Reflection: If we want students to share ideas and information, we should be less concerned with form and convention. Students would benefit from specific directed teaching lessons on specifics of form and convention. We realized that our learning challenge and our criteria didn’t really match. We need to focus on matching our criteria for success better. As teachers we want to work next year on small steps of writing. It is much more complex process than just spelling and conventions, and we need to provide our students with the time to practice writing. The physical demands of writing are challenging for students who are becoming used to short texts, dictated/voice command programs and other “shortcuts” to writing. We will continue to find ways to support, motivate and connect with our students and their learning.

2014-2015: The South End Schools (Bridge Lake, Forest Grove and Lac La Hache) will be working together in Primary and Intermediate teams this year, supported by Brian Davidson. The inquiry question is:

• How will an explicit focus on writing lessons for pre-writing activities and using descriptive language improve students’ abilities to write effectively (volume and detail)?
• Analysis:

Bridge Lake: An explicit focus on writing lessons for pre-writing activities and using descriptive language modestly improved students’ abilities to write effectively. We know this because the student writing samples show some improvement with the number of descriptive words students use but only by one or two words more. Some children were not using any descriptive words in their journal entries but now are using at least one and sometimes two. Students that were using descriptive words are now using them at only a slightly higher frequency if at all. It seems the slight gains that were achieved are due to the pre-writing activities and lessons with an explicit focus on using descriptive language. This skill has, as yet, not become instilled as a habit of writing. This became evident when students were asked to write but there was no pre-writing activity focused on descriptive language and students were not reminded to use descriptive words in their writing. (Teacher 1)

An explicit focus on writing lessons for pre-writing activities and using descriptive language partially improved students’ abilities to write effectively. I used four writing examples from January to May to use as evidence to support my opinion. Additionally, I use conversations with the class so they could demonstrate their understanding of the pre writing process and what a descriptive word is. Admittedly there was a gap between the conversations and the actual written work. I was very strict about how these writing samples were created. They had 15 mins to plan and 30 mins to write. The final write is not as good as the one before – the class were distracted by the next lesson and the planning was done two days previously. Despite instructions and lots of checking one child lost their planning page and spent 20 mins looking for it (not an unusual tactic for him). I think the writing improved overall in my class. Spelling, grammar, paragraphs, tidiness and volume all are better from January to May. However, word use and imaginative words have only marginal improved. Some students are using stronger words and those from their spelling list. However, half the class only improved slightly as would be expected with maturity. The whole class has improved in complexity of their work. Planning and drafting their work has definitely improved and I feel confident that the class can plan by themselves with little intervention – including my IEP and ESL students. The best writing, using descriptive words, are when I gave the class a five minute eyes closed, thinking time, to paint a picture of their story. This five minutes was essential for the better word use although did not change the volume of the work. However, I only did this once – maybe this should be added to every writing lesson. (Teacher 2)

Forest Grove: An explicit focus (I changed from descriptive words) on writing lessons for pre-writing activities such as, brain storming, list writing, word walls, personal dictionaries, using morning messages and direct instruction moderately improved students’ abilities to write more effectively. I used a combination of both school wide write and daily writing journals to collect my data. It shows that most students went from Not Yet Meeting Expectations to Satisfactorily Meeting Expectations during this school year. (Teacher 3)

An explicit focus on writing lessons for pre writing activities and using the language moderately improved student abilities to write effectively. We know this because we saw some growth in their style development. In taking an informal tally we found that 75% improvement in their descriptive and figurative language. We found that in encouraging the students to use a word count, it did create an urgency to produce more volume, and this was of some value in the writing development process. Quality took more time to work into the maturity process, but when students were ready for this stage, it came into play. To make this a more valuable process, we would need to be more consistent in our pre-writing explanations and expectations. (Not just write open topic, and then in the final examples, asking specifically for descriptive words.) Some of the strategies employed: Strategic Spelling word selection to encourage new vocabulary. (Teachers 4 & 5)

Lac La Hache: An explicit focus on writing lessons for pre-writing activities and using descriptive language showed positive improvement in primary students’ writing. We know this because students are using descriptive words in their writing. The students began writing sessions by listening to a read aloud with a learning intention of listening for the words to describe the character. After reading the students did A/B partner talk to orally make a list of describing words. The class then created word banks about the central theme. I would create a non-example. For instance, This is a dog. The students would work as a class to help me create a story with describing words to make the story more interesting. The students would begin individual work by creating a detailed drawing and then writing to describe their drawing. Evaluation was based on the number of descriptive words used. As the students progressed in their writing, more capable students were asked to add details of events and expand the scope of the story. Most students were able to add at least one word independently. With teacher support, all students could add one descriptive word to describe a character in their story. (Teacher 7)

An explicit focus on writing lessons for pre-writing activities, and using descriptive language modestly improved students’ abilities to write effectively. When I look at the data, the patterns that emerge are most students wrote paragraphs of greater length and all students used more descriptive words. In the first writing sample students were asked to look at writing they had been working on and circle the descriptive words, while in the last writing sample students were told to write a descriptive paragraph on a given topic. Therefore, one would expect to have a greater number of descriptive words in the last writing sample. Another factor that was not controlled was the amount of time students were given to produce the writing sample and so the number of words counted might vary in relation to how long they had to write and not that they were able to write more in the same amount of time. (Teacher 6)

• Reflection:

Bridge Lake: What I learned from this Inquiry, at a primary level, particularly with my students, is that they were not ready for this push in their writing. They are not far enough along in their writing skill development to be able to acquire this skill at a competent level. I noticed that my students need reminders to keep their focus. I will continue to remind and encourage my students to use descriptive language in their writing but I will not push it as much until they are ready. Next time I will try to choose a skill development that is more suitable to their current ability. (Teacher 1)

What have you learned? That maybe I need to do more – I would have liked the results to be conclusive with a definite improvement but then if you focus on this, it is at the detriment of other subjects. I have found that what I do at school is not so dissimilar to other teachers in the same position. What did you notice with your students? Their approach to writing has become more mature. We did not get to redrafting work but they are not afraid to plan and write for 30 – 40 minutes at time. They recognize strong words and know what is required but do not always put this into practice. What will you consider keeping? I liked having “the write” for a set time and on a strict topic. I like the way I teach descriptive writing and planning but having taught the class how to choose some excellent words to use they need to have them at their disposal – maybe in their INB’s. I will keep the plot mountain pictures, opening and ending sentences printable and the figurative language work. What would you do differently? I think the spelling list may have to go or just pick out a few words each week that are descriptive and need to be used each week. I would be more consistent with the examples used to track the progress of the class. I think I did not emphasis the type of writing I wanted in the last write so I did not get it. I would change the synonym work I did, as it was a waste of time; as was the dictionary. For this process I would do a rubric so it is easier to decipher the results. (Teacher 2)

Forest Grove: I noticed that our inquiry question did not work as well as I had hoped. Using a descriptive word count was above my primary class. I had realized when looking at students daily journals that my morning messages were important and in our second meeting decided that I needed to go back to including them as often as possible even though our school schedule had changed. My school used a collaboration day to make our final set of school wide writes. This was the first time since I have taught there that the staff met as a group to collaborate and mark together. I found this time very valuable and would like to see Forest Grove continue this in the fall of each year. I had hoped to make and then mark every child in the school on a continuum, however, time did not allow. As a staff we decided on one common writing idea and all three divisions wrote on the same topic. As we marked together and conversed about each child we also made a list of the next few things each child needed in order to improve their writing. (Teacher 3)

We have learned ... I would like to look into the Interactive Notebooks, and perhaps collaborate these subjects with Jenny for future use. That I would like to try to be more consistent in my application of PLC required writing assignments. If the data collecting and resources and script for the teaching was the same, it would be easier to compare progress. Not only for individual students, but as a collective group we could adjust our evaluation techniques and see what is working, and why. We agreed that we would like to work as a group of teachers in the process of rating the students again. There was a lot of value in discussing individual students, and round table, three sets of eyes-saved us from second guessing ourselves. Being able to lay out the spectrum, and see the continuum together we could piece together how the student body as a whole stretches out. It gave us opportunities to think about what we could improve on in our teaching. Sharing ideas is invaluable. Better than Pinterest and teacherspayteachers, as we can apply to individual cases. We definitely noticed an improvement in our students’ performances over the year. When we used drama, and music, and tried to use more of the intelligences in our explicit teaching… it stuck with the students more effectively. Speech Arts was definitely a part of the repertoire of strategies we would keep. The "Hamburger," technique for developing structure was worth doing. We still like using the spelling list, as we can see the expanding vocabulary extending into other subjects and vice versa. I would like to try to apply this data more to the report card process, to get more bang for my buck. (Teachers 4 & 5)

Lac La Hache: I have learned that writing is hard for young learners and needs much more pre-writing teaching. The complexity of early writing is a much slower process than I had considered. Students were much more confident about writing when the intentions were very specific and the supports (word banks, exemplars) were available. I will keep the format I have started and use it for daily writing. I would like to have a question specifically tailored to early writing so that it is easier to assess and more valuable to me and my students. (Teacher 7)

I enjoyed the time we got to spend as a group of intermediate teachers from the small schools teaching in multi-grade classrooms. For me, the biggest thing I liked was getting together and working with other teachers who were experiencing the same problems and had some of the same questions about effective teaching strategies in a multi-grade classroom. I think less of a focus on a really specific question would be better. If we had a broader question/inquiry topic and more about how we can effectively teach (writing) in a multi-grade classroom, as in sharing examples of what is working, what was an awesome lesson etc. More hands on examples (notebooks or lesson plans) or going into each other's classrooms to see a lesson or resources in use. In terms of our actual inquiry question I would want to have the same template used for each of the writing samples- for example amount of time spent on writing and the type of writing sample used to calculate number of words written and descriptive words used. I really loved the idea of the Interactive notebooks and think it's a great idea for keeping all of the important lessons in one place that students need to look back at and refer to. (Teacher 6)