WEEK 3 REFLECTION
1. Setting the Foundation – After attending several meetings with my school supervisor and collaborating with other grade level chairpersons recommendations for student improvement was discussed. Through the use of persuasive collaboration the administrator and SBDM team decided that purchasing another instructional tool would be wasting funding. Since it was stated in our Campus Improvement Plan that a large portion of our campus funds would be allocated towards hiring TAKS tutors, the administrator thought that monies would be better spent on human resource like instructional tutors would be more beneficial to struggling students. Being a skeptic of having instructional tutors provide instructions to students, I questioned whether this was the appropriate /correct strategy to utilize2. Analyzing data – there are various forms of data I believe we would need to utilize like the 2008-2009 TAKS Results for placement into the tutorial programs, surveys of teachers, walk-through and observations to determine the effectiveness of tutors, benchmark assessments, curriculum based assessments, mock testings, and student success on the current year's state assessments. Also, articles found on internet searches and on professional administrative association links such as AASA, NAESP, or NASSP.
3. Developing Deeper Understanding – As we use the data from the TAKS results to identify the struggling students, teachers will have an opportunity to voice there concerns if any through surveys. Each grade level where instructional tutors are hired will have a representative from that grade level to become apart of a focus group where further data on the success of the program will be determined. The group will also conduct internet searches on successful tutorial programs. Both qualitative and quantitative data will be examined as the effectiveness of the tutorial process is examined.
4. Engaging in Self-Reflection – As I began to conduct this research inquiry , I began to reflect on my own values and biases. I wondered if the instructional tutors would be able to help with student improvement. I questioned the effectiveness of having tutors. I questioned if students would treat them as substitutes, who many view and treat as babysitters. Other questions that seared in my mind was (1) Do pull-out programs increase improvement of warrant chaos? (2) Are instructional tutors properly trained to perform the duties asked of them?, and (3) How professional are the tutors when interacting with the students?
5. Exploring Programmatic Patterns – After reviewing the data on the impact that the instructional tutor has on the struggling students, I would suggest that grade level chairpersons take the results to the principal. I further believe that the findings should then be reported to the SBDM team where a decision about the program could be made.
6. Determining direction – After I continue to analyze the data from the impact of instructional tutors, gain a deeper understanding of where the data is leading, reflect on the process of the program, and identify gaps that could possibly hinder the impact of the tutors, I will look for strides that demonstrate progression by addressing some key questions with my principal, and our SBDM team. These questions are:
A. Is there a clear understanding of what we are attempting to research about our tutoring program?
B. Will the scheduling of tutorial pull-outs be adequately addressed?
C. What is the plan in which we will utilize to monitor the instructional tutors?
D. What measures will we use to evaluate effectiveness?
E. Based on the inquiry's results how will revisions be made.
7. Taking action for school improvement – Now that the inquiry is developed I have to commit to the priorities of working in conjunction with my administrator and SBDM team to follow and ensure effective implementation of the inquiry plan. As the plan shifts from an idea and wondering to an actual process of action, it will be monitored and evaluated using a formative evaluation. After the inquiry plan has been carried out a summative evaluation will be prepared detailing the positives and negatives of the inquiry and addressing what worked and what didn't. After having communicated the findings, considerations regarding keeping or scraping the instructional tutoring program will be made.
8. Sustaining improvement – After completing this action research project, I will share my results with others in order to inform them of the pro and cons that were identified during this research project. I will also use this research as an example of how I will gain even more knowledge in future professional development endeavors.
Person(s) Responsible:
1. Instructional Tutors
2. Teachers
3. Principal
4. Instructional Coach
5. Interventionist
STEPS OF MY ACTION RESEARCH PLAN
- Gathering information on struggling students/ TAKS Non-Masters: September 2009-May 2010
- Analyze the curriculum objectives for TAKS subjects per grade level: September 2009-January 2010
- Implementing the Daily Schedule for Instructional Tutorial Pull-outs during the school day: September 2009-May 2010
- Instructional Tutors scheduling of morning and after-school tutorials: September 2009-January 2010
- Instructional Tutors will analyze /interpret student daily performance and assessment: Every Six Weeks from August2009- May 2010
- Redesigning Scheduling Implementation making more time for Instructional Tutors to enhance the improvement of struggling students: September 2009- End of 1st Semester
January 2010 - Sharing results of the action research: May 2010-June 2010
