The Big Picture Matters: Structured Overview

Brett Bullard Education 428-9 12-10-13

The Big Picture Matters: Structured Overview The action researcher is a Samford University senior majoring in History/Social Science Education, confronted with two Twelfth Grade American Government classes at Mountain Brook High School.

I.
Question

Action Research Proposal

During the action researchers first few days, he observed that the two of Mr. Brock Rotters Twelfth Grade American Government classes at Mountain Brook High School are very different socially. Period one asks many questions about the topic, but sometimes they stray from the topic at hand. Period two asks very few questions and the ones they do are topic related. The population of Mountain Brook High School is very different from most other schools due to their advanced academics and high socioeconomic status. Mountain Brook also has a large parental involvement and students are driven for success. The action researcher decided with the consent of his collaborating teacher to implement a structured overview of the unit and mini units in hopes of improving test scores, thus showing an increase in content knowledge. The goal is not to keep the questions on topic, but to show the relationship between mini units and their relation to the totality of the unit. This project is focused on improving academic test scores based upon foundational information and factual knowledge in the content field.

Problem Relevance With the implementation of the structured overview to the class, the action researcher along with the collaborating teacher strives to show the students the relationship between the mini units and

their tie in to the entire unit. David Ausubel, creator of the advanced organizer, believed that a foundation needed to be laid for students to experience in depth learning. The structured overview laid that foundation. The researcher hopes that the students will recognize the relationship, thus their test scores will improve. This research project can help the students not just in the classroom, but also through their entire life because it will teach them how to see the big picture. It can help the action researcher by giving him the experience with educational research and data. In addition, it will show if a structured overview should be pursued in the future. Definitions Terms in this project need to be identified to reduce ambiguity. A structured overview visually represents the unit with the mini units branching off the unit. Under the mini units sub topics will branch off show the relationship of each part to the unit as a whole. The unit is a set of information that will be taught to students over normally ten days. The unit is broken down into two to four mini units with individual topics branching off. When the researcher talks about wanting to achieve higher test scores he means the average test score from period one and two increases from the previous unit or units, without a structured overview. Review of Literature The structured overview is a variation on the advanced organizers which were meant to be teacher-directed readiness activities that would clarify, stabilize, and organize prior content knowledge.1 In this project along with more recent scholarly views, the structured overview will be implemented to help link new topics together. A structured overview can increase vocabulary because most of the information on the overview are terms. Researcher Moore and Readence would like future
1

David Moore and John E. Readence, "A Quantitative and Qualitative Review of Graphic Organizer Research." Journal of Educational Research 78, no. 1 (September 1984), Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed
September 23, 2013), 11.

research *on+ the fit of graphic organizing with schools instructional conditions.2 David Ausubels research in 1963 contributed greatly to the organizer concept. He theorized that cognitive learning would be more meaningful if (1) knowledge is presented in an organized fashion, (2) new knowledge fits into the learners existing cognitive framework, and (3) new knowledge is relevant to the learners.3 The structured overview will show the relationship of the subtopics within the unit as a whole. The overview also gives visual meaning to the topics that are being presented in the classroom. There are some difficulties with the advance organizer approach. According to research, advance organizers have become difficult to use as an aid to comprehension because the teacher is not exactly sure if it is at a high enough level of generality. In addition, the creator of the advanced organizer is relevant to the individual. If the organizer/overview worked, it was one for the student; if it did not work, it was not for that student. That makes it difficult to get results for the entire class.4 Ausubel would respond to the following critique by stating that the principle reason for inadequately meaningful learning of the subject matter is that pupils are frequently required to learn the specifics before they have acquired an adequate foundation.5 The entire idea behind Ausubels theory is to use the advanced organizers to lay the foundation for new material so the learner will be able learn the specifics of the subject matter successfully. Hypothesis The action researcher from Samford University and collaborating teacher from Mountain Brook High School would like to see an increase in the average test scores from baseline unit test scores to the unit test following implementation of the structured overview. During the previous units, a structured

2 3

Ibid., 16. Johanna Kasin Lemlech, Teaching in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms: Building a Learning Community , 172. 4 Thomas H. Estes, The Effect of Advance Organizer Upon Meaningful Reception Learning and Retention of Social Studies Content, 1-3. 5 David Ausubel, The Use of Ideational Organizers in Science Teaching, 5.

overview was not implemented. The researcher will use Mr. Rotters Twelfth Grade American Government periods one and two at Mountain Brook High School in Birmingham, Alabama, for implementation and collection of data. The data collected will only be compared to each class respectively.

II.

Description of Method/Date Collection

Outcome Measures To determine whether the proposed strategy of structured overviews will increase test scores from two previous unit tests before the strategy was implemented, the action researcher will compare the class average test scores. The test scores collected before strategy implementation will provide the baseline data to compare with two test scores collected post strategy implementation. The unit tests and formative assessments provide quantitative data, while the pre and post strategy survey results provide qualitative data (See Appendix). The summative tests will prove if an increase in content knowledge was made and whether that increase can be attributed to the structured overview strategy. The survey results will be used to gauge the student opinions about the structured overview strategys usefulness in developing a higher understanding of the relationship that exists between the topic and the unit as a whole. The collaborating teacher will implement and assess the unit tests just has he did before the strategy implementation.

Method Design The strategy of structured overviews will be implemented in periods one and two of Brock Rotters Twelfth Grade American Government classes at Mountain Brook High School in Birmingham, Alabama. The action research targeted the presidency/presidential powers unit test and the 5

bureaucracy unit test. The structured overview strategy was introduced to the class (See Appendix for copy). Then before each section of the overview, the action researcher presented the section to the classes. The classes were also quizzed on each section of the structured overview. The supervising teacher implemented and graded the unit tests that were used to measure the effectiveness of the structured overview strategy. In preparation for the implementation of the structured overview strategy, the action researcher needs to familiarize him/herself with the each section of the overview (presidency, powers of the president, and bureaucracy). The strategy implementation started on October 15 and ended on November 15 lasting roughly one month. Data Collection Before the strategy was implemented, the students were asked to complete a pre-strategy survey about how they prefer to learn. The survey was made available on Mountain Brook School Systems Google Drive. The structured overview strategy was introduced and section one of the overview was presented to periods one and two of Brock Rotters Twelfth Grade American Government class at Mountain Brook High School on Tuesday, October 15. The action researcher, a teacher education intern at nearby Samford University, introduced the design of the structured overview and discussed how it outlined the upcoming unit (See Appendix). The s teacher education intern informed how the structured overview could be useful for focusing attention upon important terms and background material. He explained how it is a useful tool for organizing thought for the executive branch unit. The structured overview also provides a ready guide for test review and study. On Wednesday, October 30, section two of the structured overview was introduced to the same two class periods. Then on Monday, November 4, period one and two took a quiz on the structured overview and reviewed with the classes section three of the structured overview. The quiz consisted of the first two sections of the overview. The students had a blank overview and they filled in the first two 6

sections. On Tuesday, November 5, period one and two took a unit test on the presidency and presidential powers, which corresponded with the first two sections of the structured overview. Thursday, November 14, periods one and two took a quiz on the third section of the structured overview with the format being that same and the first quiz. On Friday, November 15, periods one and two took the bureaucracy unit test, which corresponded, to the third section of the structured overview. The final collection of qualitative data came from the post strategy survey, which allowed students to express their opinion on the structured overview. After post strategy survey, the strategy implementation was complete. Data Analysis Since two kinds of data have been collected during the study: quantitative data (unit tests and quizzes) and qualitative data (surveys), each type of data will be organized differently. The data will show whether the structured overview strategy will improve student test scores from the previous units without a structured overview. This data measured all parts of the desired and predicted outcomes. The outcome desired was for unit test scores to increase with the implementation of the structured overview strategy. The action researcher will take the class averages from both unit test post strategy implementation and compare that score the two unit tests pre strategy. To compare the test scores a class average needs to be taken from each of the four tests (two pre-strategy and two post-strategy). Once you have the class mean the type of results the structure overview yielded are visible. The quizzes data will represent if the students achievement matches the achievement on the unit tests. The survey, which measure qualitative data, will gauge the usefulness according to student opinions.

III.

Report on Findings

Interpretation Changes occurred in the test classrooms at Mountain Brook High School with the implementation of the structured overview strategy. There were two unit tests pre strategy and the average of those two tests will serve as the baseline date. Period one had a baseline average score of 78.85% and period two had a baseline average score of 79.25%. When comparing the results of the two unit tests with the structured overview strategy the two American government periods at Mountain Brook High School produced mixed results. In period one, the students earned a 72% on the first test (presidency) with the strategy and an 87% on the second test (bureaucracy). Period two scored a 75% on the first presidency test and a 92% on the bureaucracy test. The mixed results can be attributed to many different explanations. The first major reason for the results from the presidency test to the bureaucracy deals with the type of test. My collaborating teacher used a test creating software for the pre strategy test and the presidency test, but for the bureaucracy test Mr. Rotter wrote it himself based solely on the notes and in class assignment. This change in the tool to measure results prevents the action researcher from attributing any results to the overview. Next, there were many external distractions that occurred during my research at Mountain Brook High School. Students saw distractions from Homecoming, rivalry game with Vestavia Hills, volleyball going to the state tournament, choir concert, and a playoff football game. The extra-curricular activities had the students out of focus in the classroom and can be attributed to the lack of results. These results show that the structured overview was not a success in Mr. Rotters Twelfth Grade American Government classes at Mountain Brook High School. Structured overviews can be a success to students according to scholarly research, but all other variables need to be held constant.

The formative assessment averages in periods one and two produced mixed results as well. In period one, students scored on average seventeen points higher on the structured overview than on the unit test that corresponded. This can be attributed that the unit test was written by a test creating software. On the bureaucracy formative assessment students in period one, scored fifteen points that on the bureaucracy unit test. This test was writer by my collaborating teacher Mr. Brock Rotter. Period two produced similar results. Research also produced qualitative data in the form of responses to pre and post strategy surveys (See Appendix). The results from the surveys were also mixed. Some students took the survey serious and gave honest responses and some students brushed it off. For example Virginia in 1st period stated in the pre strategy survey that making graphs to show how they all relate really helps, to the question what type of aid other teachers provided to see how the topic relates to the unit as a whole. Some students that did not take the surveys serious responded with one-word answers with no explanation. Responses to the post strategy survey were mixed as well. Some students thought the structured overview helped and some did not. John from first period did not like the structured overview and said it did not help. Sally believed it helped her because it *broke+ up all of the information into categories that were easier to learn. These surveys found that the feelings and opinions were mixed across both classrooms to the structured overview strategy. Report on Findings The results can also be displayed in a visual graph. This allows the reader to view the results easier and compare each test and period. The graphs below display the results visually and show the relationship with the test format that was described above. The results are for any secondary educators. The structured overview strategy can be adapted to fit any secondary classroom. For example, in middle school, it could be more factual and involve key terms, while in the later grades of high school the 9

teacher could make it more concept and theory based. According to research, the structured overview should be used in the classroom because it organizes the students thought and lays the foundation for future learning.

Period One - Test Scores

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

10

Period Two Test Scores

100 80 60 40 20 0

Period One Formative Assessments

100 80 60 40 20 0 Section 1 and 2 Section 3

11

Period Two Formative Assessments

100 80

60
40 20 0 Section 1 and 2
Practice Decisions Changes need to be made if this strategy is implemented in the future. To start with, the test format needs to stay the same throughout the entire implantation process. In addition, the structured overview needs to be reinforced every day. For example, when the teacher starts the days lesson he/she should refer to the overview to describe where the lesson fits into the entire unit. In addition, if possible the implementing researcher needs to reduce distractions in the classroom to allow students to focus on information being presented to them. If this strategy is implemented in the future with these few changes, I believe it will produce success in student achievement.

Section 3

12

Bibliography Ausubel, David P., and Columbus, OH. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science Education. The Use of Ideational Organizers in Science Teaching. Occasional Paper 3. n.p.: 1970. ERIC, EBSCOhost (accessed November 29, 2013). Estes, Thomas H. The Effect of Advance Organizers Upon Meaningful Reception Learning and Retention of Social Studies Content. n.p.: 1971. ERIC, EBSCOhost (accessed November 29, 2013). Moore, David W., and John E. Readence. "A Quantitative and Qualitative Review of Graphic Organizer Research." Journal Of Educational Research 78, no. 1 (September 1984): 11. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 23, 2013). Lemlech, Johanna Kasin. Teaching in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms: Building a Learning Community. New Jersey: Pearson, 2004.

13