Data Analysis
The following methods were selected to measure the twenty-one students' progress and growth in writing throughout peer conferencing.
Pre/Post Writing
Students were asked to write a complete and published story, without any teacher assistance. They were able to use any writing tools posted in the classroom or that had been shared with them throughout writing process. The writing was then graded on a district created six traits writing rubric. The rubric has a total of twenty-four possible points. I used the results of this piece of writing as my baseline scores to evaluate my students writing. Only five of my students scored proficient or above in the pre-writing.
After research was conducted and peer conferencing was implemented, students were given the same writing task again, to complete a published story. The same rubric was used to score the post-writing and this time only one student did not score proficient or above on the rubric.
Time on Task
In order to ensure students engagement along with effective peer conferencing was being completed, during one writing conference a week, students video taped themselves and then the videos were watched. The time on task data collection was filled out. The time on task allowed for reflection on each of the peer conferences.
Each student had their own data column. The time on tasks correlated with the students peer conferencing checklist to ensure that both the student and teacher were looking for the same qualities of peer conferencing. If the student during the entire peer conferencing was adhering to these qualities they received a plus and then a minus if the quality was not met.
In this research, after peer conferencing was implemented, all students were able to make eye contact and have their body facing their partner. Where I focused the rest of the study on was ensuring that students were effectively giving and receiving specific feedback in the forms:
-Student tells partner something they like about their writing (gives a star)
-Student asks one question about partner's writing
-Student gives partner one suggestion on partners writing (gives a wish)
Star on writing
Throughout the six weeks of research, students focused on giving 'specifics stars', or something they liked about their partner's writing. After the peer conferencing on 2.19 (February 19th), a mini lesson was taught on reviewing what specific feedback looked like in writing. Students were giving stars based on such things as "I like your pictures", "I like the details you used". After the mini lesson, you can see that all students were now giving feedback that resembled more specific attributes ex. "I like how you used a simile to describe how fast you were running", "I like the sensory details you used about your birthday cake, I felt that I was really eating it!".
Asking a question was another area where students were struggling. Students would simply say they had no questions after reading their peer's writing. After the peer conferencing that had taken place on 2.5, as a class, we brainstormed some questions that we could ask each other about our writing. I would then place this anchor chart up each day for students to reference as they came to this point in peer conferencing. With the help of the anchor chart, students were asking more specific questions to their peers. Questions like "how do you play that game? I have never heard of it", "how old where you when that happened?" These types of questions help the author to go back and think of what they can add to paint a more vivid picture of the story.
Asking a Question
Giving a Suggestion
The last aspect of the time on task that was analyzed was students giving each other a suggestion that could be made to their writing. That way, when the author sat back down to the writing, they could refer back to the questions and constructive suggestions that were given to them. This in turn would help improve their writing and revising process. Based on the writing given before and after the research was implemented along with each of graphs of peer conferencing, the research shows that the peer conferencing was effective in the growth and quality of the writing. At the beginning of the research students would give a suggestion or a wish, that had no direct correlation to their peers writing. Ex. "I wish you would make your letters straighter", "My wish is that your picture had more color". These types of suggestions were not constructive to grow as writers. By the end of the research students were giving suggestions about students writing. "I wish that you could use some different transitions words throughout your story instead of just next ", "I wish you could use some sensory details to describe how the cake tasted". These examples show an increase in the amount of constructive suggestions for peer writing.
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of peer conferencing in writing versus the increase of student achievement in writing. There was a significant difference in the scores prior to implementing summarizing strategies (M=15.66, SD=1.92) and after implementing (M=20.23, SD=1.74) the summarizing strategies; t(21)= 14.03295, p = 00000000000.4085 The observed standardized effect size is quite large (3.06). This indicates that the magnitude of the difference between the average and μ0 is significant. These results suggest that the use of peer conferencing in writing had a positive effect on student achievement in writing. Specifically, the results suggest that the use of peer conferencing increased writing achievement.
T-Test
Triangulation
When looking at the quantitative and qualitative data above it is clear that implementing peer conferencing in writing increased students' writing skills. I was able to use my pre-writing rubric scores to help me focus the mini lesson writing instructions to ensure that my students were reaching proficient or above proficient by the end of the school year. I then implemented the use of peer conferencing into my writing block. This strategy helped grow my students as writers as they were giving and receiving specific and constructive feedback on their writing each and everyday. After my students would complete their peer conferencing, I would use my time on task data sheet to then determine if my students were still needing extra support in specific areas of the peer conferencing. Such as asking their partner a specific question and giving a constructive suggestion. By using the time on task I could see the reoccurring themes with my students and then teach mini lessons of how to ask a specific writing questions or how to give and take suggestion. Finally, my post-writing helped me to determine that peer conferencing improved my student's writing abilities. The variety of data collection methods created reliability to my study as I was able to see that my students learned from different writers perspectives.