Lesson Study Final

Running head: CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND VOICE IN ESSAY WRITING 1

How Child Development Relates to Using Voice in Essay Writing:
A 5th Grade Classroom Lesson Study Cycle
Hanna Grace Galario, Naomi Hernandez-Hama,
Amanda Kinne, Rosemarie Luna, & Naturalee Puou
University of Hawaiʻi – West Oahu

Abstract
Good writers use voice to “show” themselves in their writing and can turn reading into a
conversation with the audience. Regardless of a composition’s genre or the medium through
which readers engage with a text, voice is what connects readers to a human composer. But
teaching students to incorporate voice into their writing can be one of the most difficult tasks for
writing teachers, especially during the secondary grade levels where students have formed a
dependency upon frameworks and prescribed structures from previous writing experiences to get
through an assignment. Voice is all but neglected in student compositions. With this in mind,
providing opportunities for students during the primary grade levels to learn about, find, and
develop their writer’s voice may help to ensure that it is included in their writing as they get
older. Focusing on the developmental needs of the child during the elementary years, this lesson
study research project seeks to understand how social and emotional learning can impact voice in
student writing.

Keywords: v oice, develop, writing, social, emotional


Introduction

This lesson study focus on developing student voice in narrative writing was settled upon
because all student teachers (ST) were teaching personal narrative units across their various field
classrooms at the onset of research. The research group consists of five elementary STs, and one
secondary. A common concern for all was the lack of voice and authenticity they saw in their
students’ writing. This research paper seeks to understand how social and emotional learning
during the primary grade levels can help students learn about, find, and develop their writer’s
voice. The most common explanation of “voice” in writing is that it is the unique personality,
point of view, or style of the individual writer. In a lesson study, colleagues collaborate on a
learning goal; conduct research and develop a lesson; deliver the lesson under the observation of
the RG in a real classroom; debrief on the lesson following delivery; and apply instructional
adjustments to a second round of the lesson taught to different students. Lesson studies cycles are
comprehensive professional development for educators, and sometimes entire schools. that some
schools practice all for the sake of improving instructional practices and student learning.
A lesson study on child development as it relates to voice in writing may help gain
instructional insight on how pre-service teachers can group, engage, and assess students on a
collaborative writing assignment intended to improve student voice. A literature review will first
discuss child development, including social and emotional learning during the concrete
operational stage. It will then explore strategies for teaching voice in elementary, including the
benefits of collaborative writing. The methodology section will detail the lesson planning
process and research-guided decisions made throughout the lesson study cycle for student
grouping, engagement, and assessments of learning. A section on results and findings offers an
analysis of the RG’s observations and assessment data. Finally, the research paper concludes
with reflections on the study’s impact on STs’ instructional practices in future lessons.
Review of Literature
Development Stage
According to Robert Salvin (2014) author of Educational psychology: Theory and
practice, children between ages 7-11 years old are classified under Piaget's’ concrete operational
stage of cognitive development (Salvin, 2014, p. 34). The staged is marked by reduced
egocentrism as children develop an awareness of differences in the feelings, thoughts, and
outlooks of their peers. Applying Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development to Mathematics
Instruction (Ojose, 2005) further reports that “language and acquisition of basic skills accelerate
dramatically. Children at this stage utilize their senses in order to know” (p .2). Children’s
manipulation of systems and symbols help to form the basis of logical thinking, which
significantly grows during the concrete operational stage (Wood, Smith, & Grossniklaus, 2001),
but abstract concepts and ideas may still remain a challenge. As teaching such an abstract
concept as voice to writers at this stage may prove difficult, Wood, Smith, & Grossniklaus
(2001) encourage the use of visual aids and brain teasers as a means of educational engagement.
Social-Emotional Development
Positive youth development seeks to empower students in the building of skills and
accumulation of assets, including the building of positive relationships. According to Dr. Tracey
Bennett, author of article “Dr. Bennett's Developmental Psychology Crash Course (ages 7-11
years),” children during the concrete operational stage start to develop awareness of others own
thoughts. In other words, a child is aware that their understandings and feelings may not be the
same among their peers. Bennett (2018) also states that a child begins to realize that even the
intentions of their peers are different from those of their own. Children during the concrete
operational stage are also able to come to conclusions on how one might react to their own
actions.
Wood, Smith, & Grossniklaus (2001) remind that criticisms of Piaget’s theory arose
during the 60’s and 70’s, which point to his underestimation of children’s ability. Piaget implied
that thinking would be the same across tasks, however, later research has shown that
similarly-aged children can display a diverse range of cognitive abilities (Wood, Smith, &
Grossniklaus, 2001). This is largely based on the varying experiences they have outside of
school. Such varying experiences may also attribute to varying abilities to access voice in
writing. Roberts, Blanch, & Gurjar (2017) explain that when working in groups, peers set
performance benchmarks for one another in their individual levels of accomplishment. This
suggests that collaborative writing may provide opportunities for social and emotional learning
when strategically structured.
Strategies For Teaching Voice
There are different strategies that are being used within the classroom to help build
students voice within their writing. For example, one strategy that is beneficial is allowing social
interactions among students and their peers. According to the research of Kelser Ted (2012)
“Writing With Voice”, he shares how social interactions in classrooms enables students to
develop as writers and impact voice within their writing. Voice is an important trait of writing
for it makes the quality of an individual’s writing engaging. In writing, voice conveys the
writer’s unique attitude, personality, and character. However, developing strong writing voices is

not a solitary skill as it is known but rather dialogic. Ted states that “a writer’s voice is not
created solely out of the depths of his or her individuality. Rather it is constructed out of the
voices of the individuals and communities” (Kelser, 2012). In creating dialogic interaction
during writing time he states that “learning to write is about learning to be in a particular kind of
interaction --- with other writers and with readers --- and not just about a display of skills”
(Kelser, 2012). Lastly, it provides students collaborative opportunities that would be missed by
working alone. Overall, through this process of encountering in dialogue and social interaction
helps develop their own voice and learn ways of being with others as themselves and being as
writers.
Another research strategy that is being used within the classroom to help build students
voice in writing is allowing the freedom of choice. According to “A Case Study Observing the
Development of Primary Children's Composing, Spelling, and Motor Behaviors during the
Writing Process” by Graves, Donald H (1982), a two year study was done within a New
Hampshire School, among 16 children from five different classrooms. Research data focused on
the observations of what primary students did when it came to writing. According to Graves
(1982), allowing student choice can help increase student voice within their writing. Graves
states that “Teachers Should Let Children Choose About 80% of Their Topics Because It-Assists
Them with voice, heightens semantic domain, skill of-narrowing topic, and basic decision -
Making. (Graves, 1982, p. 34). Observations of allowing students to choose a topic helped
increase a better understanding of what to write, an increase in writing quality and lastly
observations showed students developing new writing concepts.

Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt (2016) extend upon previous research suggestions that
educators encourage the simultaneous engagement of images with texts, as the two are effective
in constructing texting meaning. In developing an understanding of an abstract concept such as
voice, images offer students a concrete basis to write from and can act as powerful prompts.
Collaborative Writing
According to Tanju Deveci (2018), author of Student Perceptions on Collaborative
Writing in a Project-based Course, collaborative writing can be defined as “an assignment in
which students work together from start to finish, producing a single paper from the group” (p.
2). Roberts, Blanch, & Gurjar (2017) rely heavily upon Vopat’s (2009) Writing Circles: Kids
Revolutionize Workshop i n their description of collaborative writing, in which circles are
“formed at the very onset of the writing process and involve five to seven members from
prewriting through sharing and publication as young authors write collaboratively on the same
piece (Vopat, 2009). The purpose of collaborative writing activities is to provide students with
opportunities to help each other become better writers. Choice and roles within the group seem to
motivate participants in writing circles, according to Roberts, Blanch, & Gurjar (2017). In
working with students who are just beginning to develop abstract thinking, collaborative learning
provides students with exposure to the diverse thinking of their peers. Furthermore, working with
peers in a group can offer positive motivation because students implicitly set benchmarks for
each other as they work together (Roberts, Blanch, & Gurjar, 2017).
Benefits of Collaborative Writing
Collaborative writing allows the opportunity for students to become engaged with the
lesson and benefit in social interactions among their peers. Within the research work of Deveci
(2018), he shares some of the social benefits of collaborative writing. For example, the social
beneficial aspect of collaborative writing allows students to take a step back and gain an outside
perspective other than their own when it comes to the understanding the content and assigned
task. Deveci states that students who participate in collaborative writing “improve their
vocabulary, understanding of text coherence, and gain new ideas and perspectives” (Deveci,
2018, p. 2).
Case studies have also been done in the past to help provide evidential data on the
benefits of collaborative writing among students. Such as, according to Barbara Clarke and
Wendy Kastan, the authors of “A Study of 3rd and 5th Grade Students' Oral Language during the
Writing Process in Elementary Classrooms,” the data collected from seven 5th graders and 3rd
graders shows a positive impact on student writing when collaboration is taking place compared
to students independently working. According to the authors, “Oral language plays an important
role in the writing process” (Clarke & Kastan, 1986). Benefits of collaboration during the writing
process includes helping students with their intrapersonal skills; qualities and behaviors one
builds within interactions with others. Collaboration also helps with the students thinking
process; identifying what to write about, what to revise etc. Lastly collaboration can help
students enhance their understanding of what to do. Clarke and Kastan state;
Findings indicated that oral language plays an important role in the writing process;
specifically, that it (1) accompanies writing as an intrapersonal function, (2) helps writers
think about and revise their text, (3) helps writers make decisions about what to write, (4)
is highly related to writing and almost entirely on-task, (5) provides opportunities for
collaboration to enhance learning opportunities, and (6) helps students talk about and
increase their understanding of the writing process (Clarke & Kastan, 1986).
Another case study that helps provide evidential data on the benefits of collaborative
writing among students was done by Jonathan Tudge and Paul Winterhoff. Within their case
study “Can young children benefit from collaborative problem solving? Tracing the effects of
partner competence and feedback”, Tudge and Winterhoff found that “collaboration with a more
competent partner, was more beneficial than working alone or with with an equally competent
partner” (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993). A number of questions arose from this study, one focusing
on the relations between social and cognitive development in children in their early years of
school. Tudge and Winterhoff believe that there is no question that social factors and cognitive
development are linked in complex ways. Piaget and Vygotsky had different views on this topic.
Piaget (1932, 1977) believed that “collaboration between peers was more effective than
adult-child collaboration”, whereas Vygotsky (1987) argued that “collaboration required the
presence of a more competent partner, whether adult or child”.
Methodology
Participants
Participants of the two-part lesson study were 20 August Ahrens Elementary School
students from a 5th grade, general education classroom. 8 were female and 12 were male.
Students were sorted by their student teacher based on Iready scores and behavior to form two
Groups, A and B. The groups were heterogeneous, and at least one student has a history of
behavioral challenges. During the second part, also referred to as phase 2, of the lesson, Group B

was further sorted into two groups of 5 by the ST conducting the lesson to ensure each group had
a mixture of abilities for variety of voice.
School Demographics
August Ahrens Elementary is located in Waipahu and is part of the Leeward School
District of Oahu. Based on the 2010 U.S Census, within the Waipahu School community the
total population was 60,305 people. 31.4% of students graduated high school, and 20.1% of
students graduated college. August Ahrens Elementary is identified as a Title I school because
there is a high percentage of students who come from low income families. About 53.4% of
students at August Ahrens receives free or reduced lunches.
During the 2016-2017 school year, there were 1,262 students enrolled. The ethnicities of
the students vary from black, native and Pacific Islander, including Kānaka, White and Asian.
The dominant ethnicity of the student body is Filipino. About 84% of students identified as
Filipino. For Special Education Programs, about 80 (6.3%) students were enrolled. The number
of students with limited English proficiency was 235, or 20%. The main language that ELL
students speak is either Tagalog or Ilocano.
Based on the Strive HI School Performance Report for the year 2016-2017; an annual
report that focuses on school performance data, 48% of students have meet the standards/are
proficient when it comes to the state assessment in Language Arts. The percentage shows no
change from the previous year. As for Math, the report shows 55%, which is a 6% increase from
the previous year. For Science, the report shows 49%, a 5% increase from the previous year.
Materials & Measurements

Visual images from The Mysteries of Harris Burdick b y Chris Van Allsburg (1984) was
used in both phases of the lesson study as writing prompts. Each image is accompanied by a title
and single caption. The images in Harris Burdick are specifically intended to inspire creative
thinking in their readers, as the images are abstract and provide little to no context as to what is
happening in the scenes. Incorporating visual images as a means of establishing a situation for
the students enabled the research team to work towards fulfilling
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.5.3: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or
events using effective technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. Image prompts
can be impactful on student writing. Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt (2016) extend upon
previous research which suggest that educators encourage the simultaneous engagement of
images with texts in lessons. The two are effective in helping students construct textual meaning.
In developing an understanding of an abstract concept such as voice, images offer students a
concrete basis to write from, and can help with developing a response.
A circle map worksheet with sensory vocabulary was issued to Group B in phase 2
(Appendix H). The handout featured 20 vocabulary words associated with 4 of the 5 human
senses, which students sorted onto a circle map of the senses. Taste was excluded from the circle
map due to the nature of the images and writing activity, as taste was least likely to be used with
the prompts. The purpose of the worksheet was to help organize the students’ ideas when it came
to identifying words related to the four senses of sight, hearing, touch, and smell. In phase 2, the
research group decided on a circle map because August Ahrens students are familiar with using
circle maps for pre-writing. Furthermore, the focus on sensory words narrowed the lesson’s
initial focus from the broad, abstract topic of voice, to using writing techniques that were
developmentally appropriate for students who are just learning about voice in narrative writing.
The vocabulary words on the handout were selected by the research group based on the Harris
Burdic images chosen for the lesson. The circle map also served as a tool for measurement,
specifically, a pre-assessment.
Rubrics outlining success criteria for post-assessments were provided to the participants
in both phases. The purpose of each rubric was to clarify expectations of participants’ written
responses to the prompt. Appendixes G and I are the respective rubrics for Groups A and B.
For this research project, the RG relied on pre- and post-assessments for quantitative
data, and real-time observation notes gathered during both deliveries of the lesson to Groups A
and B for qualitative data. In phase 1, Group A was administered a prompt that participants
needed to compose a text for during a free write pre-assessment. A post-assessment was then
administered after direct instruction on voice in writing using the Harris Burdick image prompts.
The intent of the pre- and post-assessments were to measure voice in writing when participants
write independently.
In phase 2, Group B was administered the circle map worksheet with sensory vocabulary
as a pre-assessment. After direct instruction on sensory language and its connection to voice, the
Harris Burdick image prompts were then used for post-assessments, however, students
collaborated as a group to compose one narrative. The intent of the post-assessment was to
measure voice in writing when participants write collaboratively.
During both phases, specific areas were observed by the STs of the RG who were not
delivering the lesson to participants for qualitative data gathering. Prior to conducting the
lessons, the RG defined the areas of observation for this lesson study and developed an
observation sheet to guide note-taking during the lessons for the observing STs. The areas the
RG chose to observe during the lessons were purpose, engagement, and classroom and time
management. These areas relate to either teacher instruction or student learning.
Alignment to the learning objective throughout the lesson was defined as purpose to the
research group. Observations include returning to the learning targets and essential questions
throughout both of the lessons, ensuring intention behind instructional practices are relevant to
the learning goals, and that participants always knew the purpose of the lesson as well.
Observations on engagement include capturing the participants’ interests, responses to strategies,
and what motivated them throughout the lesson. Classroom management observations focused
on the behavior of students, compliance, as well as the effectiveness of attention getters. Time
management observations include student responses to directions, movement during transitions,
and staying within time limits for the lesson. Appendix J outlines the areas of observation in
greater detail, including what was specifically observed, accompanied by with notes.
Design
The lesson study best relates to a between-group design, where the difference between
Group A and B is the condition in which participants completed the post-assessment. Group A
participants completed an individual written assessment, although they had choice in which
station to sit at based on the image the were most interested in. Group B participated in a
collaborative writing effort in pre-sorted groups of 5. These two conditions were the independent
variables. Incorporating group work into phase 2 with Group B required structured
implementation, therefore roles were created by the RG, and students had choice in the role they
would fulfill in each group.

As previously stated, collaborative writing is beneficial. It allows the opportunity for
students to become engaged with the lesson and benefit in social interactions among their peers.
Deveci (2018) explains that the social beneficial aspect of collaborative writing allows students
to take a step back and gain an outside perspective other than their own when it comes to the
understanding the content and assigned task. For concrete operational learners, collaborative
learning can support logical thinking, and understanding of abstract concepts (like voice), and
there is positive impact on student writing when collaboration takes place compared to students
independently working (Clarke & Kastan, 1986). Peer collaboration also exposes students to the
different voices of their classmates, sharpening individual awareness to how others think, act, or
feel. It is for this reason that Group B was exposed to group work.
The dependent variable in both phases were the standard-based grading levels, as
determined by the 3-point grade rubrics. In comparing these scores between independent and
collaborative writing post-assessments, the RG was able to determine the depth of impact that
collaborative writing had on voice in student writing. The ST did not go over the rubric as a class
during phase 1. Instead, participants of Group A read it independently, and referred back to it
while completing the writing assignment on their own. To structure support for participants new
to collaborative writing in phase 2 however, the ST reviewed the rubric as a class.
Procedures
Each lesson started with an opening introduction to the focus of the lesson, including
learning targets, and the agenda. An activity followed, to prime participants’ thinking about
voice in writing. A pre-assessment is included. This was followed by direct instruction, then a
post-assessment.
In phase 1, Group A was given 10 minutes to create a composition starting with, “Dude,
guess what!” The free writes provided pre-assessment samples of student voice at the onset of
the lesson, and a basis for independent student writing after receiving a prompt and sample
(provided by the ST).
The activity was followed by a whole-class discussion on what makes writing interesting
using a circle map on the overhead. One participant was able to provide “voice” as an example to
add to the map. After focusing “what makes writing interesting” as the essential question for the
lesson, the ST introduced the final activity: the Harris Burdic image prompts. The ST introduced
the activity, modeled an example of what students were expected to produce based off of an
image, then previewed the writing rubric. The ST explained that participants would have a
choice to sit at a station of their choosing, based on the image that interested them most at each
of the stations. After giving participants time to write their narratives, the ST asked for individual
volunteers to allow for sharing.
In phase 2, the focus was narrowed from voice, to sensory details and language as they
relate to voice in writing. During the introduction, the ST explicitly stated to participants that
sensory details added richness to writing, and was a step towards developing their individual
voices in writing. Following this, the ST had an informal discussion about the 5 senses and asked
participants to consider and share with a partner what sense they might be able to live without.
The circle map worksheet with sensory vocabulary was then issued for students to independently
complete. Following direct instruction on sensory details and voice, the ST introduced the group
activity, split the Group B participants into smaller groups of 5, and explained the roles. The ST
assigned each group a photo in response to time management observations from phase 1, but
maintained student choice in the selection of roles. Discussion with peers was encouraged by the
ST to make decisions on how the situation of their narrative should unfold. The RG took notes
on participant responses and discussions while they worked in groups. At the wrap-up, the ST
allowed both groups to present their narratives, which were later scored by the RG using a new
rubric reflecting the refined focus of the lesson during phase 2.
Results/Findings
For this study, the analysis focused on evaluating how students incorporates their voice in
narrative writing. Process for each lesson were different but the students in Group A and Group
B were given a pre- and posttest to determine and measure if there is a significant difference in
the presence of voice in their narrative writing. Two writing lessons were delivered where each
has significant contributions to the data.
First, it is the field of study where the writing lesson was focused on independent writing.
Students were assigned free-write with a writing prompt as their pre-assessment. For their
post-assessment, Group A were given the freedom to choose a picture with starter sentence to
create and write their own story incorporating voice. Group A students writing, both pre- and
post-test, were graded independently using a 3-point rubric (See Appendix A).
Second, it is where the writing with voice lesson was focused and conducted to evaluate
voice in collaborative writing incorporating sensory details. (Sight, Sound, Touch, Smell). Group
B were given pretest independently to assess senses identification. The test included twenty
sensory vocabulary words (See Appendix B). The post-assessment was a collaborative writing
activity where ten students, divided into two groups, were assigned the same pictures that Group
A students used to write their story. Writing was graded as group using also a 3-point rubric (See
Appendix C). The results of the assessments for both groups are reported in the following tables.
Voice was successfully incorporated in all writing – independent and collaborative – results.
Table 1 shows the increase in all the students’ scores from their free write (pretest) to
their final paper. Most of the scores improved after the lessons were taught about using voice in
writing. The students had a range of increase from 1 point to 3 points.
Analyzing Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Data (GROUP A)

The pre-assessment data from Lesson Group A showed that:

● 0% of the nine students scored 3/3 (0/9)

The post-assessment data from Lesson Group A showed that:


Analyzing Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Data (GROUP B)

The pre-assessment data from Lesson Group B showed that (independent work):

● 0% of the ten students got MP (0/10)
● 70% of the ten students got DP (7/10)
● 30% of the ten students got WB (3/10)

The post-assessment data from Lesson Group B showed that (group work):

● 100 % of the 2 groups got 3/3 (2/2)

Discussion/interpretation
As mentioned earlier, from the pre-assessment handed out at the beginning of the school
year, most of the students could not grasp the idea of what makes a narrative personal -- they
lacked voice in their writing. Based on the pre-assessment that was given to the class, many
students were more or less listing the events of what the prompt was asking for (describe one
thing interesting you did over summer break). According to the results and observations made,
collaborative writing helps improve quality of writing (including voice) and encourages
interpersonal skills and promotes creativity. All participants of the lesson study actively sat
within each lesson to observe the instruction and students. Notes about observations made on
both lesson cycles can be found in the table (see Appendix J).
Purpose
Purpose can be established as what is accomplished through intentional use. In a classroom
setting, the purpose can be communicated as a ‘learning objective’ so that the students will know
what they will learn from the lesson and what they are expected to do. The foundation for a
schema building of concepts, information and skills are layed out when a purpose is clearly
stated.
After each lesson, our group had a debrief about what was observed immediately after;
we discussed what worked and what did not seem to work. After the first study cycle, the main
observations we noted under purpose was that there was a lot of intentional practices under use.
These intentional practices included: addressing the learning target throughout the entirety of the
lesson, having the students complete pre and post assessments with little redirection, and overall
observing that the students were bringing out voice in their writing.
During the second lesson cycle, the main observations noted under purpose also included
intentional instruction that involved introducing clear expectations (especially on the
pre-assessment), going over the rubric with the students, and using an exit slip.
Engagement
Student engagement can be defined as the “degree of attention, curiosity, interest,
optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends
to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education.” (Student
Engagement Definition, 2016).
What the group observed during lesson cycle A was that majority of the students were
very engaged. The students were very excited about the overall lesson and were excited to share
out their ideas. What the observers noticed during this lesson cycle was that most talkative
students would sit together and over power the other group (two seperate groups). With this in
mind, the group decided to arrange specific seating for the second lesson cycle to place talkative
students with the quieter students.
Overall, after splitting the students up objectively, the general observation of the students
was that they were all engaged and were able to fairly complete the jobs they were each
assigned. This was with the exception of the one student who struggles with behavior.
Classroom Management
Classroom Management can be defined as “the wide variety of skills and techniques that
teachers use to keep students organized, focused, attentive, on task, and academically productive
during a class.” (Classroom Management Definition, 2014).

The main classroom management strategy that was observed for the first lesson study
cycle was the use of incentives. What the group noticed overall was that students became a lot
more engaged and excited when a reward to presented to them. For this particular classroom, a
management strategy the students were already used to was the use of a pebble reward system.
Utilizing this strategy was effective as the students continued to participate and stay engaged
throughout the lesson, especially when an incentive was presented.
Another classroom management strategy used was attention getters. This management
strategy was observed in both lesson study cycles. For the first lesson cycle, the teacher would
sing a familiar tune and would have the students finish off the tune. During the second lesson
cycle, the teacher would say “Stop, Eyes on Me”. With these two strategies, the students were
responsive and would give their attention to the teachers. It was observed that during the second
lesson study cycle, the students were quicker to give their attention-- one reason for this result
could be because of the objective seating chart created before giving the lesson.
All in all, it was observed that management was not an issue as both teachers teaching the
lesson had good classroom management strategies and would continue to walk around and watch
over every student.
Time Management
Time management can be described as the process of organizing and planning how to
divide your time between specific activities (Time Management, 2018). For both lesson study
cycles, both teachers were able to complete all activities on time and smooth transitioning and
flow. The overall result, as the group observed, was a well managed and meaningful lesson
where the students did not feel rushed nor bored.

Conclusion
Allowing this lesson study process to be done in a group was really beneficial we got to
see different perspectives on our two lessons. Soon after the first lesson cycle was taught, we
participated in a group discussion where we talked about what went good, and what we needed
to improve on for the next cycle. This really benefited us for our second lesson study cycle
because we knew exactly what we wanted to improve on. And we knew for a fact that these were
valuable improvements because we seen them being taught in the first cycle.
Based on our findings throughout this lesson study, we used many different teaching
strategies such as guided instruction, whole group learning, independent work, and finally,
collaborative work. By incorporating voice in students’ writing, we hope to appeal to all types of
learning styles, and especially engaging them in learning process. We hope that every student
will make the connection between voice and writing so that every piece they create, is unique in
their own way.
Personal Perspective
Overall this lesson study process was very tedious. But, having a very dedicated group
that was willing to put forth the effort, helped tremendously. Even though the workload was a lot
at times, the end result was what made it all worth it. To finally have the paper completed felt so
relieving.
What helped a lot with the process was that we were all willing to meet outside of our
usual class meeting times. We knew that we were only going to get a limited amount of time to
work on our paper in class, so we took it upon ourselves to meet outside of class. This was also
very beneficial because at one point, we thought it would be best to only communicate through
Google Docs. But after looking over all the requirements and realizing that this paper needed to
be taken seriously, we thought it was in our best interest to meet outside of class. My group
decided to meet at the UHWO library in a study room. This allowed us to work as a group and
focus in a quiet environment with no distractions.
Adding to that, it also helped that everyone in our group was open to criticism, and able
to bring ideas to the table. I myself knew that I wasn’t the strongest writer, and so I really needed
to be open to suggestions to help better my writing pieces. It also helped that my group members
had no intention of being rude in anyway, and if they did suggest to change, something, they
would let me know in the nicest way possible. Another big thing that helped was one of our
group members previously worked in the No’eau Center as a tutor. So she was a very big help
especially when it was time to write out Literature Review. But, not everyone will be as lucky as
we were, so I do suggest reaching out to the tutors.
Allowing each group member to choose a certain section of the paper benefited us greatly
in the long run. Once we were given this assignment, and realizing how big of a paper it was, we
thought it was best to chunk it into sections. At first, we thought it would be unfair to those with
the shorter sections, but then we came to the conclusion that we should all contribute to every
section. This helped a lot because some sections did take a lot more work to complete, but with
the help of all the group members, we were able to finish them all.
I also had the chance to teach one of the lessons. At first, I was very at ease to teach a
lesson at a school I have never been too, nor taught to the students. So when it was decided that I
should teach the second lesson because we were both in fifth grade at the time, I was very
scared! But I am very glad I was given the opportunity to teach the lesson. Being in front a class
that I have never dealt with before, taught me how to think on my feet and be open to various
learning styles. It also challenged me to be as transparent as I could be to allow the students to be
comfortable so they would participate. I thought I was going to have a much harder time getting
those students to participate, but the luck was in my favor because they had no problem
answering and raising their hands.


Appendix A: Table 1 - Group A Pre- and Posttest Writing Results (Out of 3 points)

Pretest Posttest
Free write Say It with Voice!

GROUP A
Student 1 (M) - -
Student 2 (A) 1 3
Student 3 (I) 2 3
Student 4 (E) 1 1
Student 5 (A) 2 3
Student 6 (H) 1 3
Student 7 (J) 1 1
Student 8 (K) 1 2
Student 9 (F) 2 1
Student 10 (S) 1 2


Appendix B: Table 2 - Group B Pretest Results

Pretest
Match Your Senses!
Student 1 M DP
Student 2 J DP
Student 3 D DP
Student 4 A WB
Student 5 S DP
Student 6 T WB
Student 7 J DP
Student 8 S DP
Student 9 I WB
Student 10 P DP
Student 11 C absent

Breakdown of Grading
ME Meets with Excellence
MP Meet with Proficiency
DP Developing Proficiency
WB Well Below Proficient


Appendix C: Table 3 - Group B Posttest Results

Posttest
Collaborative Writing
Group 1 3
Group 2 3


Appendix D:


Appendix E:


Appendix F:


Appendix G:


Appendix H:


Appendix I:


Appendix J:


Area of Points Needed To Observe Notes: What We Observed Notes: What We Observed
Observation (Lesson A) (Lesson B)
Purpose ● Lesson targets were ● Lesson targets were

● Alignment to objective addressed and reviewed addressed but not in
● Able to follow the throughout the lesson the beginning
prompt ● Students were able to ● Students was able to
● Recapping learning complete pre and post test grasped the idea of
target with a few questions and voice in their writing
● State and go back to repeated directions ● Introduction to 5
● Essential Question ● Students were able to bring senses
out voice within their ● Clear expectations
writing with the
pre-assessment.
Students had a few
questions on certain
words but Ms.
Hernandez helped
provide examples.
Students were then
able to put words in
right section of the
map
● Went over the writing
rubric
● What they learned was
used as an exit slip
(sticky notes)
Classroom ● Fluidity ● Attention Getters: Attention Getters:

Management ● Behavior of students ○ Da-dada-da-da ● Use “Stop, Eyes on
● Pacing ○ Class pebbles Me”
● Attention getters (Students were ● Walking around to talk
● Compliance excited/engaged to
to students
get pebbles)
○
Times ● Specific amount to have ● Specific amount to

Management ● Transitions students do a task was stated have students do a task
● Start and finish on time ● Students finished on time we stated
● Fluidity ● Students finished on
● Pacing time
● Transitions were given
and used effectively
Engagement ● Were the students ● Pre-test Quick Write, ● Talkative students

paying attention? students was engaged, were split up.
● Student conversations having fun. Students were ● Students were engaged
● Student responses to and was able to
excited to share
questions complete job tasks for
● Student responses to ● 1 Group was more talkative their roles
directions than the other group ● One student was
● Participation disengaged
● Type of work being ○ He was off to
done, produced
the side
● Side conversations
(off-task)
● External distractions
● Motivators
● Superstars &
Wallflowers

Resources

Aukerman, M., & Chambers Schuldt, L. (2016). “The Pictures Can Say More Things”: Change
across Time in Young Children’s References to Images and Words during Text
Discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3), 267–287. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.westoahu.hawaii.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir
ect=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1105149&site=ehost-live&scope=site
August Ahrens Elementary Title I. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2018, from
https://www.augustahrens.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=370375&type=d&pREC_
ID=87681
Bennett, T. (N.D). Dr. Bennett's Developmental Psychology Crash Course (ages 7-11 years).
Retrieved on October 12, 2018 from
getkidsinternetsafe.com/blog/crash-course-for-7-to-11
Definition of "engagement" - English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2018, from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/engagement?q=Engagement
Definition of "purpose" - English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2018, from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/purpose?q=Purpose
Definition of "time management" - English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2018,
from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/time-management
Deveci, T. (2018). Student Perceptions on Collaborative Writing in a Project-Based Course.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6( 4), 721–732. Retrieved from
Giorza, T. (2016). Thinking Together through Pictures: The Community of Philosophical
Enquiry and Visual Analysis as a Transformative Pedagogy. Perspectives in Education,
34(1), 167–181. Retrieved from
Graves, D. H. (1982). A CaseStudy Observing the Development of Primary Children's
Composing, Spelling, and Motor Behaviors during the Writing Process. (pp. 1-501,
Rep.). Washington, DC: New Hampshire Univ., Durham. Dept. of Education.
Kastan, W., & Clarke, B. (1986). A Study of 3rd and 5th Grade Students' Oral Language during
the Writing Process in Elementary Classrooms (pp. 1-29, Rep.).
Kesler, T. tkesler@qc. cuny. ed. (2012). Writing With Voice. Reading Teacher, 66(1), 25–29.
Retrieved from
https://ila-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.libproxy.westoahu.hawaii.edu/doi/abs/10.1002/TRTR.
01088
Ojose, B. (2005). Applying Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development to Mathematics
Instruction (Vol. 18, Rep. No. 1, 26–30). Anaheim, CA.
Roberts, S. K., Blanch, N., & Gurjar, N. (2017). Exploring Writing Circles as Innovative,
Collaborative Writing Structures with Teacher Candidates. Reading Horizons, 56(2),
1–21. Retrieved from
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Strive HI August Ahrens [PDF]. (n.d.). Hawaii State Department of Education.
Tudge, J., & Winterhoff, P. (1993). Can young children benefit from collaborative problem
solving? Tracing the effects of partner competence and feedback. Social Development,
2(3), 242-259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00016.x

Wood, K. C., Smith, H., Grossniklaus, D. (2001). Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development. In
M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved
from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Partnership, G. S. (2016, February 18). Student Engagement Definition. Retrieved from
https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/

Lesson Study Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson Study Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND VOICE IN ESSAY WRITING 1

How Child Development Relates to Using Voice in Essay Writing:

A 5th Grade Classroom Lesson Study Cycle

Hanna Grace Galario​, ​Naomi Hernandez-Hama​,

Amanda Kinne​, ​Rosemarie Luna​, & Naturalee Puou

University of Hawaiʻi – West Oahu

teaching students to incorporate voice into their writing can be one of the most difficult tasks for

dependency upon frameworks and prescribed structures from previous writing experiences to get

older. Focusing on the developmental needs of the child during the elementary years, this lesson

because all student teachers (ST) were teaching personal narrative units across their various field

classrooms at the onset of research. The research group consists of five elementary STs, and one

learning goal; conduct research and develop a lesson; deliver the lesson under the observation of

comprehensive professional development for educators, and sometimes entire schools. that some

collaborative writing assignment intended to improve student voice. A literature review will first

practice, ​children between ages 7-11 years old are classified under Piaget's’ concrete operational

Instruction (Ojose, 2005) further reports that “language and acquisition of basic skills accelerate

significantly grows during the concrete operational stage (Wood, Smith, & Grossniklaus, 2001),

(2001) encourage the use of visual aids and brain teasers as a means of educational engagement.

accumulation of assets, including the building of positive relationships. According to Dr. Tracey

during the 60’s and 70’s, which point to his underestimation of children’s ability. Piaget implied

when strategically structured.

Strategies For Teaching Voice

students voice within their writing. For example, one strategy that is beneficial is allowing social

writer’s unique attitude, personality, and character. However, developing strong writing voices is

during writing time he states that “learning to write is about learning to be in a particular kind of

Hampshire School, among 16 children from five different classrooms. Research data focused on

states that “Teachers Should Let Children Choose About 80% of Their Topics Because It-Assists

observations showed students developing new writing concepts.

Benefits of Collaborative Writing

graders shows a positive impact on student writing when collaboration is taking place compared

to students independently working. According to the authors, “Oral language plays an important

specifically, that it (1) accompanies writing as an intrapersonal function, (2) helps writers

think about and revise their text, (3) helps writers make decisions about what to write, (4)

partner competence and feedback”, Tudge and Winterhoff found that “collaboration with a more

development are linked in complex ways. Piaget and Vygotsky had different views on this topic.

presence of a more competent partner, whether adult or child”.

behavioral challenges. During the second part, also referred to as phase 2, of the lesson, Group B

a mixture of abilities for variety of voice.

students at August Ahrens receives free or reduced lunches.

During the 2016-2017 school year, there were 1,262 students enrolled. The ethnicities of

students speak is either Tagalog or Ilocano.

change from the previous year. As for Math, the report shows 55%, which is a 6% increase from

Materials & Measurements

used in both phases of the lesson study as writing prompts. Each image is accompanied by a title

images with texts in lessons. The two are effective in helping students construct textual meaning.

senses, which students sorted onto a circle map of the senses. Taste was excluded from the circle

map due to the nature of the images and writing activity, as taste was least likely to be used with

the prompts. The purpose of the worksheet was to ​help organize the students’ ideas when it came

to identifying words related to the four senses of sight, hearing, touch, and smell. In phase 2, the

administered after direct instruction on voice in writing using t​he ​Harris Burdick ​image prompts.

In phase 2, Group B was administered the ​circle map worksheet with sensory vocabulary

as a pre-assessment. After direct instruction on sensory language and its connection to voice, ​t​he

measure voice in writing when participants write collaboratively.

management. These areas relate to either teacher instruction or student learning.

Observations on engagement include capturing the participants’ interests, responses to strategies,

collaborative writing effort in pre-sorted groups of 5. These two conditions were the independent

implementation, therefore roles were created by the RG, and students had choice in the role they

would fulfill in each group.

independently working (Clarke & Kastan, 1986). Peer collaboration also exposes students to the

different voices of their classmates, sharpening individual awareness to how others think, act, or

to collaborative writing in phase 2 however, the ST reviewed the rubric as a class.

(provided by the ST).

The activity was followed by a whole-class discussion on what makes writing interesting

Hanna Grace Galario, Naomi Hernandez-Hama,

Amanda Kinne, Rosemarie Luna, & Naturalee Puou

practice, children between ages 7-11 years old are classified under Piaget's’ concrete operational

the prompts. The purpose of the worksheet was to help organize the students’ ideas when it came

administered after direct instruction on voice in writing using the Harris Burdick image prompts.

In phase 2, Group B was administered the circle map worksheet with sensory vocabulary

as a pre-assessment. After direct instruction on sensory language and its connection to voice, the

lesson, the ST introduced the final activity: the Harris Burdic image prompts. The ST introduced

Analyzing Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Data (GROUP A)

Discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3), 267–287. Retrieved from

Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6( 4), 721–732. Retrieved from

Enquiry and Visual Analysis as a Transformative Pedagogy. Perspectives in Education,

34(1), 167–181. Retrieved from

Ojose, B. (2005). Applying Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development to Mathematics

Instruction (Vol. 18, Rep. No. 1, 26–30). Anaheim, CA.

Collaborative Writing Structures with Teacher Candidates. Reading Horizons, 56(2),

Strive HI August Ahrens [PDF]. (n.d.). Hawaii State Department of Education.

2(3), 242-259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00016.x