Educ 558-01 - Matusz Kyley-Ar-Sp19

Running head: PARTICIPATION AND ACADEMIC IDENTITY THROUGH SEL 1
Social and Emotional Learning to Increase Participation and Build Academic Identity in a
Multiage Middle School Classroom
Kyley Matusz
University of San Diego

PARTICIPATION AND ACADEMIC IDENTITY THROUGH SEL 2
Abstract
Although extensive research depicts the benefits of social and emotional learning (SEL)
among students, many of the studies either focus on its effect in certain age groups or to reverse
behavior issues. This action research explores the use of SEL strategies with regard to
participation and academic identity in a multi-age middle school humanities classroom. The first
part of this study looked to examine the relationship of direct SEL instruction, along with
collaborative activities in increasing student participation. Initial findings suggested direct SEL
instruction was effective at increasing participation among younger students but not older
students. After further examination of data, the research focus morphed from participation itself
to academic identity development. The second part of this study examined the relationship of
self-directed and self-reflective SEL instruction to increase student awareness of themselves as
learners in the classroom. Through student feedback, teacher observation, and student work the
results suggested that autonomous SEL instruction increased student accountability of their
work, improved problem-solving moments, and deepened self-awareness in an academic setting.
Keywords: s ocial and emotional learning, group work, collaboration, academic identity,
participation, student accountability, self-awareness, autonomy, middle school, adolescence

Social and Emotional Learning to Increase Participation and Build Academic Identity in a
Multiage Middle School Classroom
I started this path to become an educator because I wanted to learn more. So when I was
assigned to a school that practiced multiage classrooms, which honored social and emotional
learning as equal to academics, I knew the opportunity for learning would abound. I began this
experience with my limited theoretical knowledge and through practical application eventually
achieved what I set out on this path to do, learn. My initial thoughts for what I would research
began with student conversation around participation and students wanting to participate more in
class. From my observation of their content knowledge and general academic skills, I figured this
was an achievable goal with minimal effort for many of the students; however, upon further
observation I noticed student language surrounding their abilities concentrated on the negative. I
wondered how to change this self-doubt centered language to, what I perceived, a more accurate
representation of their skills and for that to translate to participation. How could I help them see
themselves as capable learners who could participate in class?
As I thought about their role as learners, I reflected on my own experiences in school as a
first generation college student, both undergraduate and graduate. Throughout my school career,
I was dependent on myself to create my role as a learner; my parents were supportive of my
success in school but did not require their involvement in my learning. This made my
achievements in academia my own, which I believed helped build my self-concept as a capable
learner. As I considered the students, I noticed the heavy parent involvement built into the school
culture and each individual’s learning. I reflected on the idea that an individual needed to see
themselves in their achievements to gain confidence. From first glance, I knew these students
had academic skills to help them participate in the classroom, but I was unsure of how to help
them increase self-awareness of these skills. I looked toward the school community’s desire for
social and emotional learning to be as important as academic skills for my approach to help these
students.
Context
School Site
The school site I was placed at is a public charter school that serves K-8 students located
in San Diego County. Enrollment is free and open; however, returning students, siblings of
current students, and students within the district boundaries receive priority. Once priority
students have been enrolled, student applications are placed in a lottery system and filled
accordingly. The student population consists of 29.1% who are eligible for free/reduced lunch
and 10.5% are English learners (CA School Dashboard, n.d.). According to CA School
Dashboard (n.d.) the school has zero reported migrant student enrollment and foster student
enrollment is redacted. Suspension and expulsion rates are either zero or redacted as well
(Ed-Data, n.d.). In my conversations with staff, it was expressed that the school practices
restorative justice and does not turn to suspension or expulsion with their discipline.
As mentioned above, the system in place for discipline or behavior management is based
on the constructivist theory that students learn from their own experience and reflection. A lot of
students are prompted to wonder about their own behavior and come to a conclusion on their
own or with teacher guidance of what is expected and what they should expect of themselves.
The school staff referred to this frequently as “perspective taking”. They practice restorative
justice in this same way - discussion based discipline where the student is given time to reflect
on their behavior. The school offers inclusion based services with Education Specialists and
Instructional Assistants in General Ed. classes for students to participate in the community
without barriers. Special education services include: Speech and Language Pathology,
Occupational Therapy, School Psychology, Adaptive PE, and Physical Therapy. The school does
not offer bilingual education but does have an EL support teacher who provides resources to
students and their families. Students who qualify for this support are enrolled in an extra study
hall throughout the day.
Classroom
The students are middle school, 6th through 8th grade, in one classroom. The students
stay with this Humanities teacher for all three years of their middle school experience. There are
twelve females and fifteen males in the classroom. The breakdown of students per grade level in
the classroom is shown in Figure 1 below.
umber of students in each grade level in the classroom.

Figure 1. N
There are two female students, one sixth and one eighth grade, who are designated as an
English language learner, both with Spanish as their first language. There are a range of students
with different ethnicities - White, Asian/Southeast asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black/African
American, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Ethnicities of students.
There are a total of eight IEPs in this classroom. There are three students with autism, a
student who experiences epilepsy, and four students with specific learning disabilities. There is
an instructional aid present in the classroom at all times and supports in place for each student
based on their individual needs.
Needs Assessment
My research focus began through a conversation with my cooperating teacher about the
students in this classroom and the aversion to participate in academic discussions, this she
mentioned, stemmed from a perceived need for perfection or anxiety over what people might say
in response. As I spent time observing and talking with students, the conversation around sharing
their ideas or work included phrases that expressed anxiety or self-doubt. For example, during
free choice writing I observed the following phrases: “I have no good ideas”, “people are
judgemental”; in regard to participation in critique group I observed the following phrases: “I

can’t do it, I’ll die”, “I’m not good at _____”. Students who said these statements were
considered both high-achieving and students who required more support. The participation in
structured small group or whole class lessons was delegated to a slim few, a group of students
who, I assumed, felt comfortable in their position in the classroom to share their ideas. I
wondered what it must be like as a sixth grader in this classroom for the first time with
experienced middle schoolers. I also wondered what it would be like, for the risk averse eighth
graders who needed to have the perfect answer, if they shared the wrong answer in front of
inexperienced sixth graders. I did know that in order to have a successful workshop based
Humanities class, students needed to share their work and academic opinion with peers. I noticed
one classified ELL student, who had a version of a reading intervention since first grade, would
wait to start work if they did not know what to do and would look around at classmates’ work
before proceeding. Another student had differing opinions on their academic ability and
preferences depending on the day, which influenced their emotional attitude toward a task such
as reading or writing. This student also did not enjoy group work, seemingly for its instability;
this I gathered from observation of the student’s reaction to any result which differed from their
expectations. Upon gathering the observational data from student conversation and behavior, I
asked the 27 students directly what stopped them from participating in class, responses illustrated
in Figure 3. Through analysis of the perceived ability and skill of students to understand concepts
well, dive deeper without much prompting, and be an independent learner overall, I wondered:
why was there hesitation to participate in their learning environment?

Figure 3. Student responses in regard to their participation in class.
All of this pointed me toward the importance of a social and emotional bond that needed
to exist before academic discussion and student participation could increase. I chose to focus on
SEL (CASEL, 2017) as a strategy to support the learning interventions I wanted to use in this
class. Social and emotional learning was a priority at the school site and informed many facets of
the school community. Additionally, the school’s goal for learners was to become empathetic
community members who applied their academic and social and emotional skills to connect to
the people and the world around them. For example, the approach to student work was effort
based not grade based; students were expected to self-correct if they started to fall behind or turn
in work which didn’t reflect their effort. This was achieved through a process of guided
reflection of what led to the problem and how to solve it. This approach to academics also
filtered into discipline, as they approached every situation with a problem solving lens; each
outcome was based on a specific need of the individual, community, or situation opposite a “one
size fits all” approach. Another reason I chose SEL was the age of the students in this action
research: 11 to 14 years old. Extensive research on adolescence behavior describes specific

changes that begin during this time; individuals start to value the importance of social
relationships and peer influence can affect an individual’s academic performance (Fangzhou &
Patterson, 2010). My research question sought to harness the importance of peer relationships to
create an environment where students felt comfortable to participate and share their ideas during
academic discussion.
Research Question: How do I increase academic discussion and participation through the use of
SEL strategies?
Subquestion: How can I use group construction of knowledge and ideas to increase whole group
participation?
Literature Review
This review of literature responds to a need of my focus students and will explore the
theories of Constructivism as it relates to collaborative learning, along with Social and Emotional
Learning (SEL) as it relates to student participation in the classroom. Then, this paper will
review SEL strategies to examine how they can support positive connections and academic
discussion in the classroom. Finally, the implication as it relates to this action research will be
discussed.
Participation
Active participation in the classroom setting is considered “best practice” in education
today. This is due to research that underlines student participation in the academic setting is
related to increased engagement, motivation, and improved communication skills (Frisby &
Meyers, 2008; Leraas, Kippen, & Larson, 2018). The known cognitive benefits from
participation are discussed in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, as enhancing learning through the
experience and reflection, which leads to higher order thinking, the ultimate goal of education
(Stewart, 2018).
Previous studies on the factors that lead to such learning, found that during adolescence
there is a change in factors that can influence a student’s willingness to participate (Yang, Bear,
& May, 2018). Yang et al. (2018) studied these factors of influence on student engagement at the
elementary through high school level and found that while younger students value the
teacher-student relationship, as students reach middle school, student-student relationships
increase in value. This finding was supported when Fangzhou et al. (2010) examined adolescent
achievement motivation; students were more likely to feel connected to their academic
environment if they were also socially connected. Scholars support this view that peer
relationships can positively or negatively affect how an adolescent views their academic
environment (Brown, Johnson, & Kanny, 2014; Fangzhou et al., 2010; Martin & Dowson, 2009;
Yang et al., 2018). For example, Martin et al. (2009) analyzed classroom situations from
multiple theoretical perspectives and found that student participation in the academic
environment was connected to a sense of community within the classroom. This is congruent
with the constructivist theory of how learning occurs as an interaction with others in the
cognitive domain.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a theory of learning that views the learning process in which the learner
connects their prior experience to the information presented in order to create a new
understanding; this happens through a negotiation of meaning connected to social and cultural
influences (Ultanir, 2012). The social nature of this theory is explored in Lev Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory, he found that learning does not only happen from direct experience but also
from the experience of others; human beings are unique in the sense they can gain knowledge
from others’ experiences that they have not had directly (Baker, Andriessen, & Jarviela, 2013).
John Dewey (1938) emphasized that not all experiences are equal or can be controlled, this is
due to the learner responding to the environment as they are connecting to the larger world itself.
For example, their life experience such as where they were born could affect what information
they connected with or retained. It also requires the learner to actively engage in order to make
meaning and acquire the new knowledge, meaning that students are not a blank slate and learn
more based on their experience with others. As learners are constantly connecting their prior
knowledge to those around them in order to create a new understanding, they construct new
knowledge and meaning with those in their social circle (Ultanir, 2012). Many scholars share the
view that collaboration engages the individual learner and causes personal meaning in response
to interactions with others (Baker et al., 2013; Dewey, 1938; Krishnamurti, 1954; Stewart, 2018;
Ultanir, 2012). Constructivism and sociocultural theory have influenced many classroom
environments today, inspiring strategies to create experiences that will facilitate this learning
process.
Collaboration. In order to facilitate the environment envisioned by Vygotsky and
Dewey, a variety of collaborative learning strategies are implemented in classrooms today in
hopes to engage the learner, which previous studies highlight an increase in participation (James,
2016). One strategy common in the classrooms I have experienced is Think-Pair-Share (TPS),
originally developed by Frank Lyman in 1981, its stages describe the desired student action in its
name (Kaddoura, 2013). First, students think about a prompt, connecting it to their prior
experience; then they pair with another student to discuss each of their answers, negotiating
meaning; finally the teacher asks for students to share with the entire class. This strategy allows
for both quick and longer interactions between students and for the teacher to check for
understanding, making it a strategy teachers frequently implement. Kaddoura (2013) looked at
the effects of TPS as a learning strategy and found significant benefits from its implementation;
they found the pairing created an opportunity for increased learning and limited social problems
due to the small group number required. James (2016) found a similar benefit to smaller groups
when looking at factors that inhibit participation; as larger class sizes and groups were directly
related to a decrease in participation.
While TPS is one strategy to encourage discourse and increase learning among students,
the nature of a constructivist classroom lends itself to the experience of slightly larger group
numbers. Research illustrates the cognitive benefit from collaborating with peers, as the
negotiating of different perspectives is where the learning occurs (Roselli, 2016). Small groups
are often used in classrooms in order for students to interact with multiple perspectives beyond
partner interaction. As the above research illustrates increasing group size can inhibit student
participation, there are other factors related specifically to adolescence which play a role in one’s
willingness to participate. A major theme in research of these factors is the relationship of
positive social interaction to adolescents’ view of school, themselves, and their peers (Brown et
al., 2014; Fangzhou et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2018). The influence of these
factors in reference to academic interaction has led to the integration of social and emotional
learning (SEL) curricula in primary through secondary schools.
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
Research contends that the inclusion of SEL curriculum can contribute to the
development of positive peer relationships at both the classroom and school-wide level (Martin
et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2018). The development of positive peer relationships is imperative in
collaborative learning strategies to create an effective learning environment. While SEL
framework is interpreted often, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) defines it “as a process through which children and adults apply knowledge, attitudes,
and skills” around the following core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social
awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2017). These skills are
especially important in this research context because there are multiple grade levels in one
classroom; students are at different stages both developmentally and emotionally. Teaching SEL
to the students in this classroom could potentially strengthen community and relationships, while
giving students the tools to make responsible decisions and participate in meaningful ways.
Using SEL as a framework, the strategies to teach the “wheel” of competencies vary, see
Figure 4. below.
Figure 4. The wheel of competencies with levels of involvement in outer rings.
One strategy developed by Davis and Kriete (2014) from the SEL framework is Morning
Meeting, a step by step guide for implementing SEL activities in K-8 classrooms through a four
step process. Morning Meeting utilizes the guiding principles of the Responsive Classroom
approach, the first of which states, “The social and emotional curriculum is as important as the
academic curriculum.” (Davis et al., 2014, p.4). The purpose of Morning Meeting, which
includes a (1) greeting, (2) sharing, (3) group activity, and (4) morning message, is to model,
experience, practice, and extend thoughtful social interaction that merges with academics (Davis
et al., 2014). The environment is structured in a way where Morning Meeting becomes a
dependable and safe opportunity to grow the connection between students in the classroom
community.
This strategy reflects what effectively implemented SEL programs contain, according to
research discussed by the Policy Analysis for California Education or PACE (Marsh, McKibben,
Hough, Allbright, Matewos, Siqueira, & Stanford University, 2018). Research analyzing SEL
programs for effectiveness have used the acronym SAFE: sequenced, active, focused, and
explicit; one analysis of 215 studies determined programs that use the above structure, combined
with diligent implementation, result in positive social outcomes (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki,
Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). While scholars reflect that SEL is intended to create positive
outcomes for students on social, emotional and academic competencies, frequently, SEL
interventions focused on the improvement of students’ emotional or behavioral problems rather
than purely academic participation or related outcomes.
Looking at school as an environment to foster a connection and create a community,
Brown et al. (2014) interviewed students who transferred to a highly structured middle school to
analyze what connections mattered in their environment. Students reported that the environment
affected their behavior in a classroom setting as well as outside the classroom. This is in line
with what Martin et al. (2009) found in their focused study on interpersonal relationships with
regard to achievement motivation. Students who experienced positive relationships in an
academic context were more likely to experience achievement in the performance environment.
This research reflects the general trend for schools to implement practices that foster the
development of non-cognitive factors, such as social and emotional skills, along with academic
development, or other cognitive factors (Williams, 2017).
Conclusion
The requirement for adolescents to feel connected to their peers in both non-academic
and academic settings demonstrates the need for an opportunity to develop social and emotional
skills while practicing academic collaboration. In order to increase the willingness to participate
in the academic context and take an active role in their learning, students need to feel supported
by their environment and their peers. For these reasons, I will utilize the SEL strategies such as
Morning Meeting (Davis et al., 2014) in my action research focus to improve students’ social
relationships with their peers. Prior research confirms that positive peer relationships are an
important factor among adolescents, which I hope to translate to increased participation in the
academic setting.
This research will respond to the gap in studies that reflect the context of this action
research site. While the literature provides extensive research on how social and emotional
learning strategies can positively affect the development of positive peer relationships and their
sense of community in the classroom, the context of this action research presents a unique focus
in which the literature does not address due to the students’ differing developmental stages,
socioeconomic statuses, and classroom content that exist in a multiage middle school classroom.
Cycle 1
Action and Assessment Plan
The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: How can I increase
academic discussion and participation through the use of SEL strategies? While exploring the
subquestion: How can I use group construction of knowledge and ideas to increase whole group
participation? Based on my research, I wanted to create an environment where students could
interact openly with each other on both the social and academic level, practice collaboration on a
frequent basis, and provide feedback to each other’s work. In order to create an environment
with open connection among peers, I implemented direct SEL instruction in the form of Morning
Meeting (Davis et al., 2014) at the beginning and end of the week, each of the meetings lasting
twenty minutes. I also included a five minute greeting for the days between the meetings. The
purpose of the meeting was to create a sense of connection between students in a low-risk,
non-academic setting. The meeting included a greeting: whole group or student to student, a
student to student sharing opportunity, a whole group activity, and a message to close the
meeting and start the academic portion of class.
In order to practice collaboration on a frequent basis, I implemented Think-Pair-Share
opportunities whenever a whole group question was posed to the class during direct teaching. As
the school practices a constructivist based pedagogy, the opportunities for collaboration were
present daily; however, I implemented structured collaboration in lessons eight times. Some of
the opportunities to collaborate included: previewing the text and making a prediction,
collaborative note-taking: add something from theirs to yours, explode the moment in writing,
and C.E.R lessons.
To practice providing feedback to each other’s work, I focused on writing workshop and
the creative pieces, which each student was responsible for their work individually; however,
there was a collaborative environment with regard to brainstorming and critiquing. On a less
formal basis, I encouraged students to discuss their ideas with peers and actively listen in order
to provide insightful answers. I then planned for writing critique groups for their creative pieces
to revise their work before the final draft. Each group had a leader, group expectation sheet, and
feedback forms for the leader to fill out based on conversation about the intended author’s piece.
The first tool of data collection was an observation tally sheet for participation
throughout the week. I chose this tool because it was a quantifiable way to record the types of
student participation in class. Each student had columns next to their name for when they: asked
me a question, responded in whole group, socialized, or asked a peer for feedback on their work.
I planned to analyze the tally sheet for changes in student participation, looking for an increase in
whole class contributions. The second tool of data collection was a student feedback survey that
asked students to reflect on their behavior in the classroom related to: the work they do, how they
communicate, and how they learn and reflect (see Appendix A). I planned to give this survey to
students twice during Cycle 1. I chose this tool because it required students to use the SEL skill
of self-awareness in order to reflect on their behavior. This helped me to analyze the
effectiveness of the SEL interventions by looking for an increase in self-ratings in the three
categories. The third data collection tool I used in Cycle 1 was a teaching journal; the nature of
this research focus, participation, lent itself to observational data as an important resource. I
planned to record observations in it twice a week and analyze the narrative to help guide my
findings at the end of Cycle 1.
Implementation
Cycle 1 began with a morning meeting. I started with the greeting and explained to the
students what their activity was: Tiny Teach. This activity consisted of students pairing up with a
peer of their choice and “teaching” each other a skill, or piece of knowledge/fact they have in
less than three minutes; I gave two examples, being able to roll your tongue or how to play your
favorite video game and then asked the students to pair up. The students showed excitement to
pair up by murmuring about what they might choose to teach their partner and quickly found
another student. Two students stated they “weren’t sure” what they could teach their partner and
required prompting to reassure them it didn’t have to be a fact from school, but could be from
something they really enjoy. After three minutes, I asked students to make a circle so everyone
could be viewed and asked if there were any volunteers to share what they had just learned -
share their knowledge. The first student to share proved to be the most responsive to the morning
meetings and think-pair-share throughout Cycle 1. I believe this was because his interactions
with others were not always positive, as group work was stressful for him, so when the
opportunity came to interact with multiple people in a safe way during morning meeting or
whole group share, this student was excited to share. Another student who ended up in the group
of non-responsive students from Cycle 1, shared that she learned “how to moonwalk” but when
prompted to act it out the reaction was a strong no. This student expressed a similar response
when prompted to share during an academic whole group share toward the end of Cycle 1. After
the activity, I shared the message for the day about knowledge and its historical use as power. I
shared my vulnerability of not knowing much but rather achieving where I am in my knowledge
quest by asking questions. I ended with a quote about asking questions and encouraged the
students to do so. Students were attentive during the message as we moved forward in the day’s
schedule.
I found that morning meeting was more effective when paired with a tangible way to
apply it to the students’ day, as opposed to a meeting that did not have a relation to their
academic schedule. I believe this was because every student connected the “dots” once the
academic portion of the lesson began. This is in line with Davis’ et al. (2014) view that group
activities in meeting provide an opportunity for every learner to feel successful, as well as an
opportunity to extend concepts or skills. I began to construct meetings around the academic
content of the day when scheduling allowed. For example, I implemented a message about
questioning right before a lesson called “Hack the Text” where I asked students to preview the
text with partners and “wonder” in order to make a prediction of what the text was about. The
students were eager to share out during whole group about their wonderings; I observed phrases
such as “the map, could be different people or groups”, “bolded words”, “different color
heading”. Students worked in pairs as they completed the organizer while questioning the text.
Restorative circle. During the third week in Cycle 1, my cooperating teacher observed
circumstances that led to the implementation of a restorative circle in place of morning meeting.
The classroom was arranged to be in a close circle, with student created ideals (e.g., “respect the
talking piece”, “don’t judge”, etc.); the length of this circle was thirty minutes. There was a
school-wide project night coming up this week, where student work was displayed for families to
view and celebrate. The first question posed in the circle was, “What are your hopes for this class
for the rest of the year?”; I observed five students explain their hope was for everyone to get
along and be kind to one another. This suggests that social and emotional goals were important
to students in this classroom. The second question posed in this circle was, “What is something
you could be proud of this year, either academic or social?”. I observed many students pass the
talking piece with body language that did not exude confidence, such as looking down as they
passed the piece to their peer. A few students chose to share; however, their responses were
about objects or literal accomplishments rather than personal achievement. For example, one
student shared they were proud to have a PS4. The last question posed was, “Is there anything
you would like to work on this year?”, students who passed for the question about their
accomplishments chose to share for this question about what they could work on. The ability to
reflect on their faults demonstrated the SEL skill of self-awareness; however, not sharing an
accomplishment possibly pointed to a lack of self-confidence in their work for project night and
in general.
Roman mosaic simulation reflection. During the final week of Cycle 1, I had to change
the action plan from writing critique groups to focus on history content; this was due to a
team-wide decision to focus on history and extend the deadline for the writing piece. I
implemented a simulation on Roman law to pair with the collaborative note taking for the text
students were reading. Students were assigned roles along with a task for each to complete based
on their roles. Students were either in control but did not have to work or had to work and had no
control over their situation; this was done to simulate the struggle for power in Rome. I observed
students expressing frustration that their “leaders” did not have to work and that their goal was
“unrealistic”. Eventually, these students grouped together to form a protest and made signs
proclaiming “this is slavery” “not fair” and “pay us”. While the purpose of the simulation was to
have students experience the unfair treatment, many students vocalized their frustration and then
joined a group to act, which was in line with what CASEL (2017) defines a purpose of SEL: to
manage emotions in order to achieve their goals. After the second day of the simulation, where
students negotiated their new working terms, I asked students to reflect on their feelings and
emotions during and after the simulation. The purpose of the reflection was to assess students’
ability to explore their emotions and personally reflect (see Appendix B) for full student
responses. I found a variety of responses from students ranging from emotional to academically
centered reflection. For example, one student shared “I was feeling kind of bad for the plebeians
because they were looking kind of stressed out…”, while another shared “The Roman Mosaic
project seemed related to racism in a way”. I noticed a trend in a group of student responses that
described their reaction in reference to what other people did rather than how they felt, similar to
a “x caused me to feel y” response. I also noticed the reflections categorized as academic instead
of the student’s emotion belonged to the same group of students who did not participate during
cycle 1; I also observed these students exhibiting self-doubt behavior or statements during my
needs assessment.
I turned to the observation tally sheet to analyze overall participation in the classroom
during Cycle 1. This sheet was tallied in almost real time; I kept it on the desk to avoid student
observation of marking whenever a student participated. After whole group share, I would return
to my desk and tally up the students who shared during that time. It proved to be a simple but
effective measure in recording different interactions between students and myself and their peers.
Before implementation student sharing was low, as shown in Week 0 in Figure 5, even with wait
time it was the same three students who always raised their hand. After implementation of
meeting and think-pair-share student interaction increased; whole group share generated the
largest increase. I looked at participation by grade level, see Figure 6, 7, and 8, and found the
youngest students responded best to the intervention with seventh and eighth grade students’
participation decreasing over the course of Cycle 1.
Figure 5. Observation tally sheet data; Week 3 was a three day week.
Figure 6. Sixth grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

Figure 7. Seventh grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.
Figure 8. Eighth grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.
Findings
I found that SEL strategies taught directly through morning meeting and think-pair-share
during whole group instruction helped half of the students who struggled to participate before
implementation; however, the other half of the students did not participate even with prompting
from myself to share their answer with the whole class when floating to groups during the
“share” portion of think-pair-share. Upon reflection of feedback surveys, the students not
participating were the same students who ranked themselves low/ “Sometimes” on “I feel
comfortable talking to my peers about my work” and “I make positive contributions to this
class”. These students were high performing with regard to their academic work, which
suggested a possible lack of confidence in their abilities or fear of judgement from peers. This
made me question the effectiveness of my chosen SEL intervention morning meeting in its
ability to reach the older, high-performing, and non-participatory students. It seemed as though
my research question looked at participation to describe a student who feels comfortable in their
learning environment, but it assumed a comfortable group learning environment would translate
to an individual positive self-concept. While it can certainly help with it, the need to address
academic self-concept seemed high after looking at Cycle 1’s non-participants.
Strengths and weaknesses of the research design. In Cycle 1, I saw an increase in
whole group participation and decrease in off-task socializing. Students became more
comfortable with each other from “fun” activities in meeting that continued to break the ice. The
observational tally sheet data collection tool was a strength in this cycle as it was a quick and
quantitative way to measure student interaction; however, one weakness of this tool was that I
only recorded verbal participation which limited the type of participation I observed. Another
weakness to this research design was the limited “academic” data collection I had, which made
my data collection lean heavily on observations from the tally sheet and teacher journal. Initially,
I had planned for a writing critique group for the students’ creative pieces; however, the
curriculum plan changed to include a history centered unit, so I had to adapt the context in which
students could practice giving informal feedback to their peers. The data collected from this was
observational as well.
Next Steps
In Cycle 1, students who did not respond to the SEL intervention made me realize that
self-concept related to academics needed to be addressed directly, rather than choosing
participation as a catalyst for this result. I decided to alter my focus to better fit my students’
needs. In Cycle 2, my research question will be: How can I use SEL strategies to build academic
identity? This change broadened my lens to include student work analyzed for effort in order to
collect data on a student’s academic self-concept or academic identity. In Cycle 2, I planned to
analyze more in-class assignments.
In Cycle 1, I only accounted for verbal participation; however, in Cycle 2 I added a
column to my observation tally sheet to observe non-verbal or written participation. This might
offer a fuller picture of participation in the classroom. I also changed my feedback survey rating
scale from a situational never/always to a perceptual disagree/agree so student response can
reflect how they conceptually see themselves as a learner.
Based on my findings, strengths, and weaknesses I changed my research question to now
look at academic identity as it relates to the adolescent period when one is trying on identities.
This change resulted in a return to the literature so I could define my new research focus and
explore different opportunities for SEL instruction among older adolescents.
Cycle 2
Literature
If SEL is to be effective among a multiage adolescent classroom, strategies pertaining to
this diverse age group need to be utilized. Yeager (2017) looked at 72 different SEL programs
taught to children and adolescents. Certain programs, such as direct-instruction of SEL skills,
were found to have less of an affect on the later stages of early adolescence (10-14) and a reverse
effect on 14 and above (Yeager, 2017). This is due to the changes which occur during
adolescence related to hormones and puberty; adolescents are more adept to social cues and have
an increased desire for autonomy. Through meta-analysis of SEL programs, Yeager (2017) found
this time of early adolescence to be a possible transition from direct instruction of SEL skills to a
more autonomous adult-like SEL program where a climate is created for students to process the
information themselves. This study connected with the empirical literature on the stages of
adolescence and their cognitive and social development. This stage is an important time in
adolescence as they begin to not only develop their conceptual understanding, but their identity
as well. The literature discusses the developmental stages of an adolescent to include that of what
Erik Erikson (1950) defined as an identity search (Brown et al., 2014, p.181). This search is
influenced by context, which encompasses an adolescent’s experience in the classroom, in order
to form their self-concept and within that larger self-concept, their academic identity (Brown et
al., 2014). During this time, peer influence becomes more meaningful which could change the
decision making process of a student; meaning, if their peers are not interested in an academic
activity it is more likely the student will also become uninterested (Cross, Bugaj, & Mammadov,
2016).
The above research led me to wonder if SEL instruction could help shape a student’s
academic identity, to give them the skills to make responsible decisions and practice
self-awareness. It also led me to wonder if the need for more autonomy within the SEL
instruction was connected to the older students further along in their academic identity
development, a process which requires more self-reflection and control over their learning
outcomes. These possible connections informed my new research question for Cycle 2: How can
I use SEL strategies to build students’ academic identity?
To test this theory of mine, I implemented a lesson from UC Berkeley's Greater Good
Science Center Gratitude Curriculum called Discover Your Grateful Self. Students watched a
video about character strengths, defined to my students as “superpowers” or personal qualities
that help you get along better in the world, and wrote down what they thought were their top
three strengths. After the prediction, students took a VIA character strength survey and recorded
their top five on a placemat of strengths (see Appendix C). For an assignment, I asked students to
write down one way they could use their strengths to help themself throughout the day; the next
day students reflected if they succeeded in using a strength and invited to share. Students showed
initial interest in this lesson and were excited to find out their results. From my observation, I
noticed an eighth grade boy and seventh grade girl, who normally do not interact or participate in
whole class, discussing their top strength which they had in common. Another student expressed
surprise of her last strength, as it coincided with her name, and found it ironic. Based on the
research and this self-directed SEL lesson’s success, I decided to pursue this further and provide
more opportunities for students to have agency over their SEL learning outcomes in Cycle 2.
Action and Assessment Plan
In Cycle 2, I planned for students to continue to practice collaboration. I planned to
observe groups for student behavior that demonstrated an interest in the academic task and
willingness to participate. Also, at the start of this cycle students had already begun a middle
school wide group project named the PSA Project, related to issues in the school community.
Each group containing four students were assigned a problem and had to journey through six
phases to reach a student centered solution; the end product was a video public service
announcement. During this project, I planned to observe students working collaboratively, twice
per week, for one hour of the class period as they problem solved with their peers. In this cycle, I
kept the frequency and time frame from Cycle 1’s Morning Meeting: twice per week for twenty
minutes at the beginning of class; however, I altered the SEL instruction to incorporate more
self-directed and self-reflective content through various strategies.
In the first cycle, I only accounted for verbal participation on the observation tally sheet;
however, in this cycle I decided to expand the participation observed to include non-verbal or
written participation. This decision was made because of the students mentioned above who were
not responsive to the interventions in Cycle 1; my hope was they were participating but I was
just not seeing it because of my narrow definition of participation. This change allowed me to
use student work as a data tool, something I struggled to connect to my Cycle 1 focus. By
changing the research question to focus on students’ academic identity, I used student work to
extract a glimpse into their academic identity, or how they see themselves as a student, based on
the “effort” they put in to an assignment. Additionally, I planned to observe student behavior
toward their in class assignments. For my third data collection tool, student feedback forms, I
changed the response choices from a situational: most, often, never to an agreement scale:
strongly agree to disagree (see Appendix D). I hoped to receive student responses and analyze
their view of this process at the end of Cycle 2, in order to compare with the observational data I
collected.
With a clearer picture of what my research focus was and three updated data collection
tools, I thought about my teacher journal. In Cycle 1, I planned to record observations twice a
week. As mentioned, it was a weakness of my design because of poor implementation on my part
as I took on new responsibilities of teacher and researcher. While the two data collection tools
were designed to grasp a fuller picture of the students, I wanted to continue using the teacher
journal so I could narratively reflect on what I observed in the classroom. I planned to use the
journal every Tuesday and Thursday to record my observations; I planned to connect this with
the quantitative tally sheet to look for patterns.
Implementation
The first week’s SEL lesson built on the VIA character strengths; I asked students to
return to their top “superpowers” and record them on a note card in their group. Then, students
reflected with peers on how their “superpowers” could be used during the group PSA project. I
filtered through their discussions, prompting students to describe how their strength would be
displayed; one student responded they would use their strength: “appreciation of beauty and
excellence” to finalize their project by making it neat and presentable. Another student, whose
top strength was “forgiveness”, paused to think, then stated that when conflict arose in the group
they could help everyone move forward by forgiving the person or circumstance. This was said
by a sixth grade student who was new to the school and indicated improvement in her
willingness to speak in front of her peers. As the students moved into their PSA project for the
day, I noticed students in two groups adjusting their peers’ behavior when it was not conducive
to the project with statements such as, “you should be over there” or “come back to our group”.
Students advocating for their academic interest was an improvement from the last cycle.
Also during the first week of Cycle 2, I implemented a collaborative activity that
provided students with an opportunity to participate in verbal and non-verbal options. The
activity consisted of a jigsaw read of a text, an infographic to represent that section of text, a
gallery walk, and a claim evidence reasoning (C.E.R.) response to a question using the
collaborative information to answer individually. I started with Think-Pair-Share among table
groups, then whole group discussion of the question: Would you want to live in Rome during this
time? One eighth grade student shared in whole group for the first time since starting this action
research; he raised his hand at the same time as someone else so when I called on him second, he
first said, “No I’m okay”, but once two other classmates shared their thoughts he offered his
response. During the infographic construction I observed three students who were among the
non-responsive but high achieving students in Cycle 1, leading their group’s discussion on the
information to include, as well as physically creating the infographic. I observed one student in
this group asking a peer to share the important facts and even prompted them to explain further
so they could create the visual. This supported my decision to observe non-verbal or written
participation in this cycle, as these students demonstrated they preferred to participate in outlets
other than verbal and could thrive with opportunities to lead a group or a written response.
I relied on my teacher journal to record notes on observed behaviors and analyzed them
according to: general student progress, participation, interest in their work, feedback from me
about their work, and regression. I hoped this would provide a narrative to illustrate how students
responded to the SEL instruction and collaborative activities, in relation to their academic
identity. During the first week, I described two instances of students requesting specific feedback
from me about their work, which I also categorized as student progress when reflecting on each
of the students personally. I worked with one sixth grader to outline the story she was writing so
it would help her see the larger picture of what she wanted to write about. I prompted her with
questions regarding setting, characters, problems, etc.; she engaged in her responses and
exhibited interest in what I was suggesting by taking notes. She returned to her desk and started
working on her story without social distraction. Another student asked me for feedback three
different times, would return to her story, then return each time for a check in on the progress.
This behavior was in contrast with past behavior in regard to her work, as many assignments
were not turned in the past. There was a student who showed progress in the beginning of the
week by moving past a disagreement on desk space with a peer, after prompting from me, which
is a departure from the past; however, later in the week this student exhibited regressive behavior
during three parts of class. The behavior was related to starting class prepared, refusing to work,
and a melt-down in response to prompting by me. This student was able to return to class at the
end asking what he needed to do and responded with an “I know” when discussing my goals for
him and reasoning behind my actions. The ability to return to class and ask what was needed
demonstrates the SEL skill of self-management, even though the portions leading up to this
moment were categorized as regressive behavior.
Personal growth and reflection. I focused SEL instruction on personal growth. I gave
students the Triarchic Theory of Intelligences by Robert Sternberg (1985) worksheet which they
completed individually as I read the statements aloud. Students reflected on their own scores and
record their “lowest” intelligence. Students paired with someone whose highest intelligence was
their lowest and discussed some questions around their differences. Then, I asked students to
reflect in their personal notebook about what they could do to develop this intelligence, thinking
about the traits of their partner who already had this part developed. During whole class share
out, I observed three students who do not normally share respond with their answer. One student
responded with an idea to improve “practical intelligence”, which is the ability to adapt
surroundings to fit their needs, by relocating themselves if the environment was not helping them
focus on their work. A few students noticed their scores were even across all three intelligences,
which helped spark a conversation around the goal to become a well-rounded learner. During
this week, students were in the third week of their PSA project so I implemented an opportunity
for reflection through a google form survey. I adapted the questions from the student feedback
form data collection tool to specifically reflect on small groups. Of the twenty-five student
responses, all students reported they either mostly or strongly agree that they make positive
contributions to their group. When responding to I feel comfortable talking to my peers about my
work, 12% of students said mostly disagree, with the remaining either mostly or strongly
agreeing, see Figure 8.
Figure 8. Feedback survey on group work during the second week of Cycle 2.
I asked students to respond in writing to their experience in the group projects thus far; this
included each phase of the PSA project, the infographic assignment, and a collaborative
note-taking exercise. Student responses were varied. For example, the 12% of students who
responded mostly disagree to feeling comfortable talking to peers about their work, were also the
students to respond negatively to this question about group work. One student said “not the
best”, and when asked what to change responded a “better group or no group at all”. The two
other students in the 12% responded in similar patterns: the group project was “pretty good” with
the suggestion on what to change both being that certain people in their group were not working
as hard as others. While not feeling comfortable discussing their work with peers, their responses
suggested they cared about the work being done in their group.
Responsible decision making. During the third week of Cycle 2, I centered the week’s
meetings on the SEL skills of responsible decision making and self-awareness (CASEL, 2017)
naming it: Help Yourself. I chose this because of the proximity to winter break and a deadline
students had to meet for the final draft of their creative writing piece, meaning responsible
choices were required to meet any academic or social goals. I asked students to think of an action
they could take this week to make their lives easier and accomplish what was needed. Each
student had a notecard and time to reflect, then wrote their tangible goal on the card. After
writing it on a notecard, I asked students to greet someone and share what they were going to do
to help themselves. I did not require students to choose a school related goal; however, of the 21
responses, 16 were related to academics, see Figure 9 for student samples of both. The academic
responses were focused, with a specific action for the student to take in order to achieve the
stated goal.
Figure 9. “Help Yourself” student samples, academic (left) non-academic (right).
Throughout the week, I observed students making choices to make their deadline for the
writing piece. The student who exhibited regression during the second week of Cycle 2, made
progress in behavior toward their work by staying focused, albeit with occasional verbal dissent.
I observed four students exhibiting interest in their work by returning to their creative piece upon
receiving feedback from me, as many as three separate times; this behavior was possibly
influenced by my announcement that the final draft’s goal was mastery and I would return any
drafts with minor structural errors to revise. I observed one student who volunteered to work
with another student on their story line and one student asked me for specific feedback, which
was done through a one-on-one writing conference.
Twenty questions and final reflection. Students returned from winter break during the
fourth and final week of Cycle 2. I began the SEL meeting with twenty questions, in order to
re-break the ice from a long break and not implement academic pressure right away. Students
engaged in their groups and exhibited a competitive edge to be first. The academic focus of this
week was short stories and their comparison to longer pieces of fiction; the students discussed
which they thought was harder and their reasons why. I observed student discussion of opinions
on both sides; when one student mentioned short stories were harder, I then prompted the class
with the question: why are short stories harder than long stories? One student, who was in the
group of non-responsive, older, high achieving students in Cycle 1, raised her hand to answer.
This was the first time she verbally participated during whole group since I was in the classroom.
One possible factor that made her feel comfortable doing so, was the smaller class size of that
day, only seventeen; however, it does not discredit the fact that she felt comfortable to share her
personal opinion.
During the final week, I observed two instances of participation, also categorized as
progress, as well as three regressive behaviors. One student who started to show increased
interest in her work by receiving feedback during week one, demonstrated off-task behavior such
as, not staying in her seat or with her group and required prompting as a reminder four separate
occasions. As I gave students the final feedback form, one student who represented both progress
and regression over the course of Cycle 2 crumpled the survey and tossed it aside. After
discussing the behavior with the student he returned with a calmer focused attitude.
For my final assessment of Cycle 2, I gave students the feedback form to self-reflect on
both social and academic behaviors. I compared these responses to the responses at the end of
Cycle 1 and found movement toward the positive of mostly / strongly agree with statements
about being a quality producer. Of the 24 responses, all students mostly or strongly agreed on the
statement that they produce quality projects, assignments, or presentations; there were three
positive movements compared to the first feedback form at the end of Cycle 1. Reflecting on
being an effective communicator, 24% of students responded strongly agree to the statement I
make positive contributions to the discussions in class, with 60% responded mostly agree, .08%
mostly disagree, and .04% strongly disagree. This had a negative movement for the first group of
answers from Cycle 1, where 33% scored a 4, 3, and 2 - which represented always, most of the
time, and sometimes in this version, but a positive movement from responding at level 2 to level
3 in Cycle 2. This was an interesting data point to analyze because it was actually asked twice
during Cycle 2, once in a slightly different wording during check-in on group work during week
two. Of the 24 responses, 32% responded strongly agreed and 68% mostly agreed. Since more
students responded positively to the in groups over in-class, this led me to think that smaller
groups could potentially help to facilitate the development of students’ academic identity due to
the lower risk. Another interesting data point was the comparison of student response from
Figure 8’s illustration to the statement I feel comfortable talking to peers about my work. Student
responses changed slightly from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2, see Figure 10; however, the responses in the
middle of Cycle 2, depicted in Figure 8 were more positive than both Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.
Figure 10. Student response at the end of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.

The number of students who mostly or strongly disagreed increased by seven students compared
to the check in from Figure 8. This made me wonder about the context which the questions
focused on. The check-in from Figure 8 was specifically geared toward small groups; this
finding initially pointed to the positive effect small group collaboration could have on a student’s
ability to feel comfortable in regard to sharing their work with peers.
Findings
Non-participants in first cycle. My findings were in line with the research on SEL
instruction for adolescents, which illustrated the importance of providing opportunities for
self-reflective and self-directed lessons as it increased effectiveness for older adolescents
(Yeager, 2017). I also noticed the non-responsive students from Cycle 1 preferred to participate
in non-verbal methods such as writing; however, in Cycle 2, two students also demonstrated
improvement in verbal participation during whole class discussion. I also discovered the
preference to participate in verbal or non-verbal approaches differed by grade. When I analyzed
the tally sheet of student participation across Cycle 2, I discovered that 6th grade students
participated more in whole group or raising their hand to answer than they did in non-verbal
participation; seventh grade students preferred to participate in non-verbal ways throughout the
four weeks, as well as eighth grade, who preferred to participate in non-verbal over whole group
or verbal participation. This trend in participation preference was not expected, but could further
support the need for different SEL instruction for a classroom with a range of adolescent ages.
This suggested a possible need to consider program preferences beyond SEL when implementing
in a multi-age setting.
Student accountability of their work. Throughout Cycle 2, I noticed an increase in
student request for feedback on their work, along with a willingness to revise their work multiple
times during one class period. This behavior of asking for feedback or interest in their work was
something I did not observe as frequently during Cycle 1; this finding was possibly linked to the
SEL lessons which focused on skills of responsible decision making and self-awareness. It also
suggested the importance for self-reflective SEL skill instruction to have a relationship with
academic goals, such as the “Intelligences” and “Help Yourself” SEL interventions implemented
during this research cycle.
Problem-solving moments. Even in moments of observed regression from certain
students, I observed increased self-correction or correction with minor prompting of the
behavior. The students I focused on in Cycle 1 to improve their behavior in groups, exhibited
progress during Cycle 2 with regard to moving forward in group situations that were not always
easy. I also observed students correcting their peers when behavior was not conducive to their
group task, which could suggest their investment in the academic task, as well as confidence in
their social grouping. Student directed conflict resolution was one benefit of this SEL
intervention that was not particularly focused on but a benefit of the intervention focus.
Next steps
Based on my findings, my next steps would build off the unique dynamics of this
multi-age group. I would increase student choice with regard to working with groups or alone.
This decision responds to feedback I received from students about feeling comfortable in groups;
I would want those students to have opportunities to feel confident with their work, whether that
involves working individually or with groups. Another step I would take, to continue with the
theme of autonomy, would be to provide SEL instruction for students that was self-directed and
self-reflective, as it improved student accountability for their work. I would also continue the
opportunities for students to participate equally in both verbal and non-verbal methods so both
the younger and older students preference for participating in the classroom could be honored.
This could possibly help to further develop a positive academic identity among students because
of the increased choice in their learning environment.
Conclusion
In Cycle 1, my research question looked to increase participation among students through
direct instruction of social and emotional (SEL) skills. Using an SEL program Morning Meeting
(Davis et al., 2014), I implemented meetings at the beginning and end of each week for twenty
minutes, along with greetings each day in between. I looked at student participation during this
cycle through observing small group activities and peer to peer conferencing of work. Upon
analyzing my observations and student feedback, I noticed a trend in the non-participants:
students who were older and high-achieving, but seemed to possibly lack the confidence in their
answers and reported lower scores on self-rating feedback forms. As SEL instruction was said to
improve social, emotional, and academic skills (CASEL, 2017) I wondered why this
non-responsive group of students did not display any visible improvement.
I returned to the literature on SEL instruction and adolescent development; this time
focusing on identity development, specifically academic identity, in order to learn about
strategies to reach these students. I chose to focus on academic identity because of the differing
outlook from an observer to student self-evaluation; their perception was not that of a
high-performing student, which is what I observed. The research outlined two possibilities that I
chose to incorporate in my Cycle 2 design. The first was the effectiveness of SEL instruction
differed for certain age groups in adolescence; younger adolescents responded well to direct SEL
instruction but as adolescents increase in age so did their need for more self-directed and
self-reflective SEL lessons (Yeager, 2017). This fell in line with additional research which
illustrated adolescents’ increased need for autonomy in their learning outcomes as they mature
(Brown et al., 2014; Fangzhou et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2018; Yeager, 2017).
In Cycle 2, I implemented lessons that looked to give the students tools, rather than direct
instruction of skills, to explore their character strengths, intelligences, and their roles as students
in both group and individual work. I observed participation, as in Cycle 1, but looked for the
non-verbal opportunities that students participated, as well as student interest in their work,
which I categorized as a student asking a question or for feedback of their work. I continued to
implement small group activities to observe students working together. After analyzing the data,
I noticed three larger trends. Firstly, I noticed students were able to vocalize to their peers when
a behavior was not conducive to the group’s success on an assignment. Also, I noticed an
increase in student interest of their work from a small group of younger students. Finally, I
noticed an increase in participation from the older, non-responsive students from the first cycle.
This helped to support my focus on SEL instruction that allowed students to self-reflect and
make their own meaningful connections. It also illustrated the importance of small-groups to
help foster students’ perception of themselves in an academic setting.
Significances / Implications for Education
Social and emotional learning for a multi-age setting. In line with Yeager’s (2017)
research of SEL programs for adolescents, I found the importance of implementing self-directed
SEL lessons for the older students in this classroom. Providing students with an opportunity to
use SEL related skills as it was personally meaningful was effective for this group of students, as
well as the younger students. Additionally, younger students demonstrated more interest in their
academic related tasks and verbalized their thoughts on peers’ work. This behavior observed in
Cycle 2 suggests the effectiveness of self-directed and self-reflective SEL instruction for both
younger and older adolescents, which I did not expect to find. The increase in student interest of
their work helped to answer my research question, which focused on SEL strategies to build
academic identity, as student interest of work demonstrated a level of capability related to how
they might see themselves as a student.
Small groups to help build confidence. I expected to find that students would become
confident enough in their answers to participate in whole group and small groups, equally. I
observed students in both settings and requested their feedback. Based on their responses;
however, I found that students felt more confident and comfortable when they were in small
groups to share their work. This is in line with research that describes a participation increase in
pairs and a decrease in participation as group sizes become larger (James, 2016; Kaddoura,
2013). Also, in small groups students could verbalize to a peer when something was not
conducive to their group. Based on this context, students did not feel as comfortable sharing their
work with the whole class and preferred to work in small groups or individually. As an educator,
it was important to understand how students felt about a lesson structure in order to make
adjustments for the best learning environment possible. This has possible implications to
consider for certain structures that require students to share their thoughts with the entire class
such as, individual presentations, whole class socratic seminars, reading aloud, etc.
Accommodating for preference during these structures could possibly increase the quality of
interaction between students and help to build academic confidence by allowing students to feel
more comfortable and confident in small group work.
Participation preference among age groups. Throughout the research cycles, my view
of participation in class changed to incorporate non-verbal or written participation. I wanted to
account for all of the opportunities students have to participate in class. Upon doing this I found
something unexpected but important in this multi-age setting, that younger students prefer to
verbally participate during whole class and older students prefer to participate in non-verbal or
written ways in small groups. This finding has implications for a multi-age setting where
students’ ages range; teachers might need to accommodate these preferences and provide
opportunities for students to participate in whole group and small group, in both verbal and
non-verbal options.
Limitations
One of the limitations of this study was the data collected from the student feedback
forms. During the second part of the research process, I changed the response style of the
feedback forms from situational to levels of agreement. This restricted the comparisons I could
confirm when I analyzed student response changes from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2. Also, I relied on
student feedback forms that asked students to self-rate; however, asking students for
non-anonymous feedback could have possibly created responses that were what I, as their
teacher, wanted to hear and not completely accurate. I attempted to delimit this part of the
process by taking extensive teacher notes, but that creates a pool of data which is subjective in
nature. The journal was possibly influenced by my own investment in this research and biased
the observations. In order to delimit my personal biases, I used a quantitative measure to observe
student participation in the form of a tally sheet. Looking for procedures to delimit this in my
future data collection as a teacher in my own classroom, I could utilize a less subjective feedback
form and implement a system where students could assess their work. I could ask students to self
assess using bins labeled mastery, getting there, or no clue and then assess using a rubric in order
to limit the subjectivity.
Another limit of this action research was the ambiguity of my research focus in relation
to academic identity. Academic identity is defined as part of a student’s larger self-concept
(Brown et al., 2014); attempting to analyze part of a whole in an interrelated concept such as the
self is difficult in nature. A multitude of factors that occur outside of the classroom could
potentially affect a student’s academic identity development such as, home-life, parental
expectations, and peer relationships. This makes it difficult to determine one contributing factor
when looking at SEL as a strategy to help build academic identity. In order to delimit the
ambiguity, I attempted to focus on feedback questions and observations that focused on work
completed in class rather than homework. I hoped this would limit the outside factors to
influence a student’s disposition toward their work. Additionally, implementing collaborative
activities in accordance with SEL strategies could possibly obscure the effects of SEL alone in
helping to build an academic identity. I attempted to delimit this by monitoring student behavior
in groups and individually, in order to separate which strategy might be responsible; however, it
was not something I could separate in the end.
A final limitation to this action research was on a personal level, as I categorize myself at
the novice level of researcher and teacher, especially combined. As I was new to both parts, this
led to unequal division of what was required in order to grasp a complete picture of what was
happening. The process of collecting observational data was sometimes interrupted by the need
to help a student, which delayed the time between action and recording therefore skewing the
objectivity of the observation. I attempted to delimit this lack of experience by engaging in
frequent conversations with my cooperating teacher and colleagues about the events in the
classroom. I hoped this could help reach a more objective observation by including multiple
perspectives. If the role of teacher-researcher was familiar from the beginning, I might have
planned for my data collection and teaching in a manner which helped my action research
maintain more validity.
Reflection
I started the research portion of my teaching journey picturing a mountain of new and
unfamiliar information to learn before I could consider myself a researcher. Coming from a
liberal arts background, I shied away from that word and its associations because language was
always easier than numbers for me. I anticipated having to study incredible amounts of theory,
strategies, and effective interventions before I could understand what to implement in the
classroom and how to analyze the results. I was half right. I learned the action of action research
meant responsiveness to student needs was the first priority. What did they need from me? This
answer turned out to be the information I had to research, learn from, and respond in real time as
new information came to light. This process allowed me to use my language preference for
qualitative data, which helped to create a narrative of what was potentially occurring during each
cycle. This process has illuminated the term research as an accessible and integral part of being a
teacher. Because I was fully immersed in the theory, strategy, and interventions I was able to
grasp the meaning of it all at a level I cannot forget because I experienced it. I discovered the
value of taking reliable data from students in order to design lessons and student experiences. I
learned that as a teacher, it is important to rely on other forms of data from your students besides
student work; implementing tools from this action research in my future classroom is something
ould ignite.
that excites me, which was a feeling I never imagined the term research w
I began this portion of my student teaching prepared for lesson write up after lesson write
up that followed a specific formula to teach students what they needed to know; it followed the
lines of “teach, model, we try, they try, you try” and repeat. Instead, what I found with this group
of students is they really cannot actively listen and follow instructions while they are just sitting,
inactive. I discovered a more effective strategy of minimal front-loading to introduce a task,
followed with thorough written instructions and an opportunity for students to interact with the
information, then ask questions about where they need to be in order to achieve the result. This
proved a more inviting formula of learning for my students and frankly myself, because I felt
less effective standing in front of the room speaking. Additionally, every student accesses
content and learning outcomes at a different point, even at the same access point two students
might access it in a different medium, so making sure students experience the learning as much
as possible themselves is another insight I walked away with about their learning.
On a holistic level, I have learned through this experience that no teaching takes place
without a relationship. As a teacher, you have to make it a top priority to build a relationship
with students prior to thinking about the academic part of the gig, which is hard since the
academic is something you are instructed to begin as soon as you arrive to the classroom and in
some cases held to a curriculum timeline. Even though my research focused on social and
emotional skill building, one of which is about relationships, learning about this balance was
challenging for me; I developed these skills along with my students. I generally reflect on my
past experience of moving frequently as a positive. I attribute it to my ability to interact with
people I meet quite easily; however, I experienced the downside of this when it came to
long-term and deeper relationship building in the classroom. This was my greatest challenge with
teaching this semester; I had to frequently remind myself to let go of the academic agenda so I
could just be present in the interactions with my students, as this was of high value to them. I
also found this to be of high value because the relationship between students and teacher is
where the guidance and facilitation can have the most effect on a student’s experience in the
classroom. I hope the practice of reflection in my journey continues throughout my soon to begin
career as an educator and I discover more insight to educating for the whole child with, of
course, the help of my future students.

References
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Jarvela, S. (2013). Introduction: Visions of learning together.
Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning
(1-30). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge
Brown, E. L., Johnson, B., & Kanny, M. A. (2014). “I am who I am because of here!”: School
settings as a mechanism of change in establishing high-risk adolescents’ academic
identities. Journal of Early Adolescence, (34)2, 1 78-205. doi:
10.1177/0272431613480271
California School Dashboard Home. (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2018, from
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/
CASEL Core SEL Competencies. 2017. Retrieved from https://casel.org/core-competencies/
Cross, J. R., Bugaj, S. J., & Mammadov, S. (2016). Accepting a scholarly identity: Gifted
students, academic crowd membership, and identification with school. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215624162
Davis, C. & Kriete, R. (2014). The morning meeting book ( 3rd ed.). Turner Falls, MA: Center for
Responsive Schools, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1938). Traditional vs. progressive education. Experience & Education. Retrieved
from
http://www.schoolofeducators.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EXPERIENCE-EDUCA
TION-JOHN-DEWEY.pdf
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
EdData - School Profile (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2018, from
http://www.ed-data.org/school/San-Diego/San-Diego-Unified/
Fangzhou Yu, & Patterson, D. (2010). Examining adolescent academic achievement: A
cross-cultural ceview. Family Journal, 18( 3), 324–327.
https://doi-org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1066480710372071
Frisby, B. N., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor rapport,
student participation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication
Journal, 33, 27-34.
James, C. (2016). Early intervention: The impact on future student participation and engagement
in classroom environments. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 10(2), 12–24.
Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical
thinking. Educational Research Quarterly, 36( 4), 3–24.
Krishnamurti, J. (1954). Introduction. The first and last freedom (19-27). New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Leraas, B. C., Kippen, N. R., & Larson, S. J. (2018). Gender and student participation. Journal of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18( 4), 51–70. Doi:
10.14434/josotl.v18i4.22849
Marsh, J. A., McKibben, S., Hough, H. J., Allbright, T. N., Matewos, A. M., Siqueira, C., &
Stanford University, P. A. for C. E. (PACE). (2018). Enacting social-emotional learning:

Practices and supports employed in CORE districts and schools. Policy Analysis for
California Education, PACE.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and
achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79( 1), 327-365. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583
Roselli, N. D. (2016). Collaborative learning: Theoretical foundations and applicable strategies
to university. Journal of Educational Psychology - Propositos y Representaciones, 4( 1),
251–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2016.v4n1.90
Stewart, M. K. (2018). Cognitive presence in FYC: Collaborative learning that supports
individual authoring. Composition Forum, 38.
Ultanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist
Learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. Online Submission, 5, 195–212.
Williams, R.L. (2017). The impact of noncognitive factors in addressing the needs of the whole
child. 7th Annual International Conference on Education & e-Learning (EeL 2017)83-87.
doi: 10.5176/2251-1814_EeL17.41
Yang, C., Bear, G. G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel associations between school-wide
social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle,
and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47( 1), 45–61. doi:
10.17105/SPR-2017-0003.V47-1
Yeager, D. S. (2017). Social and emotional learning programs for adolescents. Future of
Children, 27(1), 73–94.

APPENDIX A
Cycle 1 Student Feedback Form

APPENDIX B
Student Responses of Feelings and Emotions For Roman Mosaic Reflection

APPENDIX C
Character Strengths Placemat Students Analyzed and Reflected With Peers

APPENDIX D
Cycle 2 Revised Student Feedback Form

Educ 558-01 - Matusz Kyley-Ar-Sp19

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

Educ 558-01 - Matusz Kyley-Ar-Sp19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: PARTICIPATION AND ACADEMIC IDENTITY THROUGH SEL 1

Multiage Middle School Classroom

University of San Diego

self-directed and self-reflective SEL instruction to increase student awareness of themselves as

work, improved problem-solving moments, and deepened self-awareness in an academic setting.

participation, student accountability, self-awareness, autonomy, middle school, adolescence

Multiage Middle School Classroom

themselves as capable learners who could participate in class?

As I thought about their role as learners, I reflected on my own experiences in school as a

I was dependent on myself to create my role as a learner; my parents were supportive of my

achievements in academia my own, which I believed helped build my self-concept as a capable

hall throughout the day.

the classroom is shown in Figure 1 below.

​ umber of students in each grade level in the classroom.

with different ethnicities - White, Asian/Southeast asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black/African

American, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.​ Ethnicities of students.

based on their individual needs.

judgemental”; in regard to participation in critique group I observed the following phrases: “I

why was there hesitation to participate in their learning environment?

Figure 3.​ Student responses in regard to their participation in class.

research: 11 to 14 years old. Extensive research on adolescence behavior describes specific

Active participation in the classroom setting is considered “best practice” in education

teacher-student relationship, as students reach middle school, student-student relationships

Collaboration.​ In order to facilitate the environment envisioned by Vygotsky and

Dewey, a variety of collaborative learning strategies are implemented in classrooms today in

understanding, making it a strategy teachers frequently implement. Kaddoura (2013) looked at

related to a decrease in participation.

willingness to participate. A major theme in research of these factors is the relationship of

learning (SEL) curricula in primary through secondary schools.

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)

collaborative learning strategies to create an effective learning environment. While SEL

interventions focused on the improvement of students’ emotional or behavioral problems rather

than purely academic participation or related outcomes.

Looking at school as an environment to foster a connection and create a community,

regard to achievement motivation. Students who experienced positive relationships in an

development, or other cognitive factors (Williams, 2017).

participation? Based on my research, I wanted to create an environment where students could

meeting and start the academic portion of class.

In order to practice collaboration on a frequent basis, I implemented Think-Pair-Share

and C.E.R lessons.

of self-awareness in order to reflect on their behavior. This helped me to analyze the

findings at the end of Cycle 1.

participation decreasing over the course of Cycle 1.

Figure 6.​ Sixth grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

Figure 7.​ Seventh grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

Figure 8.​ Eighth grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

academic self-concept seemed high after looking at Cycle 1’s non-participants.

self-concept related to academics needed to be addressed directly, rather than choosing

collect data on a student’s academic self-concept or academic identity. In Cycle 2, I planned to

analyze more in-class assignments.

In Cycle 1, I only accounted for verbal participation; however, in Cycle 2 I added a

scale from a situational never/always to a perceptual disagree/agree so student response can

reflect how they conceptually see themselves as a learner.

Based on my findings, strengths, and weaknesses I changed my research question to now

explore different opportunities for SEL instruction among older adolescents.

If SEL is to be effective among a multiage adolescent classroom, strategies pertaining to

influenced by context, which encompasses an adolescent’s experience in the classroom, in order

I use SEL strategies to build students’ academic identity?

video about character strengths, defined to my students as “superpowers” or personal qualities

Action and Assessment Plan

In Cycle 2, I planned for students to continue to practice collaboration. I planned to

self-directed and self-reflective content through various strategies.

umber of students in each grade level in the classroom.

Figure 2. Ethnicities of students.

Figure 3. Student responses in regard to their participation in class.

Collaboration. In order to facilitate the environment envisioned by Vygotsky and

Figure 6. Sixth grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

Figure 7. Seventh grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

Figure 8. Eighth grade students’ participation during Cycle 1.

Figure 9. “Help Yourself” student samples, academic (left) non-academic (right).

Figure 10. Student response at the end of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.

Student accountability of their work. Throughout Cycle 2, I noticed an increase in

Problem-solving moments. Even in moments of observed regression from certain

identities. Journal of Early Adolescence, (34)2, 1 78-205. doi:

CASEL Core SEL Competencies. 2017. Retrieved from https://casel.org/core-competencies/

Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215624162

school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.

cross-cultural ceview. Family Journal, 18( 3), 324–327.

student participation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication

Journal, 33, 27-34.

in classroom environments. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 10(2), 12–24.

thinking. Educational Research Quarterly, 36( 4), 3–24.

the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18( 4), 51–70. Doi:

Educational Research, 79( 1), 327-365. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583

to university. Journal of Educational Psychology - Propositos y Representaciones, 4( 1),

individual authoring. Composition Forum, 38.

Learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. Online Submission, 5, 195–212.

Children, 27(1), 73–94.