INQUIRY WRITTEN REPORT

How does the use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility model in reading
and viewing support students in providing evidence and justification in their
writing?

NAME: BRIANNA SHERIN

ID: 110200107
DEGREE: Bachelor of Education (Primary/Middle)

School of Education
Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences
University of South Australia

OCTOBER 2019

1 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Introduction
The Practicum school is an R-7 school located 24km North East of Adelaide in the suburb of Golden
Grove. The Primary school is under the Government school sector and of a category 7. The school was
first established in 1992 in houses at Keithcot Farm Primary School with approximately 90 students.
As of 2019, the primary school currently holds 716 students, along with 39 teaching staff, and 19 non-
teaching staff members. Within the school 51% (364) of students are female, and 49% (352) are male.
According to the school context, 1% of students identify as Aboriginal, and 9% have a language
background other than English. Thus, making its diversity quite minuet. Out of the 10,235 people who
live in the suburbs of Golden Grove, according to the 2016 Census, only 0.8% identify as Aboriginal. In
Golden Grove State Suburbs 86.4% of people only spoke English at home. Other languages spoken at
home included Polish 0.8%, Mandarin 0.8%, Italian 0.7%, Spanish 0.6% and Punjabi 0.6% (abs, 2016).
Drawing upon class context, within the composite year 6/7 class there are 29 students, with 13
females and 16 males. Cultural diversity makes up a small percentage of not only the suburbs of
Golden Grove, but also the ethnicity backgrounds within the class. Two of the 29 students have family
members who speak Punjabi which accounts for 0.02% and one EALD student who is of Polish decent.

The primary school provides a safe and supportive environment where students are consistently
challenged to achieve their best. The school community aims to ‘Open Doors to Unlimited
Opportunities” and uphold the values of R.E.S.P.E.C.T. (Resilience, Excellence, Self-Management,
Perseverance, Empathy, Courage and Teamwork) that underpin all aspects of teaching and learning.
My inquiry research involves engaging the students with effective questioning and feedback
strategies through exposure to a multitude of text genres using a constructivist approach where the
overall goal is for students to make meaning and demonstrate justification through their responses to
literature. The school’s moto allows me the opportunity to support and uphold the values of the
school to ensure that students are successfully engaging in authentic learning experiences that follow
the acronym, R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Literature Review
Throughout my Practicum, I will be analysing and examining how the following question impacts
student learning outcomes during the process of an action research inquiry: How does the use of the
Gradual Release of Responsibility model in reading and viewing support students in providing
evidence and justification in their writing?

Questioning will functionally improve the outcome of student learning and their ability to
comprehend and infer different texts from a teacher modelled approach to independent student
work to create competent independent learners. Hence, by adapting the use of the Gradual Release
of Responsibility Framework by Pearson and Gallagher (1983) it allows the “teacher to focus on
scaffolding students’ developing skills or knowledge through questioning, prompting, and cuing”
(Fisher & Frey 2013, p.39). The gradual release of responsibility instructional framework purposefully
shifts the cognitive load from “teacher as model, to joint responsibility of teacher and learner, to
independent practice and application by the learner” (Pearson & Gallagher 1983, p.11). It specifies
that the teacher moves from assuming all the responsibility for performing a task to a position in
which the students accept all the responsibility. This gradual release may occur over a day, a week, a

2 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

month, or a year. During the ‘We do’ phase, the teacher motivates students by generating interests
through guiding questions or eliciting questions from students to help gage their understanding of the
topic and where the unit of work may follow. E.g. student interests may guide the following activity,
or this interaction may allow the teacher to enhance and reflect on pedagogical practices to create
successful learning. The guided instruction process should be “thought as a flowchart (Frey & Fisher
2013, p.41). When one scaffold does not work, we move onto the following. When the scaffold works,
we return to questioning to “check for understanding or to probe deeper about students’ knowledge”
(Frey & Fisher 2013, p.41). During guided practice, the teacher should ask: What does this child’s
answer tell me about what he knows and doesn’t know? Questions that “check for understanding are
very important during guided instruction, but questions that uncover errors and misconceptions are
essential”. (Frey & Fisher2013, p.41). Following Frey & Fisher’s (2010) instructional decision- making
tree framework (Refer to Figure 1) allows educators to question and prompt carefully and
strategically to elicit appropriate answers from the
students. As well as hold a substantial collection of
evidence on students understanding to either revert
back to the ‘I do’ modelling phase or move on to
collaborative group practice or independent study. In
order for students to show justification through their
written work, they must be prompted with a series of
questions which scaffolds their ability to comprehend a
multitude of written and visual text types. Thus, as
students immerse themselves in the study of Fantastic
Worlds in a writing unit, they are “reflecting on ideas
and opinions about characters, settings and events in
literary texts, identifying areas of agreement and
difference with others and justifying a point of view” Figure 1: Fisher & Frey Tree Frame (GRR)
(ACARA ACELT162, 2016). In doing so, students
respond to a series of texts through thoughtful questioning and class and peer discussions to develop
justification of fictional and film texts.

To engage learners in cognitive or metacognitive work and to think critically about texts in order to
respond with justification, prompting will be used as a hint or reminder that encourages students to
do the work when they have temporarily forgotten to use a known skill or strategy in an unfamiliar
situation. Incorporating these pedagogical practices into my teaching, I am doing so to create thinking
and new skills. This may be prompted through accountability and formative assessment strategies
which strongly use questioning such as hover and chin it, feedback, exit cards and coral reading to
help students remember key concepts and transfer them into their long term memory in order to use
these new found skills during their writing assessments or tasks. Frey & Fisher (2013) speak of
reflective prompting as a way of developing students’ metacognitive function to stimulate thinking for
purpose of determining the next steps or the solution to a problem. For example, if the learning
intention is to understand and identify the textual conventions of Modern Fantasy during textual
analysis task of Shrek; When a student’s writing does not include evidence, as the assignment
required, the teacher may reply with “What are we learning today? What was our purpose?”

According to AITSL (2018) effective use of questioning helps to “understand where students are in
their learning, and to inform instructional decisions on where they are going to next and how to get

3 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

there” (AITSL 2018). Questioning can be used to prompt students to think about what is being taught
and to give the teacher information on where students are up to in their learning. This allows
educators to adjust instructions to meet learning needs, and support students to progress towards
their learning goals. Throughout learning experiences, students can develop misconceptions. Hence,
teachers must find intervention strategies to help understand and find out what students know or
believe at a point in time. The “primary purpose of questioning should be to find out what students
need to be taught next” (AITSL 2018). Another purpose is to teach students to think critically through
questioning; requiring deeper analysis rather than a simple yes or no or recall of information.
Teachers have long used questioning strategies to review, to check on learning, to probe thought
processes, to pose problems, to seek out different or alternative solutions, and to challenge students
to reflect on critical issues or values they had not previously considered (William 1987, p.13). Hila
Taba (1969) pointed out, that teacher directed questioning leads students to the expected level of
response, thus controlling the students thought or response pattern. For example, when the teacher
asks the student for the characters within the film Shrek, this calls for only the recall of previously
learned information. In contrast, if the class were studying the different archetypes within the film
and the teacher asked one student, Which character is portrayed as the hero archetype within the film
Shrek? And how can you justify your answer? This would be an open-ended question that would allow
the student to formulate a response in a multitude of ways with varying levels of thought process, all
of which could be appropriate responses. Asking students open-ended questions is one of the best
ways to foster more talk about writing in your classroom (Power 2019, p.5).

Methodology
3.1 Action research
All practitioner research or action requires its participants to “to engage with both theoretical and
practical knowledge moving seamlessly between the two” (Groundwater-Smith and Mockler, 2006,
p.107 sited in McAteer 2014, p.6) Action research requires not only the critical reflection on practice
and theory, but is also entitled to ongoing and evolving action within the process. McAteer (2014)
states that without the approach of questioning breath, our engagement with concepts and processes
as educators can remain at a relatively “superficial level” (McAteer 2014, p.2). Research further
suggests that research by teachers can have a positive impact on “the learning of the pupils in their
classrooms (Menter 2011, p.14). Hence, undergraduate students participating in action research
inquiry in preparation for the education profession aids them with the basic understanding of
research concepts and methodology, “along with the ability to read and interpret current research”
(Lambert 2012, p.75). Within education, the main goal of action research is to “determine ways to
enhance the lives of children” (Hine 2013, p.152). Simultaneously, action research can enhance the
lives of professionals who work amongst the educational system. To illustrate, “action research has
been directly linked to the professional growth and development of teachers” (Hine 2013, p.152).
Action research helps teachers grow new knowledge related to their classrooms, it “promotes
reflective teaching and thinking” (Hine 2013, p.152), builds teachers’ pedagogical practices and
repertoire and reinforces the link amid practice and student achievement.

3.2 Case study

Using a case study as a methodology allows the researcher to liken the “advantage and potential
window into rich and enhanced insights about practice” (Mentor 2011, p.55). Hence, using
quantitative and qualitative research methods to measure, interpret, contextualize, identify patterns

4 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

and gain in depth insight on specific concepts or phenomena provides the researcher to categorize
key findings by using quantitative data analysis methods to succinctly measure key findings and the
discovery of new theories and ideas.

3.3 Research questions

Inquiry focus question: How does the use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility model in reading
and viewing support students in providing evidence and justification in writing?

Key questions:

▪ How can I affectively provide feedback to my students to improve student outcomes in

English?
▪ I will I use the Gradual Release of Responsibility Framework to support self- reflection and
student learning?
▪ How will I measure formative assessment strategies embedded into my pedagogical practice
to record student growth data?
▪ How will I fairly measure students personal view- points and justification of different text
types through written response?

3.4 Participants
3.4.1 Case 1

Case study student 1 is a Year 7 student who is twelve years of age. Case study student 1 is diagnosed
with a learning condition called Dysgraphia. “Dysgraphia is a specific learning disability that affects
written expression” (SPELD Foundation 2019) and with placing thoughts onto paper in written form.
They visit an OT, Speech Therapist and attend Equine Therapy to build confidence and self- esteem
Through observation, and professional conversation with my supervising teacher, case study 1 shows
a lack of attention to detail within their written work; which demonstrates basic comprehension and
justification of evidence within work samples. However, their narratives and information reports
which were typed using ICT demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the criterion given (Refer to
Appendix C). Through informal conversation with the student they show interest in, manga books,
computers and gaming. Case study 1 does not receive additional time with an SSO. However, in class
they may receive one on one time with the teacher to provide prompting and scaffolding during
assessment pieces. Case study 1 would benefit from pedagogical practices that build independence
and accountability in order to provide evidence and justification in response to a variety of literary
texts to create cohesion in their written work. Through conversation with my supervising teacher, it
was stated that case study 1 uses their learning disability to their advantage to get out of work and
suggested to always refer to learning intentions to create student accountability to ensure they
complete their work to a satisfactory standard.

3.4.2 Case 2
Case study student 2 is a Year 6 student who is eleven years of age. Case student 2 is a higher
achieving year 6 student who excels at a year 7 level. Through observation, this student is a high
achiever who possesses great work ethic in completing all tasks to the best of their ability. This was
vastly displayed in their biography (assessments conducted prior to my practicum) where their work
demonstrated fluency and cohesion of sentence structure, punctuation and grammar. They are

5 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

creative, organised, resilient, and show excellence in reading which has demonstrated their ability to
infer texts well during probe reading assessments and they are a capable individual worker. However,
case study student 2 although possesses the knowledge to participate in class discussions, they
portray a quiet nature and avoid contribution at all costs due to lack of confidence and self-esteem. I
believe, that by incorporating the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model: (shared and guided
practice), case 2 will benefit from strategies guided by the teacher such as hover and chin it or calling
upon students randomly by a deck of cards to demonstrate student accountability. By contributing to
these vital discussions during Writing lessons, this student will benefit from stepping out of their
comfort zone by not only having to contribute to discussions, but further justify their responses to
text which in all may prove helpful for other as well to show growth in their proximal zone of
development.

3.5 Data Collection

3.5.1 Methods

Rationale for your chosen methods: Robin Ewing et al. (2014) states that “in some ways data can be
seen as pieces of a puzzle that need to be put together in order to form a picture” (Ewing et al. 2014,
p.378). In order to effectively analyses data and create change to make informative decisions based
around your own pedagogies or student learning/ outcomes, data must be well conducted, formative
evaluation (Ewing et al. 2014, p.379).

Data collection- Beginning: Drawn from observation, the students have limited skills in
comprehending a multitude of different text genres which decreases their success rate of becoming
successful writers. Whilst introducing archetypes, I plan to collect data via photographs of student’s
individual whiteboards. Using the technique of open questioning through the strategy ‘hover and chin
it’, this allows me to formatively assess student’s prior knowledge and skills to gage whether students
are using higher order thinking strategies to predict and create written responses appropriate to the
question. Photographs ensure that “correct answers are a result of genuine student understanding,
rather than an application of naïve / simplistic rules that will not work for more complex questions”
(AITSL 2018, p.5).

Data collection- Middle: During the phase 2, students will complete a summative assessment on a
chosen character; creating an archetype banner to gage my understanding of what these students
need to hone in on prior to the end of unit assessment piece. Along with the use of exit slips to
demonstrate how well students can respond to literature through reading and viewing in answering a
specific question and providing a justifiable answer that provides evidence of understanding. Exit slips
provide the opportunity to “take time to think deeply, authentically, and reflectively, is perhaps more
important than ever” (Leigh 2012, p.189).

Data Collection- End: Students final summative assessment piece is to respond to the text Shrek and
respond to a series of questions that require critical thinking, inferencing skills and justification. Along
with analysing a multitude of traditional archetypes in response to the modern archetypes delivered
in Shrek through a justification table (Refer to Appendix E). This allows me to develop further
understanding whether prompting students with questions using the Gradual Release of
Responsibility Model has developed students higher order thinking skills in creating new strategies to
respond to literature appropriately with succinct and justifiable answers within their writing.

3.5.2 Data sources (Refer to Appendix E)

6 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

3.5.3 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations are a major element of research. The researcher needs to promote the aims of
the research conveying authentic knowledge, truth and prevention of error. The researcher should
collect responses from the participants related to the inquiry. Hence, the researcher should avoid the
use of dishonest material to ensure accuracy. Along with maintaining confidentiality of the responses
of the participants involved to ensure privacy of subjects. Thus, the use of codes should be used to
disclose personal information.

3.5.4 Analysis

To successfully analyse student data, I will use a two tables with student’s names vertically down the
margin and record student findings of both formative and summative assessment strategies such as
exit slips and the traffic cone system using a colour coded key (red, yellow, green OR a tick, dash,
cross) using a “frequency distribution table: this contains the distribution of the frequency across
cases for the same variable” (Menter 2011, p.56)

To also map out student progress I used a self-reflection table which will allow me to record student
findings, make observations, reflect on my own pedagogical skills and supervising teacher comments.
Hence, this data allows educators to evaluate, adapt or change their strategies to ensure they meet
the needs of their students. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers establishes that
graduate teachers and beyond must be expected to assess student learning and provide clear
feedback to students on their learning. Feedback can help educators to improve their pedagogies and
students to become more successful in all areas of their learning, in particular; writing skills.
Reflection allows me to look at “how am I going? And where the learner is right now. Finally, Where
to next? And how to get there” (Black & Wiliam 2009 & Hattie and Timperley 2007 sited in AITSL
2018, pp.7-8).

Findings - 4.1 Case 1

During my two lead in days upon my arrival of my Practicum, in order to plan authentically,
appropriately and successfully I staged observations that allowed me to hone in on the interests of
the students and how they learn. Conducting professional conversations with my supervising teacher,
and sharing the various findings that I had found based upon shared reading sessions and informal
conversations; case 1 would become the first candidate to investigate the question ‘how does the use
of the Gradual Realise of Responsibility model in reading and viewing support students in providing
evidence and justification in writing?’ As stated above, case study 1 has been formally diagnosed with
Dysgraphia; finding it hard to scribe and process information quickly and effectively in order to
communicate their comprehension of texts through written justification.

Within my initial lesson, I wanted to gage how case student 1 performed best using a multitude of
strategies to make formative decisions to construct appropriate pedagogical strategies that would
create student success. Upon initiating the first lesson where I introduced ‘Fantastic Worlds’ to the
students, I used a strategy called ‘hover and chin it’. Hover and chin it is a form of formative
assessment where students are guided by a question and must explain or justify their answer;
hovering the board close to their chest to ensure it is their own work until they are asked to chin their

7 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

whiteboard in order for the teacher to see. It’s a form of oral recognition to check where students are
at and whether or not content needs to be retaught differently. During this initial lesson, I looked at
traditional archetypes and how we can classify particular people/ characters through recurring motifs,
actions, plot points, setting and characteristics. These questions included, “what is an archetype?”,
“What comes to mind when you think of a superhero?” And “what do Batman, Spiderman and
Superman all have in common?” This use of questioning was recording through photographic
evidence where Student 1 came up with the following answers: “It’s a type of arch”. “Superman”,
and “ they are superheros” (Refer to Appendix G). Case study student 1’s responses showed limited
justification and were predictable. Thus, I devised a traffic cone system (Refer to Appendix E & G) to
collect student data and feedback. I asked the students to write on a sticky not one thing they
understood from the lesson and one thing they needed to work on, and to place it on the traffic cone
system where it suited their learning best. Case student 1 placed their exit slip in the green cone;
indicating that he understood the concept and wrote “I understood archetypes (Refer to Appendix G).
Modelled to the class during the next phase of the unit, I scaffolded the qualities and characteristics
of traditional archetypes and gave examples of varying characters who suited the description of each
archetypal character. Students were then asked to independently complete the modelled task using
the worksheet displayed to the right. I found that by modelling this exercise and giving Case 1 a guide,
they were able to complete the worksheet. However, their ability to write cohesive sentences was
fractured as “children with dysgraphia often struggle to organise their ideas into well-constructed
stories and paragraphs” (Gilen et al, 2006, p. 5). To aid Student 1 with an opportunity to meet the
learning intention based upon the Year 7 Australian Curriculum Achievement Standard: (demonstrate
understanding of archetypal characters using visual and written texts to justify personal viewpoints) I
placed case study 1 and 2 together in pairs during a task to reinforce the oral to written language
connection as “learners articulate to each other how to express an opinion, an argument, or a stance
and provides an immediate authentic audience” (Meter 2011, p.232).

During Phase 2, case study student 1 responded to the text My Hero Academia.to justify how their
chosen character fits an archetype using a banner template (Refer to Appendix G). Student 1 was
determined to pass English as discussed with their classroom teacher, hence they produced a
substantial piece of work which met the criteria to a satisfactory level. I found that as cited on the
marked rubric that student 1 began to justify why their chosen character fits an archetype using
supporting evidence of events from the text and had understood the plotline of their chosen text. But
they had not explicitly stated the characteristics of their character to justify why those particular
series of events fit the hero archetype. These points demonstrate a beginning level of inferencing but
are not explicitly stated. Consequently, not all sentences were cohesive and punctuated correctly
which lowered their potential grade which was a C- (Refer to Appendix G). Student 1 would benefit
self checking their own writing. Sheena Cameron (2013) states that within the independent writing
phase of the Gradual Release Model, students should read their own work to ensure it makes sense
and to search or errors which helps them to make “re-crafting decisions as they progress as writers”
(Cameron 2013, p.54). Hence during student 1’s next phase of learning of fairy tales I explicitly
modelled this idea on the interactive whiteboard of a narrative I created and got students to
independently edit their own twisted fairy tale that they produced as a short formative assessment
task to ensure that during Phase 3 this was something that was emphasised and welcomed during the
summative task.

During Phase 3 of case study student 1’s Shrek analysis students were guided through the task using a
rubric where I placed high expectations upon the students to meet the criteria of ‘At (2)’ (Refer to
Appendix G) and encouraged students to take notes for those students wanted to receive a higher
grade. Students were to answer a serious of questions that required them to use evidence from the
text and prior knowledge from previous topics engaged in to justify their answer; as well as create a
table comparing the modern archetypal characters within Shrek with their traditional archetype.

8 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Through the use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model I was able to scaffold student 1’s
developing skills and knowledge through questioning, prompting, and cuing” (Fisher & Frey 2013,
p.39) which was embedded continuously through formative assessment strategies which will be
discussed later on. As demonstrated through the assessed rubric (Refer to Appendix G) I found…

‘Student 1 demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the movie Shrek. A majority of their answers
used supporting evidence for implied meaning. However, their ability to elaborate upon their answers
were basic. Questions 4 and 12 were very strong as they had used examples outside of the text to
support and justify their answers (Refer to Appendix G). However, there were grammatical and
punctual mistakes which lead to sentence in cohesion. Student 1 had the option to write up their
analysis using a laptop which limited the amount of errors which were consistent within their banner
in Phase 2. Moreover, the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model allowed student 1 the opportunity
during independent work to…
▪ Understand the purpose for writing.
▪ Identify and follow a criterion.
▪ Organise ideas into paragraphs which justify personal viewpoints through evidence of the text
they are responding to.
▪ Apply prior knowledge outside of the text to support their answer.
Through a writing survey I conducted, case study student 1 wrote that throughout the unit on
Fantastic Worlds it “deepened their understanding so they can focus on characters and get to know
them better”. In their thank you letter to me also they wrote “I feel having you in the class has
improved my ability to do English tasks”(Case study student 1- Refer to Appendix G)

Findings: 4.1- Case 2

Through a scaffolded approach using the Gradual Release of Responsibility model of instruction, I
guided case study student 2 with a guided approach towards developing an understanding of how to
respond to literary texts through appropriate and justifiable responses through reading and viewing a
multitude of texts.

The findings revealed that a learning environment was established in which students engaged in rich
conversations, in sort to create justifiable responses that demonstrated conceptual knowledge of
varying texts. Designed as a delineated pedagogy, during Phase 1 I used Fisher & Frey’s (2008) Focus
Lesson strategy. This component allows the teacher to “model his or her thinking and understanding
of the content for students. Usually brief, focus lessons establish the purpose or intended learning
outcome and clue students into the standards they are learning” (Fisher 2008, p.1). In addition, this
teacher instructed model, provided me with the opportunity to build and/or activate background and
prior knowledge. Hence, by using the method of ‘hover and chin it’, it allowed me to collect student
data through photographical evidence to examine how quickly student 2 picked up the conceptual
ideas of a what an archetype is and how well they could relate this new found knowledge in relation
to other texts. Using the Australian Curriculum, students were covering the sub-strand: Responding to
Literature (ACELT1620), and students learning intentions were: Understand what an archetype is and
identify different archetypal characters through various texts. And, justify personal viewpoints to
explain the characteristics of archetypal characters. Case study student 1 responded to the question
demonstrated on the PowerPoint:

What is an archetype? - “a type of made up character”.

When I say superhero, what comes to mind? – “someone who save the day. Someone who is selfless,
like superman”.
What do Batman, Superman and Spiderman all have in common? – “They are all heroes”.

9 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Case student 2’s responses above demonstrate a sound knowledge of attempting to associate an
archetype with fictional characters through which is demonstrated in question two where student 2
has started to give justification of answers by listing the characteristic of ‘selflessness’ and associating
this word with helping people. To challenge not only student 2’s thinking but the rest of the class,
students were called upon by myself using a deck of cards with their name on one card where
students would have the opportunity to share their answer. When student 2 was called upon during
this session I asked whether they would like to share their answer, however they shock their head. As
discussion was a vast contribution to my pedagogical practices, I wanted student 2 to feel
comfortable to share their findings with their peers. Thus, in order to establish a positive culture for
writing, Sheena Cameron (2013) states the importance of teachers praising risk taking and problem
solving. This strategy was conducted throughout following sessions where students further conducted
in opportunities to “think, pair and share”(Cameron 2013, p.40) to develop justifiable responses to
texts using archetypal characteristics and evidence.

In preparation of Phase 2, I placed case study 1 and 2 together as mentioned above case study 1
lacked the knowledge to justify their answer; whereas case 2 had greater knowledge to use evidence
to support their answer. This was firstly modelled on the board. This was demonstrated as shared/
collaborative learning which proved to consolidate case study students 1 and 2’s understanding with
the content to problem solve, discuss, negotiate and think with one another. Both students were able
to justify their personal viewpoints and critically engage in conversation and “reflect on other
viewpoints” (ACARA 2016) which ensured individual accountability.

During Phase 2, case study student 2 responded to the text Harry Potter to justify how their chosen
character fits an archetype. Student 2 was to construct an archetype banner independently. I found
that through modelled, shared and guided scaffolding, case student 2 could succinctly compose ideas
through reflecting on the criteria from previous lessons; using the rubric (Refer to Appendix H) to
ensure that their responses showed the ability to support evidence for implied meaning in three or
more examples cited in responses. I found that as cited on the marked rubric, ‘they have
demonstrated a strong understanding of what an archetype is and used supporting evidence from the
text to justify their reasoning’. ‘There is a good use of adjectives to support their chosen characteristics
of their archetypal character’. Although student 2 has demonstrated fantastic inferred meaning from
their chosen text, their ability to provide justification using typical archetype traits of a hero, it is
limited in paragraph four (Refer to Appendix H). Student 2 would gain from drafting their work and
gaining feedback from the teacher prior to engaging in their good copy, reiterating how to develop a
good PEEL/ TEEL paragraph, “reviewing the learning and sharing successes to make improvements in
their writing” (Cameron 2013, p.52).

Before commencing in Phase 3, The Gradual Release cycle was used again in using various forms of
assessment to gage student knowledge which will be discussion later. Student’s engaged in various
learning activities around the genres within Fantastic Worlds: Traditional fairy tales, twisted fairy tales
and modern fantasy in preparation for their final summative assessment and work on student 2’s
misconceptions about writing.

During Phase 3, students were introduced to the movie analysis task guided through the use of a
rubric where I placed high expectations upon the students to meet the criteria of ‘At (2)’ (Refer to
Appendix G & H) and encouraged students to take notes for those students wanting to receive a
higher grade; in particular, case student 2. Students were to answer a series of questions that
required them to use evidence from the text and prior knowledge from previous topics to justify their
answer; as well as create a table comparing the modern archetypal characters within Shrek with their
traditional archetype. As I facilitated and modelled the discussion, student 2 evidently scribed notes in

10 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

their book to extend their learning, and whilst watching the movie Shrek they also partook in note
taking extensively to better their final grade. Through the process of marking case study student 2’s
work they have demonstrated great knowledge of the movie and used implied meaning of the text
with supporting evidence. Their prior knowledge of archetypes is evident throughout more than 80% of
their answers (Refer to Appendix H for marked assessment). In comparison to case study 2’s
justification during Phase 1 and 2, they have clearly decoded both written and visual texts to justify
their answers within their writing. For example,…

Is Shrek based on a Traditional Fairy Tale, Twisted Fairy Tale or Modern Fantasy? And justify your
point.
“I think Shrek is based on Modern Fantasy because it includes Fairy Tale features and characters, but it
has a modern twist and modern aspects. For example, there were characters portrayed as princesses
and other royal characters, but they weren’t traditional, they had character flaws and were twisted to
fit the story-line” (Case study student 2).

In all, case study student 2 has demonstrated extensive ability to use supporting evidence for implied
meaning using a multitude of examples within their answers as a response to texts. This was evident
in a student writing survey as well were student 2 wrote: “It helps me read and watch movies because
now I can now identify archetypes”. “It helps me write because I write more in-depth”. And “I think
learning about types of narratives has improved my writing skills because you really explained it in a
good and realistic/ fun way” (case study student 2- Refer to Appendix H)

Discussion

During the modelled construction phase, this is simply not just showing, but is accompanied by
“spoken language designed to provide a narrative for the learner to follow” ( Fisher & Frey 2013,
p.28). Fisher & Frey (2013) state that when students possess a skill or strategy that is modelled for
them rather than stated, they will gain a vaster understanding for “when to apply it, what to watch
out for, and how to analyse their success” (Fisher & Frey 2013, p.28). Hence, introducing the
formative assessment strategy of ‘Hover and Chin It’ which was first introduced by Hansberry
Educational Consultant Australia had to be modelled firstly in order for students to appropriately use
this strategy. This is consistent with four dimensions of learning: “declarative ( What is it? ),
procedural ( How do I use it? ), conditional ( When and where do I use it? ), and reflective ( How do I
know I used it correctly? )” (Angelo, 1991 cited in Fisher & Frey 2013, p.28). The use of individual
whiteboards provided case study students 1 and 2 to challenge their metacognitive thinking in
responding to visual or written texts as a quick formative assessment of student learning. For
example, in preparation for their summative assessment students watch a clip from Narnia and had to
justify their responses to the following questions…
▪ Are modern fantasy texts similar the twisted fairy tales? Agree or disagree and justify your
answer.
▪ How would you describe Lucy in Narnia, and which archetype would you give her based on
the clip we just watched?
▪ Knowing Lucy’s story now, what archetype would you place her under now and why?

Upon drawing random names from a deck of class cards, case students 1 and 2 demonstrated a
growing knowledge of the criteria and learning objectives introduced during “focused instruction”
(Fisher & Frey 2013, p.18). Hence the continuous use of questioning through the unit allowed for
repetition and practice of new and learnt skills/ strategies that “checked for understanding during

11 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

guided instruction, and uncovered errors and misconceptions which were essential to student
growth”. (Frey & Fisher2013, p.41).

I initially used the traffic cone system as stated previously as formative assessment where students
placed their response to a question in either the red, yellow or green bag. However, after recording
student’s responses and colour coding them to identify their abilities, 95% of the class placed their
slip in the green section during both accounts with little to now justification. This was particularly
interesting and insightful to see how the decisions of others informed individual decisions within the
class; case 1 particularly who placed their response in the green section stating, “I understand”. This
made me reconsider my pedagogical practices and strategies and question, how can I record student
knowledge using a more structured approach? Hence why I tried exit slips. Exit slips can “document
learning, emphasize the process of learning, and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction” (Bafile,
2004 & Fisher & Frey, 2004 cited in Leigh 2012, p.191). Exit slips are ideal for capturing individual
spurts of thinking; just when students think they cannot be heard or have nothing to share, “exit slip
writing can capture their ideas as they occur” (Leigh 2012, p.191). Moreover, through constructing
premade exit slips (Refer to Appendix E) they lead to self-reflective thought which in turn
strengthened case study 1 & 2’s interpersonal communication skills which was reflected within their
two summative assessment pieces which justified their findings to meet the learning intentions and
criterion explicitly stated which can be found in Appendix G and H.

Conclusion

Integrating the use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Framework by Pearson and Gallagher
(1983), allowed me to scaffold student’s development of skills and knowledge through questioning,
prompting, and cuing through reading and viewing texts. Which lead to case 1 and 2 responding
appropriately through the use of justification within their writing. Case study student 1; a Year 7
student who is diagnosed with Dysgraphia and Case student 2; a high achieving Year 6 student could
reflect on ideas and opinions about characters, settings and events in literary texts and identify and
justify personal points of view through verbal and written form (ACARA 2016). I believe this was
through the use of modelled, guided and collaborative learning opportunities which allowed student
1 to benefit from more knowledgeable others and consistently be challenged through formative
assessment strategies: formative assessments - a written exit pass, ‘hover and chin it’ on whiteboards
to practice written justification in response to a multitude of texts to better their ability to analyse
texts and respond within their summative assessment pieces. Both students could evidently construct
a cohesive paragraph which answered the question using not only evidence from the text but prior
knowledge. Moreover, this action research has empowered me to reflect critically in order to examine
my methods and pedagogical practices to enhance individual student learning and plan for inclusivity
and to help evaluate and assess learning to aid the ‘where to’ now process. I would be inclined to
teach this unit of writing on Fantastic Worlds again using the guidance of the Gradual Release
Framework and formative assessment strategies such as the use of exit slips and hover and chin it to
assess student learning. However, to better student outcomes I would engage in the practice of
ensure students appropriately understand how to construct proper paragraphs at the beginning of
the year and work on student grammar and punctuation within Spelling. This would ensure that
these areas do not degrade their final outcome as this was a minor flaw within both cases final
summative assessment.

12 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Reference list

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2016, The Australian Curriculum
v8.3, viewed 1 October 2019, http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (aitsl) 2017, Australian Institute for Teaching
and School Leadership, viewed 1 October 2019, https://www.aitsl.edu.au

Cameron, S 2013, The Writing Book: A Practical Guide for Teachers, S&L Publishing Ltd, Auckland NZ

Ewing, R, Le Cornu, R & Groundwater-Smith, S 2014, Teaching Challenges and Dilemmas, Cengage
Learning Australia, Australia

Fisher, D & Frey, N 2008, Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual
release of responsibility, Alexandria, VA USA

Fisher, D & Frey, N 2013, Better Learning Through Structured Teaching : A Framework for the Gradual
Release of Responsibility, 2nd Edition, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development,
Alexandria VA, USA

Fisher, D & Frey, N 2013, Engaging the Adolescent Learner, International Reading Association, viewed
28 September 2019, < https://keystoliteracy.com/wp
content/uploads/2017/08/frey_douglas_and_nancy_frey-
_gradual_release_of_responsibility_intructional_framework.pdf>

Government of Australia 2016, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government of Australia, viewed 28

September 2019, < https://www.abs.gov.au/ >

Hine, G 2013, ‘The importance of action research in teacher education programs’, Issues in
Educational Research, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 151-163

Leigh, R 2012, ‘The Classroom is Alive with the Sound of Thinking: The Power of the Exit Slip’,
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 189-196

McAteer, M 2013, Action Research in Education, SAGE Publications Ltd, London

Menter, I 2011, A Guide to Practitioner Research in Education, SAGE Publications, London

13 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Power, B 2019, ‘The Answer to Better Student Writing? Asking Better Questions’, Scholastic, viewed
27 September 2019, < https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/x201cthe-
answer-better-writing-better-questionsx201d/>

SPELD Foundation 2019, What is Dysgraphia?, DSF, viewed 29 September 2019,

<https://dsf.net.au/what-is-dysgraphia/>

William, W 1987, Questions, Questioning Techniques, and Effective Teaching, Nationai Education
Association, Washington, D.C

14 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

 Appendices

Appendix A: Map of the school/preschool (highlighting relevant structures/resources)

15 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

 Appendix B: Photographs of the classroom/preschool environment
There are 26 classroom spaces in both solid construction and transportables. There is an administration block, school hall, canteen and a
multi-purpose area, which includes an art room and a fully integrated ICT suite and Resource Centre. BER funding was used to build a
GLA (general learning area) consisting of 8 classroom spaces and a learning corridor. A COLA (covered outdoor learning area) has
recently been built with site funds and is used for multiple purposes including school assemblies.
I have been placed in a composite Year 6/7 class (Room 23) which consists of 29 students; 13 of which are girls and 16 boys. There is 1
EALD student, who is taken out of the classroom once a week on a Monday by the class SSO, and 1 student who has been diagnosed
with Dysgraphia which is a processing disorder. The students participate and heavily focus on both Mathematics and Reading which is a
vast focus within the whole school based on student PAT Testing. Room 22 and 23 work together to team teach in both Maths and
Writing. Students participate in in NIT/ Extra Curricula Lessons such as Civics, Performing Arts, P.E, and LOTE (Japanese). The classroom
consists of flexible seating; using exercise balls and crates to gain MIP and attention to learning. Students have access to a study area
outside of the classroom in the hall which consists of desktop computers and class laptops for research and inquiry -based learning. As
well as a whiteboard and interactive board utilised in a majority of learning tasks. Students are grouped in table groups to maximise
individual participation using group work during learning tasks positioned to prevent tripping hazards and clear pathways to both exits.

16 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix C: Analysis of learning for case 1 & 2

Case 1 – Analysis of information report to develop an understanding of students’ strengths and

weaknesses in writing (ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED BY SUPERVISING TEACHER)

17 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix C: Analysis of learning for case 1 & 2

Case 2– Analysis of biography and narrative to develop an understanding of students’ strengths and
weaknesses in writing (ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED BY SUPERVISING TEACHER)

18 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix D: Anticipatory planning web (mind map/brainstorm) for case 1 & 2
Case 1

Case 2

19 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix E: Data collection method templates – Traffic cone system (Formative Assessment):

20 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix E: Data collection method templates – Self Reflection Data Template

21 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix E: Data collection method templates – Student Feedback Template

22 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Week: 1 2
Work Samples > archetype/ archetypal
character definition
worksheet (Monday)
>Mini summative
assessment- pennant flag.
Student Feedback > traffic cone student self-
evaluation at the end of
the lesson (Monday +
Friday).
Annotated Images > Take pictures of students
questioning answers
(Work samples- hover
during facilitated
& chin it) discussion- hover & chin it
(Monday)
Supervisor Feedback > Feedback on Monday/
Tuesday lessons.
Reflective Journal > Analyse of observations
+ student discussion points
& student self feedback.
23 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)
> traffic cone student self-
evaluation at the end of
the lesson (Friday).
> Analyse of observations
+ student discussion points
& student self feedback.
3 4
> Exit slip on Traditional Fairy
tales
> Take pictures of students
questioning answers during
facilitated discussion
(Monday)
> Feedback on Monday
(Observation of Twisted
Fairy tale lesson).
> Analyse of observations +
student discussion points &
student self feedback.
> Exit slip on Twisted Fairy
tales
> Analyse of observations +
student discussion points &
student self feedback.
5
> Collect student textual
analysis of Shrek Movie
(Friday).
> Student writing survey
> Feedback on Monday
> Analyse of observations +
student discussion points &
student self feedback.
Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3

24 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3

25 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 1- Hover and Chin It Photographs from lesson 1

What is an archetype?

When I say superhero, what comes to mind?

What do Batman, Superman and Spiderman all have in common? –

26 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 2

27 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 2 (Marked Rubric)

28 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 3 (Shrek Analysis)

29 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 3 (Shrek Analysis)

30 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 3 (Shrek Analysis)

31 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 3 (Shrek Analysis)

32 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 3 (Shrek Analysis- Marked Rubric)

33 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence work sample 3 (Shrek Analysis- Marked Rubric)

34 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 evidence feedback from Supervising Sample 1

Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3, work samples x3, feedback from
Supervising Teacher x 3, planning x 3, evaluation of planning x 3,
Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3, work samples x3, feedback from
Supervising Teacher x 3, planning x 3, evaluation of planning x 3,
Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3, work samples x3, feedback from
Supervising Teacher x 3, planning x 3, evaluation of planning x 3,
Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3, work samples x3, feedback from
Supervising Teacher x 3, planning x 3, evaluation of planning x 3,

35 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 evidence feedback from Supervising Sample 2

36 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 evidence feedback from Supervising Sample 3

37 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 1 (Phase 1)

38 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 1 (Phase 1)

39 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 2 (Phase 2)

40 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 2 (Phase 2)

41 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 2 (Phase 3- introduction to modern fantasy in preparation
from their Shrek Analysis)

42 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 2 (Phase 3- introduction to modern fantasy in preparation
from their Shrek Analysis)

43 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 lesson plan 2 (Phase 3- introduction to modern fantasy in preparation
from their Shrek Analysis)

44 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 evaluation of planning Phase 1

45 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 evaluation of planning Phase 1

46 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix G & H: Case 1 & 2 evaluation of planning Phase 1

47 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence students/child’s feedback

48 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence students/child’s feedback x 3,

49 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence work samples x3,

What is an archetype?

What comes to mind when I say Superhero?

What does Batman Spiderman and Superman all have in common?

50 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence, work samples x3,(Summative Assessment)

51 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence, work samples x3,(Summative Assessment- Marked Rubric)

52 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

53 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)
Appendix H: Case 2 evidence work samples x3 (Shrek Analysis

54 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence work samples x3, (Shrek Analysis

55 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence work samples x3, (Shrek Analysis)

56 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence work samples x3, (Shrek Analysis- Marked Rubric)

57 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)

Appendix H: Case 2 evidence work samples x3, (Shrek Analysis- Marked Rubric)

58 Word Count: 5013 (less references, quotes and appendix’s)