1

Updated Data Collection and Summary

Roseannn Blaszak

Grand Canyon University

TCH-539: Introduction to Educational Research

Dr. Mark Potts

November 24, 2021

 2

Updated Data Collection and Summary

My action research objective is to prove that using leveled, guided writing groups as an

intervention strategy will help close the gap created by virtual learning. The research questions I

am using to help prove my hypothesis are:

1. What percentage of 6 th grade students showed a learning gap in writing from

virtual learning due to Covid-19?

2. Has there been improvement due to the implementation of leveled, guided writing
groups reflected from character trait open-ended response writing to character
trait benchmark open-ended writing?

3. How effective are leveled, guided writing groups as an intervention to improve

writing skills?

After collecting data from the original baseline open ended response, the leveled,

guided writing groups were formed and put into action. The lower achieving groups (46%) met

with the teacher 3x a week for 20 minutes. The middle achieving group (36%) met with the

teacher 2x a week for 20 minutes. The high achieving group (18%) met with the teacher 1x a

week for 20 minutes. Trend Analysis will be used to examine the data. By using trend analysis,

I will be able to follow any changes in implementation that would affect reaching the objective

and comprehend what elements influenced these changes (Sagor and Williams, 2017).

Themes and Patterns

In the 1st week of intervention, all leveled, guided writing groups struggled to become

comfortable with the small intervention group. They showed little to no improvement. After

meeting the 2nd week, reviewing the data and the writing process, there was a slight

improvement in the lower achieving group, however, the middle and high achieving groups

showed a significant increase. Based on the data below, there are no identifiable patterns at this

time.
 3

Leveled Guided Writing Intervention Group Results

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Baseline Open ended Benchmark 1

70%-Below 71%-88% 89%-100%

Relevancy

When conducting research there are always variables that affect the outcome of the

data. As much as we want the data to prove that the theory presented is valid, it is ok if it

doesn’t, as there is no way to 100% prove a theory. (Davis, 2021). What’s important to

remember is the data that is collected is still viable and can help modify or create a new

hypothesis (Becker, 2021). In this case, the research questions presented previously are still

relevant in trying to prove whether leveled, guided writing intervention groups will help close

the gap created by virtual learning. In short, the leveled, guided writing intervention has shown

improvement, just not with the group expected. This leads me to adjust my research questions.

Additional Research Questions

After analyzing my data, it was concluded that although the middle and high achieving

groups showed improvement, the lower achieving group did not show much improvement,

which is the targeted group. To see if the hypothesis can be validated, the research questions

have been revised to reflect two additional questions:

1. How would increasing whole group instruction show improvement in the

intervention group?

2. How would increasing the time from 20 minutes to 30 minutes in the intervention
groups show improvement?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What percentage of 6th
grade students showed a
learning gap in writing
from virtual learning due to
Covid-19?
Has there been
improvement due to the
implementation of leveled,
guided writing groups
reflected from character
trait open-ended response
to character trait benchmark
open-ended?
How effective are leveled,
guided writing groups as an
intervention to improve
writing skills?
How would increasing
whole group instruction
show improvement in the
intervention group?
How would increasing the
time from 20 minutes to 30
minutes in the intervention
groups show improvement?
Updated Data Collection Graphic Organizer
DATA SOURCE 1
Open ended response
question:
Low achieving group 46%
Middle achieving group
36%
High achieving group 18%
Open ended response
question:
Low achieving group 46%
Middle achieving group
36%
High achieving group 18%
Open ended response
question:
Low achieving group 46%
Middle achieving group
36%
High achieving group 18%
**N/A- this question was
not part of the original set
of research questions
**N/A- this question was
not part of the original set
of research questions
4
DATA SOURCE 2 DATA SOURCE 3
Benchmark-Open ended Benchmark-Narrative
response: writing
Low achieving group 45% Low achieving group
Middle achieving group (TBD)
24% Middle achieving group
High achieving group 31% (TBD)
High achieving group
(TBD)
Benchmark-Open ended Benchmark-Narrative
response: writing
Low achieving group 45% Low achieving group
Middle achieving group (TBD)
24% Middle achieving group
High achieving group 31% (TBD)
High achieving group
(TBD)
Benchmark-Open ended Benchmark-Narrative
response: writing
Low achieving group 45% Low achieving group
Middle achieving group (TBD)
24% Middle achieving group
High achieving group 31% (TBD)
High achieving group
(TBD)
**N/A- this question was Benchmark-Narrative
not part of the original set writing
of research questions Low achieving group
(TBD)
Middle achieving group
(TBD)
High achieving group
(TBD)
**N/A- this question was Benchmark-Narrative
not part of the original set writing
of research questions Low achieving group
(TBD)
Middle achieving group
(TBD)
High achieving group
(TBD)
(Sagor & Williams, 2017)
 5

Actionable Steps

The original process was to meet with all three of the groups for varying times

throughout the week, with the lower achieving group being seen the most. Each group would

meet for 20 minutes. The adjustments that have been made are:

1. The meeting times for the lower achieving group has been increased from 20

minutes to 30 minutes.

2. An increase in the time spent in whole group instruction has been added.

3. More modeling of techniques and skills have been added.

These steps, along with the additional research questions previously presented, could allow for

a more successful intervention. Therefore, validating the hypothesis that using leveled, guided

writing groups as an intervention strategy would help closed the gap created by virtual learning.

Leveled Guided Writing Group Schedule (Original)

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
WEEK 1 Low Middle Low achieving Middle Low
achieving Achieving group-20 mins. Achieving achieving
group-20 group- 20 group- 20 group-20
mins. mins mins mins.

High
achieving
group- 20
mins
WEEK 2 Low Middle Low achieving Middle Low
achieving Achieving group-20 mins. Achieving achieving
group 20 group- 20 group- 20 group-20
mins. mins mins mins.

High
achieving
group- 20
mins
 6

Leveled Guided Writing Group Schedule (Revised)

WEEK 3 Low Middle Low Middle Low

achieving Achieving achieving Achieving achieving
group-30 group- 20 group-30 group- 20 group-30
mins. mins mins. mins mins.

High
achieving
group- 20
mins
WEEK 4 Low Middle Low Middle Low
achieving Achieving achieving Achieving achieving
group 30 group- 20 group-30 group- 20 group-30
mins. mins mins. mins mins.

High
achieving
group- 20
mins

Reference
 7

Becker, Andrea. (n.d.). What is the next step if an experiment fails to confirm your

hypothesis? Seattle Pi. https://education.seattlepi.com/next-step-experiment-fails-

confirm-hypothesis-3782.html

Davis, Ben. (2021, June 1). What happens when a hypothesis is not

supported? MVOrganizing. https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-happens-when-a-

hypothesis-is-not-supported/

Sagor, R., & Williams, C. (2017). The action research guidebook: A process for pursuing

equity and excellence in education.  (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. ISBN-13:

9781506350158
8