OUR RADIO STATION

IN CONCLUSION...

Retrieved from http://web.educastur.princast.es/cursos/cursowqp/aplic/eva%20carrio/conclusion.jpg

The project allowed me—as teacher-researcher—to be more reflective about a topic that I particularly feel passion of. In general it was encouraging despite some school problems that I faced on. Students were motivated to participate, and parents were somehow involved, especially at the beginning.

It was possible to observe in students an awareness that they really needed and—because of their age—is not easy recognized. Age was one of the factors that influenced in the accomplishment of the project. They followed a model of radio that they liked listening to in their productions. In so doing, they recognized strengths in themselves and their peers and worked on self and peer weaknesses. The sense of commitment in the students that finished the study (12, because of external reasons) was general. Consequently, the participation of new members in the group was immediate and motivated. The change in the group (in term of population) was another factor that influenced the achievement of the project goals.

Being autonomous in editing and deciding about including chunks or pieces of scripts, repeating, using music and other effects let students recognize their abilities and how to use them in a need that they have. In this aspect, using technology—despite technological constrains at school—was attractive and motivating for the participants.

Retrieved form http://needleandclay.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/sickel02.jpg

LIMITATIONS

During the development of the study I had to face on some unexpected situation that influenced the results:

1. Changes in the groups: At the beginning of the project, thirty-eight students were the number of participants; given that many students were moved to another school, I finished the project with twelve. It implied a new re-distribution of the groups, a forced-inclusion of new members (without using their material for the project because of consent issues). This situation made students more tolerant because they had to start again getting to know each other, and they practically had to start again with the process of cooperative learning. On the other hand, a sense of commitment arose and the former students were in charge of immersing the new ones.

2. Time: Some school activities impeded conducting the implementation in the time that I have planned. At the beginning of the school year, I expected to continue with this stage, but I was assigned to a different group. Consequently I had to wait until the group was re-assigned. As a result of this, I reduced the activities, and the technical workshops were not done as I planned. I encouraged students to work at home on this issue, but unfortunately not all of them have computers or internet services.

3. Technical: At the beginning of the project I have included “Shoutcast” as the tool to display the participants’ final product. During the implementation, my students and I found that this tool does not run with Windows Vista and Windows 7. As mentioned above, students did some technical activities at home, and most of them have computers with one of these operative systems. This fact demanded me to look for other online tools. Another limitation in this aspect is that students edited using different applications and in the moment of keeping the recordings some of them did not follow instructions to save files as mp3. When uploading, they were not able to listen to, so by now, there are only two recordings online, but students are working on re-editing .

FURTHER RESEARCH

I will continue this study with the target group and finish with what I have planned. I would like also to join a specific group of students from different levels that share the taste for radio participation and also the interest to improve their speaking confidence. Both aspects usually come together. I will focus on three aspects: radio production, speaking confidence activities and technical issues. In so doing, I will present my proposal to IDEP (Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y Desarrollo pedagógico), not only to present the proposal for the current study but also to ask for support and financing.

I found that such project could be useful for some La Sabana University students since most of them have to deal with speaking confidence and that impede them have a good performance in their sessions and the partials. I would like to present my proposal to the Department of Foreign Languages and Cultures and the Unisabana radio.

REPORTING RESULTS

Retrieved from http://artslink.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/writing-center.jpg

Dear all

I had already decided to follow Sagor’s Trend Analysis to analyze the data.

According to Sagor (2005), the specific areas of development that are relevant to identify regards the change in performance, based on the research question and the general and specific goals. When analyzing data, researchers find a connection of the goal with two aspects: Identifying changes occurred, and understanding the factors that contributed to these changes. That is why I also complemented it with Inductive analysis, taking into account that all the elements identified (patterns, categories and themes of analysis) emerge from the data, instead of imposing before data collection. (Quinn, 2002)

In Trend Analysis, there are three questions that must be answered to make an accurate analysis:

ACR Question 1: WHAT DID WE DO?

It consists on evidencing if what I have planned to do was effectively done, considering four aspects: If the theory of action was followed as written, what the fashion that the theory implemented was, elements of the theory omitted or changed and significant actions taken from the original theory. (Sagor, 2005: 113)

ACR Question 2: WHAT CHANGES OCCURRED REGARDING THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS?

It refers to the comparison and contrast of trends in and the influence received by external factors. It needs to be built within at least one or two paragraphs

ACR Question 3: WHAT WAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTIONS TAKEN AND ANY CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE ON THE TARGETS?

In this phase, I used the findings in order to answer the previous questions. Then, I go went and looked for changes (positive or negative) and saw if there were any particular actions or activities that corresponded to those changes. With these elements, identifying pattern or patterns that can explain these changes was necessary.

RESULTS - FINDINGS

Based on the data collected and my intuition as researcher about the actions taken, the results of my study is as follows:

Looking for reasons why students do not feel confident when speaking in the target language, I found a close relationship between students’ feelings (in the survey) and what they experienced in the recordings. One of the strongest reasons that they have expressed regards the awareness in pronunciation. It was evident when participating in the recordings: the self and the peer corrections pointed out to the concerns of pronouncing accurately. Likewise, in the final survey, they found that pronunciation was an aspect that they improved more. On the other hand, students demanded more interaction among themselves; in other words, they recognized the need of practice.

During the lessons, students took advantage of their peer feedback, that instead of laughing and feeling anxious because their peers’ laugh, they started helping each. In this way, students improved their interaction, as was expressed in the final survey.

Furthermore, fluency and intonation were other aspects that evidenced an improvement in their speaking confidence. At the beginning, they limited their participation to read (in the first recordings), but after establishing as strategy to divide their scripts in small chunks in such a way they repeat many times, they experimented several ways to say them. It is something that learners saw too, according to what they expressed in the final survey. They called it “La forma de hablar”, which means that they moved to a mechanic speech to a more spontaneous one.

Finally, participation in a radio show was recognized a appealing strategy to face on students’ needs expressed before the implementation (need of practice). Students found it as the perfect way to practice with their peers, expanding the vocabulary, not only in terms of the meaning, but also in terms of the pronunciation. They had the opportunity to work together and achieve the common goal (a successful radio show).

The research question “To what extent can cooperative learning-based activities—participating in an online radio show—foster speaking confidence in 8th graders from La Chucua School?” can be answered as follows:

Cooperative learning-based activities allowed students to identify not only the reasons that explain lack of speaking confidence, but also the needs that they require to increase it. The activities planned helped teams to change their attitudes and assist each other to achieve the immediate goal (to do a good radio show). Radio show was the appealing opportunity of practice that students demanded previous to the implementation. They were also able to work on their pronunciation concerns expressed at the beginning. Summarizing, awareness, practice opportunities and self and peer recognition are elements that permitted to foster confidence in speaking.

REFERENCES
 
Quinn, M. (2002). Conceptual Issues in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. U.K: SAGE, 55.

Sagor, R. (2005). Analyzing the data. The Action Research guidebook. U.K: SAGE, 109 - 128

MATRIX...RELOADED! IDENTIFYING THE SECOND CATEGORY

Designed by Lemos, C. (2010)

Dear all

I have found the way to include the other category. Having a careful look at it, I redesigned my matrix and I identified the other category:

CATEGORY 2 “PRONUNCIATION AWARENESS”: Referred to the acknowledgment that the participants give to this skill in order to feel more confident. In the pre-intervention stage, students recognized that their pronunciation is an impediment to feel confident because they need to work on; during the intervention, they saw that one of the aspects that cooperative learning enhanced regards the way that they listen each other to identify their mistakes in pronunciation and help them, and in the post intervention, they highlighted an improvement in terms of pronunciation and how it eased to achieve this confidence.

Now…. Time to write my analysis with these categories.

FOCUSSED ON THE CONTRUCTS.....PRACTICE AGAIN!

Designed by Lemos, C. (2010)

Dear all

Analyzing the collected data from the constructs, I found the same. Practice is evidenced in all of them. In second place, there is pronunciation awareness. So, I have my categories, but I need to rename and define them:

CATEGORY 1 “PRACTICE AWARENESS”: It is the recognition of the participants about the practice as a need, as an opportunity, and as a strategy in order to achieve the goal (feeling more confident when speaking). In all stages (pre-intervention, pedagogical intervention, post-intervention) practice was an issue to consider.

I am thinking about the other category... Pronunciation awareness, but as I see in the graphic that I designed it is not so strong, but I see it different, perhaps I change the graphic...

PRACTICE.... PRACTICE AGAIN...

Retrieved from http://www.stresswaived.com/anxiety.jpg

Dear all

Participants’ self and peer assessment was an opportunity to recognize again the need of practice and the pronunciation awareness. Analyzing the instruments (video recording, final survey) that were designed for the 4^th specific objective, the participants have expressed that by means of practicing they have the opportunity to control their ANXIETY (control nervousness, in their own words).

I have finished the analysis of data, focusing on each specific objective. I have seen that NEED OF PRACTICE and PRONUNCIATION AWARENESS are the core categories… I am thinking about the subcategories in order to strengthen and validate the answer for the research question.

THIRD OBJECTIVE: IS VOCABULARY A NEW CATEGORY?

Retrieved from http://inchindeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/vocabulary-abe.jpg

DEAR ALL

The instruments (initial and final survey) connected with the third objective (to identify advantages of participating in a radio show in the school to face on students’ needs) have brought another phenomenon that could become a category: VOCABULARY.

The participants have expressed a need of expanding vocabulary to improve their speaking confidence through the participation in a radio show. Similarly, one of the strong points that they have found as reason for being more confident now is an improvement in vocabulary. It was an implication of participating, because they used these new words. Consequently, PRACTICE appears again. Pronunciation appears too.

What happened with the instruments for the 4^th specific objective?

OTHER CATHEGORIES

Retrieved from http://th01.deviantart.com/fs15/300W/i/2007/022/4/0/Mouse_category_Season_01_by_denghao.jpg

Dear all

Regarding the instruments (final survey, teachers' journals) connected to the second specific objective (to involve cooperative learning in order to promote autonomy in terms of making decisions regarding students' productions), I have created other two categories of analysis:

1. LISTENING TO EACH OTHER: It was evident the contrast of the role of listening before and during the pedagogical intervention. The students recognized how useful was listening to each other in order to help their peers and determine what they need (in terms of improving PRONUNCIATION) in order to PRACTICE.

2. LEARNING TOGETHER: The fact of working together to achieve a common goal permitted participants to look for information (new vocabulary, how to pronounce new words) to acquire knowledge or to reinforce it. They insist on practicing, but they recognized that doing in the team eases more. Furthermore, taking advantage of the “personal talents” (technological, using the dictionary, etc.) allowed them to see each other with different eyes and consequently, to accept that they can learn from the others.

See you around.

CONFIRMING FIRST TWO CATEGORIES

Dear all

I have named (and confirmed) the first categories. What I did was to group the elements in common and give a name to this group.

The following are the categories that I have found from the data collected to achieve the first specific objective (To identify the reasons why students do not feel confident when speaking.)

1. PRONUNCIATION AWARENESS: This category refers to the recognition that the participants give to the pronunciation in order to feel more confident when speaking. The instruments applied (initial interview, video recordings) showed that pronunciation is the strongest reason why students feel anxiety when speaking in the target language. Likewise, students expressed in the final survey that one reason to feel more confident is because they had the opportunity to work on pronunciation.

2. NEED OF PRACTICE:  Different patterns evidence the need that students have to practice in order to achieve the confidence. In the survey, for example, the students recognized that they did not practice enough, but at the same time, that they do not practice because of their fears to be missunderstood due to their pronunciation problems.

I am reaching to the answer for my research question....

DEFINING CODING METHODS

Retrieved from http://www.exasense.com/uploads/coding.gif

Dear all

Having a detailed look at the data collected, I have found two methods for coding my data, based on Strauss and Corbin (1990):

1. OPEN CODING: Consisting on breaking down, revising, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing my data (Strauss, and Corbin, 1990: 61).

2. THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY TECHNIQUES: Especially designed to allow the clarification of assumptions made by the people who appear in the data. Two techniques that I used were the use of questioning and the analysis of a word, phrase, sentence.

Reference:

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative research. Grounded theory: procedures and techniques. London: SAGE publications, 95.

GOING BEYOND CODING

Dear all

Checking what I have already done, I realized that I am a little bit confused regarding concepts vs category. I am taking advantage of Corbin and Strauss (1990), but I am afraid that I need re-define what I have. I am not sure if what I have done is categorizing. If so, I need to determine which concepts (for Sagor, patterns) belong the othe categories mentioned in previous posts.

I think that it regards the fact that I only focused the preliminary findings on language, leaving cooperative work and radio.

This is a long process, consisting in checking many times the data collected. I am enjoying it, but time is running.

I hope to show more findings in next posts.

Consuelo

EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF MY RESEARCH

CRITERIA FOR GROUNDED THEORY STUDIES

(Base on Charmaz, 2009)

Research question: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN COOPERATIVE LEARNING-BASED ACTIVITIES—PARTICIPATING IN AN ONLINE RADIO SHOW—FOSTER SPEAKING CONFIDENCE IN 8TH GRADERS FROM LA CHUCUA SCHOOL?

INCOMPLETE CODING

Retrieved from: http://images.clipartof.com/small

After the tutorial session, I realized that I need to reconsider the categories, taking into account that I focused the categorization only on language. I need to think about my objectives and my research questions, and consequently, the constructs. For example, how the participation in radio helped my students to foster speaking confidence? How influenced the cooperative learning enhance it?

I have found that interaction, the aspect that I mentioned in the previous post can be included as a pattern of cooperative learning. So I need to revise again the data that I collected in order to improve my preliminary findings.

Thinking about my article....

Retrieved from http://a08.ngu.edu/library/images/writing.jpg

The first aspect that came to my mind in the moment to write an article regarded to the audience that I would like to reach. In this sense, I would like to write for my peers, the academic community. That is why I would like that my article was read from Profile Journal (Universidad Nacional de Colombia) and/or Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal (Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas), so I am going to look for information about their requirements to write a journal and the deadline of the call for submissions. Anyway, I will ask to my project director, Professor Liliana Cuesta in order to receive guidance in this issue.

Based on Peat (2002) and Radu and Thaler (2009), in addition to getting this information at hand, my plan is as follows:

Now, the steps that I am going to write the first draft is as follows, based on Peat (2002), and adapted to my interest (publishing at Profile Journal).

References

Peat, J. et al. (2002). Getting started. Scientific writing: Easy when you know how. London, GRB: Publishing group. 12 – 47

Radu, A. & Thaler, I (2009). How to write and Academic Paper: Some suggestions [pdf document] Retrieved March 23, 2010.

Naming Patterns

Dear all
I decided to group the patterns in the following categories:

Category 1: Pronunciation awareness
Category 2: Confidence Intonation
Category 3: Fluency (I decided not to change this name)

I have found another relevant element. I noticed that peer feedback is received more positively than teachers feedack. They used the native language to explain, but the model that they provided was in the target language. They worked a lot together before the recording. My role was in this case as a person to confirm if their pronunciation was correct.

Where can I include this pattern? Could it be another category?
I will wait until next Liliana's tutorial.

Analyzing data I: Looking for patterns

Retrieved from:

http://jorgehierro.files.wordpress.com/

I started with the stage in the project that I hope to enjoy. After dealing with some difficulties in the implemantation stage, I started transcribing the video recordings about students opinions about the activities. Additionally, I revised my notes about the recordings of the sections and I contrasted with the audio recordings again. Those are the aspects that I have found in common:

1. During the recordings, there is the tendency to be aware of the pronunciation. Evidence of this is that planning the section of the show and before recording it, students used to ask me how to say something. ("Teacher, how do yo say...?"). It is evidenced also, since 42% of the interviewed expressed an improvement in pronunciation as one of the reasons why they feel more confident when speaking.

2. Step by step, the participants upgraded their intonation, from one where students just repeat what they had planned to say in the recording without any expression to one more confident, where they no only say but also express (happiness, surprise...)

3. Fluency: After the first recording, I realized the need to divide the recording in short chunks. Students noticed that by trying many times (repeating, the next repetition with a more accurate intonation) they could be less anxious when they have to be recorder. They confirm it in the final survey:

"Teacher: ¿Y cómo creen que se logra? ¿Qué creen que se necesita? (talking about feeling less anxious when recording)

Student: Práctica"

This is what I have looked at as patterns by now.

IMPLEMENTATION STAGE IS FINISHED.... FINALLY!

Dear all

After dealing with some problems at school, I finally was able to finish the implementation stage of the action research.

I had to figure out some strategies to continue with the process.

Variables....

Retrieved May 1, 2010, from

http://www.mortgagebrokerrate.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/5-year-variable-rate-mortgage.jpg

This note corresponds to the week after the end of the implementation:

As I continued with the implementation process after solving my difficulties at school, I noticed that things have changed in the group: Some students have left it and a lot of new students have enroled. Consequently, the groups must be conformed again, and perhaps this circumstances could make changes in my research. Why? Basically, because some of the new students are reluctant to participate in the activties, I do not have the permisions to record them, but on the other hand, I did not know what to do with them, so I decided to integrate them in the different groups. Three groups stayed as they used to do at the beginning of the implementation, so I continued collecting data from them.

Some of the new students were enthusiastic participating in the activities, but unfortunately they did not be taken into account for the study. They did not start.

Another Issue: Cooperative learning. Since most of the groups were conformed again, some of their members, did not fit with the style of the others... I took so much time for them planning and recording...

Activities at school could be the enemy.... again.

Dear all

I have had some problems to continue with the project. First, the target group is participating in another project called "Hermes", and there are a lot of activities, and additionally to the fact that in the school some activities are not announced timely, I have had to postpone those that I had prepared for the ARP.

Well... the students have created scripts for other shows, but recordings are missing, and the software necessary for the recording has not been installed yet.

On the other hand, I got a deep migraine and the doctor have given me six days of sick leave. Consequently I have not gotten in touch with the school.

I am really worried. My plan B is the moodle platform that I designed for 8th graders. Anyway I need to talk to them.

Meanwhile, I am adjusting theoretical framework, according to the comments that I received from my project director, professor Liliana Cuesta. She has let me think a lot.

Constructs-- After the first tutorial session.

I thought that I have included in my journal, but I have not done. In my opinion, what I am going to say is important because this is something that commonly happen when conducting a research study.

After my first tutorial with professor Liliana Cuesta, I found that I had to reconsider some constructs. I did not have a clear idea about including Cooperative or Collaborative learning, or perhaps both. After reading Gillies (2007) and Barkley, Cross and Major (2005), I found more appropriate to include only cooperative learning because the participants made decisions on some aspects, but not all of them. In this study, I kept some "traditional roles" (if I can say that).

I also had to clarify which aspects of radio the participants worked, and be concrete in the terminology.