Lindsay+Final+Project+Summary

=__Introduction__= In this Action Research Project, I researched the impact of using the tool Voicethread on the quality and quantity of students' oral communication. My guiding question initially was: ====**// Will Voicethread encourage students to be more self-reflective of their oral language skills for the purpose of improving their oral production in French? How can Voicethread be used most effectively towards that goal? //**==== As the project progressed, I realized that I wasn't exactly sure what I meant by "self-reflective". Originally, I had thought it would mean that students would really think more about what they were hearing and saying. To be clearer, I realized that a more tangible and useful question would be: ====**// Does Voicethread encourage students to listen to each other more attentively, and respond to each other more thoroughly? If so, how can this tool be used to encourage that kind of improved communication in the general context of the classroom and school environments? //**====

=__Literature Review__= Our literature review confirmed that students in most French Immersion environments do not become very effective producers of useful, authentic spoken French. This is due to the fact that there is little usage of the language outside the classroom, and therefore the classroom is often the sole place where students hear the language. The students hear French almost exclusively from the teacher, and this creates a cycle of dependence of students on teacher. From this research, I thought it would be important to find ways of giving students as much control over their language exchanges as possible. =__Rationale for technology chosen__= I chose the tool Voicethread. A number of colleague anecdotes indicated that Voicethread is a powerful tool to encourage purposeful, accountable dialogue between students. From what I observed in student work examples, I was impressed with the way it mimics real conversation, while giving students the necessary time that they need to listen, think, and formulate their ideas before recording what they want to say. I feel that limited wait-time in whole-class conversations excludes many students who need more time to process their thoughts and ideas. Students working in a L2 environment often need to be able to hear each others' ideas numerous times in order to understand what is being said. With Voicethread, students can listen to each others' ideas as many times as they want before responding. They can also try a response as many times as they need before saving their work. As stated in the Literature Review, the research looking at French Immersion environments in primarily Anglophone communities suggests that students don't spend enough time trying to produce their ideas in French. Instead, they spend most of their time listening to the "expert" (the teacher), and easily become reliant on that "expert" to encourage, support, correct and produce the French they need. This reliance hinders their L2 language development, and can even lead to a kind of spoken French that is not very useful or authentic. =__Methodology__=
 * ===Site and subjects:===
 * 20 students in a grade 2/3 French Immersion class (12 grade 2 students and 8 grade 3 students)
 * 19 of the 20 students from an English L1 home environment (a few have one parent who speaks French)
 * one student's L1 is Chinese (English is L2, French is L3)
 * 70% of students meet or exceed grade-level expectation in language, math and other subjects.
 * 5-6 students are struggling (require additional support, time and resources to complete grade-level work)
 * ===Data Collection:===
 * The students' voicethreads were collected into my Educator's Voicethread account. I reviewed the voicethreads daily.
 * I looked for three indicators of improvement/success:
 * __**students make suggestions in order to improve the quality and correctness of the spoken French that is hear**____**d**__
 * **__students add to another's ideas in order to expand on, or take that idea further__**
 * **__the student whose oral production was the focus of the feedback then took the suggestions and made improvements to his/her original recording__**

=__Findings__=
 * ===**Considerations:**===
 * I did not create or administer a pre-test to use as my baseline data. Rather, I worked from the premise that I am very aware and conscious of the kinds of conversations that my students have or do not have in French, in my classroom. I have a high degree of confidence in that knowledge both at the class level, and at the individual level.As such, I felt that I could make anecdotal observations of improvements that were being made. Given more time to progress with this Action Research Project, I would consider doing more formal assessments at regular intervals.


 * I began with the following criteria as indicators for success:
 * 1) There is increased variability in the kinds of suggestions being made by students. For example, students might begin by saying: "You said 'hot'. The word 'hot' in French is 'chaud''. Later, they might choose to make suggestions for longer French expressions or structures. For example, students might say: "You said 'j'ai allee'. I think it's 'je suis allee.'
 * 2) There is increased variability in the way that suggestions are being made by students. They might start by saying "You said 'x'. In French, it's 'y'". Later, they might try "Perhaps you could try saying it this way......". Further still, they might increase the complexity by saying "I think I understand what you're trying to say. Try this and see if this sounds better next time....."
 * 3) The number of connections made to an original voicethread continue, and get deeper, over time. For example, a beginner might add a comment that connects to his/her own life. It might sound like "In your story, I liked hearing about you going to the beach. I went to the beach with my family last summer too." With coaching and instruction, a student might start with that same comment, but then also add something like "While we were at the beach, I was scared about all the creatures in the water. Did you ever get scared from something in the water?"
 * Given the time constraints, I had to focus on Criteria 1 and 2. I was unable to incorporate Criteria 3 into the evaluation.

=__Conclusion__= Overall, using V oicethread **//did//** encourage students to listen to each other more attentively, and respond to each other more thoroughly. Given enough time, I also believe that this tool would ultimately encourage improved communication in the general context of the classroom and school environments. =__Next Steps__= I intend on creating and using a Voicethread account in my grade 4/5 class next year. I suspect that, given the older age of the students, there will be even greater benefits to be incurred. The students will be more independent, and will likely learn to use the program more quickly on their own. I will still be required to peridicially revisit the student work, create and adjust success criteria, direct student conversations to suit paticular lesson goals, and ensure that I am engaging in authentic assessment. I am excited for next year!
 * ===**Findings:**===
 * 1) Criteria 1: There was a slight increase in the variability of the suggestions being made over time. Students listened to previous suggestions that had been made, and made an effort to ensure their suggestion was unique and would add something different to the conversation. The question remains whether or not this same variability could have been achieved using "traditional technology" such as large chart paper, markers and live voices. For example, the same information could have been recorded in writing on chart paper, and the students could continue to refer back to that record as they progressed. However, I do not believe that this would have really achieved the goal for two reasons: First, students would have to **//read//** the record each time they interacted with the project, which would negate the whole purpose of allowing students to listen to each other more frequently. Secondly, they would have to repeatedly ask the student to try to replicate exactly what they had said the first time around, which invalidates the whole function of the technology of choice.
 * 2) Criteria 2: There was a very slight increase in the variability in the way suggestions were being made. In order to ensure success of this criteria, however, I needed to engage in 2 or 3 whole-class lessons in which I encouraged them to brainstorm a variety of ways that they could make suggestions. I question whether there would have been any variability if I had not brought this to their attention. Even considering this input that was required, I still believe the technology provided something essential - the opportunity for students to revisit the original recording and benefit from the multiple listenings.

=__Appendix:__=
 * ==Chronology of actions:==

Thursday, May 10 - whole class instruction on how to use Voicethread. Students paired off in groups of 2 and tried to create their own voicethreads, using identities within my own account. The lesson was stopped about 15 minutes into the student action part, because each time students tried to do a task, the program prompted them for my password.

Thursday, May 17 - During the Adobe Connect class, I asked questions to class members to inquire whether anyone knew if multiple identities could be logged in at the same time. I found some information on-line that confirmed my suspicion.

Saturday, May 19 - I purchased an Educator account (one month trial) and created user names for my 20 students.

Wednesday, May 23 - Using the students' individual accounts, we tried again to use Voicethread. The stumbling block this time was the fact that after a Voicethread was created, I could not figure out how to share it with the rest of the class so that other users could make comments.

Thursday, May 24 - I figured out how to share a Voicethread with the class on a computer. I still didn't figured it out with an i-pad. I tried with 2 groups of 2 students to get the project really going, by creating voicethreads. I then shared their creations with the whole class so that comments could be made.

Thursday, May 31 - Students listenend to the voicethreads to date. With teacher direction, they brainstormed different language that could be used to make suggestions and recommendations. They also created a list of the specific language suggestions that had already been made (English to French translations; grammar corrections; re-ordering of phrases)

Week of June 4 - June 7 - Students worked on two computers in the library, a few at a time, with my support, to make their comments. We did not continue with the ipads. As a class, we revisited the Voicethreads a few times, celebrating the improvements that were made. I emphasized that almost all the suggestions were student-derived, not teacher-derived.

We created 4 voicethreads in total during the duration of this Action Research Project. These first two were successful, but they show limited variability in the kinds of suggestions made, and the way the suggestions were made. Le Jour de Victoria La Fête de Finn
 * ==Examples:==

These two voicethreads, created later in the project, demonstrate a somewhat greater variability in the kinds of suggestions made, and the way the suggestions were made. Les Arbres Sauter a la Corde