Ashley Walser

EDAD 543

10/15/16

Assignment #3
Assignment #3
The Inquiry Cycle: Student Learning

I have engaged in the inquiry cycle process as a special

education teacher for the past five years. Throughout this process a
team of individuals including colleagues and administrators supported
me. My first year of engaging in the inquiry cycle process was not only
a learning year for me, but also everyone else in my district. This was
the first year my district implemented the inquiry cycle process with a
small group of volunteers and first year teachers. As an initial cohort
we worked together with the guidance of our administrators to find a
focus area and gather data.
As a cohort we were focused in on the same 5D Purpose
criterion, P4 Learning Targets. This focus area was decided on by our
curriculum director to be a focus for our district/school. Having the
same focus area allowed us to collaborate with a wide variety of other
professionals and it also allowed for our district to provide professional
development around learning targets to all staff. Within my focus I
developed a question to guide my theory of action. This statement
was, I am wondering how consistently communicating and posting the
learning targets paired with success criteria will impact student
learning. From this question I developed my theory of action that
guided my data collection. My theory of action was as follows:
If I increase my communication (verbal and posting of) learning targets
and success criteria throughout my lessons, then students will be able
to articulate:
What they are learning
Why they are learning it
How they will know if they are successful
If students can articulate these three points, then they will meet their
learning targets.

Knowing my theory of action assisted me in figuring out the data

that I would be gathering. As a special education teacher I lead a

Ashley Walser

EDAD 543

10/15/16
Assignment #3
variety of instructional groups throughout the day. For the purpose of
my cycle I decided to focus my inquiry cycle data collection on one
instructional group, 3rd grade math. This group consisted of three
students; Jim, Pam and Dwight. My initial data collection was a data
snap focused in on students ability to identify the lessons target.
Jims first response in identifying the lessons target was, New stuff.
This (points to paper). Pam and Dwight had similar responses. This
data confirmed that my students did not understand what their
learning target was.
From this point forward I planned out quantitative and qualitative
data that I would collect to show student growth and to reflect on my
own professional practices throughout my inquiry cycle. To check in on
students ability to articulate the learning target I collected qualitative
check-ins including recording student reflections, pre/post surveys, and
exit tickets. I then worked with my cohort to develop a skills checklist
of look-fors to quantify this data that was collected. We decided on
the following three points to quantify; (1) students ability to verbalize
the target (2) students ability to verbalize the success criteria (3)
student demonstrating the success criteria. Through quantifying this
data I found that all students made growth in verbalizing the target
and success criteria. The data looked like this:
3rd Grade Math Data
# of Students who
2/27/1
can
4
Verbalize Target
66%
Verbalize Success
Criteria
Demonstrate Success
Criteria

3/4/14
100%

3/12/1
4
100%

3/13/1
4
100%

33%

0%

66%

100%

100%

66%

100%

100%

Examining specific student

data I

found that Pam made

growth in

verbalizing the success

criteria

(how to hit the learning

target).

Dwight went from not

Ashley Walser

EDAD 543

10/15/16
Assignment #3
knowing the learning target or demonstrating the success criteria. Jim
grew in consistently verbalizing the success criteria/target and
demonstrating the success criteria.
Qualitative evidence of my growth included self-assessments
based on rubrics and data snaps. With my special education
background I wanted a consistent formal pre/post data collection tool
that involved interviewing students about my practices around sharing
the learning target. From this survey I found that Jim, Pam and Dwight
felt that the locus of control was with me. Jims responses are
displayed to the right. On Dwights survey he detailed the learning
target was shared by pointing at it. This data told me that I needed to
make instructional changes in order to share the learning target in
multiple forms, that gave students ownership of the learning target
and success criteria. After my instructional changes my post-survey
gave me qualitative information that showed me that students were
better understanding what the learning target was and how it a tool
that assists them in determining on their own if they reached the
lessons goal. When asked how learning targets help them, Jim wrote,
I know what we are learning, Pam wrote, Makes stuff easier to
understand and Dwight wrote, If I forget and I look up and see it (it
helps me). This data showed me that students were finding the
practice of articulating the learning target/success criteria helpful in
knowing about what they are learning. Also, that it is a tool that they
can use to be in the locus of control of determining if they have met
the days success criteria.
I felt that the data I collected was reliable because I used a
variety of data forms. It is best practice to have multiple data tools
and to have a mix of summative and formative data points. Data I used
included student interviews, surveys, exit slips, data snaps and
scripting from observations. If I used only one form of data I wouldnt

Ashley Walser

EDAD 543

10/15/16
Assignment #3
be sure that student growth was valid. The information I collected on
Jim, Pam and Dwight allowed me to make frequent instructional
changes based on student need. For example, identifying the success
criteria was a consistent area the Jim, Pam and Dwight were inaccurate
at on multiple data forms. As I continued to collect formative data
from my group I refined my practices around identifying the success
criteria (pictured below). I began to refine the amount of text I posted.
This assisted Pam in identifying the success criteria, but Jim and
Dwight continued to struggle. I then made a final change to put a
yellow brick road arrow connecting the success criteria to the
learning target. Collecting verbal feedback from Jim and Dwight
proved that this final change assisted Jim and Dwight to master
identifying the success criteria for their lesson.

Through the data I collected I found that by posting the learning target
at the beginning of each lesson in clear and concise language,
students were able to articulate what their learning target was for the
day. The data that drove my instructional decisions caused me to
change my instructional practices. Posting a learning target and using
explicit and concise language around the learning target has become
an anchor for all of my lessons.
The data that I was missing from this inquiry cycle was academic
progress monitoring data. Without this information I was unable to
assess the impact my teaching practice was having on student
academic learning. The following inquiry cycle I was involved in

Ashley Walser

EDAD 543

10/15/16
Assignment #3
involved having an academic student growth goal, along with a
problem of practice.