1

Data Collection and Summary

Roseannn Blaszak

Grand Canyon University

TCH-539: Introduction to Educational Research

Dr. Mark Potts

November 17, 2021

 2

Data Collection and Summary

When educators see that there is an area of concern regarding their students learning or

learning environment, an action research is formulated, and data is collected to help improve the

situation. Data collection is a way of gathering, observing, measuring and analyzing information

to support theories (Singh, 2021). While there are different frameworks used in data collection,

educators depend on their own teaching methods and experiences to aid on the process. By using

their knowledge of education, they can mesh their way of data collection with the traditional

frameworks (Clark, S.J., Porath, S., Thiele, J., Jobe, J.). There are two categories in which data

can be classified: qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative Research Data

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing data that is focused more on

observations that aren’t necessarily measured rather than using numbers to gain knowledge of

concepts (Bhandari, 2021). There are certain methods used when collecting qualitative data.

Some of those methods are interview using open ended questions, focus groups, open ended

surveys, literature reviews, etc. (Streefkerk, R, 2021). All of these methods require the researcher

to formulate ideas and theories to explain the concept at hand.

Quantitative Research Data

Unlike qualitative research, quantitative research focuses on the collection and analysis of data

based on numbers to distinguish cause and effect relationships (Bhandari, 2021). As in

qualitative research, there are methods in quantitative research that are used, such as

experiments, numerical surveys, and observations (Bhandari, 2021). These methods allow the

researcher to analyze and utilize concrete data, in the form of numbers, in order to prove a

hypothesis.
 3

My Data Collection Process, Plan and Rationale

As a result of the virtual instruction, there has been a significant gap in the students’ writing

abilities. The objective of my action research is to evaluate if using level guide writing group

intervention will improve student performance and bridge the gap created by virtual learning.

The method I will use to perform the action research is experimental design. The reason this

method is being utilized is to see if a cause-and-effect relationship is developed between the use

of writing interventions and outcomes (Bevans, 2021). My data would fall under the category of

quantitative research category. First, to create a baseline students’ open ended responses related

to a novel being read in class will be analyzed. The data will be categorized into low

achievement (below 70%), middle achievement (71%-88%) and high achievement ( 89-100%).

Once the percentages are calculated, students will be divided into their leveled, guided writing

groups. They will then meet at least three times before the open-ended benchmark assessment

that is being used. The data from the benchmark will be collected, analyzed and a chart will be

created. Using this chart will show if any improvement has been made. Students will continue to

meet at least three times more before the next writing assessment. The data from that assessment

will be analyzed, inputted into a chart, and compared to the previous two sets- the baseline open

ended and the open-ended assessment. After analyzing all the data through the creation of

comparative charts, the theory that leveled, guided writing groups improve student writing, will

be conclusive.
 4

Annotated Bibliography

Argawati, N. O., & Suryani, L. (2020). Project-based learning in teaching writing: The

implementation and students’ opinion. English Review: Journal of English Education,

8(2), 219-226. doi: 10.25134/erjee.v8i2.2120.

This qualitative action research tested if Project-Based Learning can improve writing.

30 seniors in Indonesia participated in this study. Pre/posttests, observations and

interviews were utilized to gather data. As a pretest, students wrote a descriptive piece.

The average was 65%. The research included 2 cycles from February to April. In cycle

1, students chose a topic, formed groups of 5-6 and were given topic and supporting

sentences to examine. Collaboratively, a piece was created to form a “mini-magazine.”

A posttest was given, averaging 70%. In cycle 2, students chose a similar topic, wrote
 5

an individual piece, compiled all writing into a “mini-magazine.” The last posttest

averaged 74%. A limitation is that a student doesn’t fulfill the obligation of the mini

magazine. A gap within this study could be that students work better in groups because

there are more people to complete/check the work than if doing it individually. Based

on the data, this was a successful intervention.

Girmen, P., Özkanal, Ü., & Dayan, G. (2019). Digital storytelling in the language arts

classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research,  7(1), 55–65.

The focus of this qualitative action research was to determine if digital storytelling can

improve writing skills. This research was conducted in Eskisehir, Turkey and

comprised of 22 fourth graders, 10 male and 12 female, who attended a school in a low-

income area. Over a 10-week period, students were taught how to use the digital

storytelling software, focused on different writing skills such as using dialogue,

synthesizing informational text, developing advertisements, and creating narrative texts.

Two limitations in this research were the sample size and age of the participants. Only

22 fourth graders were involved in the process. The gap within this study is knowing if

this process is valid when used with larger groups which may be older or younger than

the participants mentioned. Although there were issues at the beginning, such as

punctuation and spelling, overall using digital storytelling to improve writing skills is a

viable differentiation strategy.

Pangestu, W.A., Adiwijaya, P.A., Purnami, N.M.A. (2021). Improving students’ writing skills

through the implementation of animated short movie in teaching narrative

text. Language and Education Journal Undiksha 4(2),

http://dx.doi.org/10.23887/leju.v4i2.37669
 6

The objective of this qualitative action research was to prove that using short, animated

movies would improve narrative writing skills. The participants were 27 tenth graders

from Indonesia. Preliminary writing and short, animated movies were used during 2

cycle process. Students were given verbal directions and wrote a narrative paragraph.

90% was the target score. The pre-test average grade was 53% with only 22% reaching

minimum score of 60%. In cycle 1, students watched an animated movie and were

given directions to write based on what they learned from the movie. This resulted in an

average score of 61% with 59% reaching targeted score. In cycle 2 the same procedure

was completed. 81% became the average score and 100% of participants reached the

minimum 60%, making the action research a success. Not understanding how to

produce a narrative story or being interested in the movie could be limitations.

Sulaiman Sulaiman. (2018). Improving students writing by using inside outside circle at IKIP

PGRI Pontianak. Research and Innovation in Language Learning,  1(1), 17–28.

https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.33603/rill.v1i1.1077

This action research focused on third year university students from Pontianak, utilizing

“Inside Outside” circles to improve writing skills. This research action consisted of

both qualitative and quantitative data. Students form two circles, one facing inward, one

outward. They brainstorm with their partners regarding the writing topic. Each partner

is given 3 minutes to discuss their ideas, circle rotates, and new partners are formed.

This activity was done in 2 cycles. The first cycle wasn’t successful. 27% of students

showed improvement. The average score of the writing was 60%. However, the second

cycle showed an increase in scores to 74%. Two limitations were not knowing how old

the participants were. how long it took to complete the cycles and time between cycles.
 7

Would this process be valid if a third cycle had been implemented? Overall, this

activity proved successful as a strategy to improve writing.

Winarto, A.E. (2018). Peer and self-editing strategies to improve students’ writing

skill. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 5(1), 49–71.

This qualitative action research’s objective was if peer and self-editing improved

writing skills. 64 students from East Java participated. Preliminary writing, test sheet,

peer and self-editing worksheet were used during this 4-step, 2 cycle intervention.

Students chose a topic and wrote an expository essay. It was completed, reviewed, and

80% was established as the mark of success. The pre-test averaged a grade of 72%. In

cycle 1, students were given feedback, revised work and gave to their peers to edit.

Work was returned, students self-edited and handed it back. Average showed

improvement to 78% but fell short. Teacher then identified problems, gave feedback,

and cycle 2 followed the same procedure. Results yielded average of 82%, making the

intervention a success. A gap is whether a student can independently achieve success.

Not knowing how to use the checklist, make suggestions or fix mistakes could all be

limitations of the study.

 8

Research Questions

1. How would changing the number of students and/or the age group of participants in all

the studies change the results of the research?

2. If students already had a prior knowledge of how to use the different interventions (such

as Inside Outside circle technique and digital storytelling) how would the results have

been different?

3. Now that students are accustomed to using the different intervention strategies as a

collaborative group, how will they be successful and make the transition from working

collaboratively to independently on benchmark assessments or open-ended essays?

 9

4. How much does student motivation play a part in “bridging the gap” in writing

deficiencies?