81

Chapter X
Post-Project Data: Where Are We Now?

Returning to Surveys: Comparing Pre- and Post-Project Responses

One of the projects main goals was for students to construct an understanding of community around
their classmates diverse strengths and capacity for support. To gauge the classs growth, we re-
administered the same survey (Appendix C) that students had taken at the beginning of the project. The
survey attempted to measure student attitudes towards six principles underlying this type of classroom
community from both a personal and general perspective. (For more information about the survey
design, please see Chapter V: Pre-Project Data: Setting a Course for Community.) Using the pre-project
survey results as a baseline, we were eager to see if students would respond differently.

To avoid confusion, we made sure to state our rationale for re-administering the survey. We had learned
a lot about ourselves and our community, we explained, and we were interested to know whether
students thinking had changed. As before, we stressed that there were no wrong answers; whatever
they thought was the right answer. Twenty-two students completed the post-project survey, one more
than had completed the pre-project survey. This student had originally declined to participate in the
study but then changed his mind halfway through the project.

In general, students seemed eager to share their ideas, quickly and quietly relocating from the carpet to
their individual work spots. In fact, my teaching partner and I were impressed by the students level of
focus. During the pre-project survey, we had given many reminders about completing the survey
independently. In hushed voices, some students had tried to compare papers, while others had
unthinkingly read aloud their responses. During the post-project survey, students exercised greater self-
control. Apart from a couple of redirections, students worked on their own surveys alone, patiently, and
silently. As I surveyed the room, I wondered if this improvement was connected with our work on the
skills for learning. Perhaps all of those games to help students listen, focus, and follow directions had
made a difference after all? Similarly, we hoped that these post-project survey data would show a
positive change in students attitudes towards their classroom community.

Principles

Mirroring my analysis of the pre-project survey, I grouped questions according to the six principles they
were designed to measure: inclusivity, participation, co-creation, cooperation, agency, and diversity.
While each principle was addressed by at least one personal question and one general question, some
principles applied to more than two questions. Searching for evidence of change, we compared the
students pre-and post-project responses relating to each principle.







82
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Post-Project Pre-Project
Positive 84% 77%
Negative 2% 13%
Not Sure 14% 2%
No Response 0% 8%
Figure 15: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responess to Questions on Agency
Table 12: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to Questions Grouped by Principle

The data suggests that students attitudes towards our classroom community improved. On average,
positive responses increased by 11 percentage points, while negative and uncertain responses both
decreased by 4 percentage points. The pre-project data highlighted a strong sense of agency among
students, and this principle remained positively rated. In other words, students continued to believe
that they could personally help their classmates. The shift in negative and uncertain responses to this
principle also reflects the trend of improvement in the new data set. On the post-project survey, there
were fewer negative responses and more uncertain response, as represented in the graph below. This
change, I suspect, indicates movement towards a more favorable attitude towards agency. As a result of
our actions, perhaps students who originally disagreed are now simply uncertain whether they could
help a classmate? If we continued to support students sense of agency, these students might eventually
respond positively on a follow-up survey.
Principle
(Number of Questions)
Survey Positive Negative Not Sure No Response
Inclusivity (8)
Pre-Project 67% 8% 21% 4%
Post-Project 77% 5% 18% 0%

Participation (4)
Pre-Project 62% 9% 23% 6%
Post-Project 72% 9% 19% 0%

Co-Creation (2)
Pre-Project 67% 7% 24% 2%
Post-Project 75% 2% 23% 0%

Cooperation (5)
Pre-Project 57% 11% 24% 8%
Post-Project 70% 13% 17% 0%

Agency (2)
Pre-Project 77% 13% 2% 8%
Post-Project 84% 2% 14% 0%

Diversity (6)
Pre-Project 53% 13% 33% 1%
Post-Project 80% 7% 13% 0%
83
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Post-Project Pre-Project
Positive 70% 57%
Negative 13% 11%
Not Sure 17% 24%
No Response 0% 8%
Figure 16: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to Questions on
Cooperation

In contrast with agency, students showed less support for the principle of the cooperation. Although the
percentage of positive responses jumped 13 points between surveys, this principle received the lowest
rating on the post-project survey. (There was even a slight increase in the percentage of negative
responses.) While students may believe in their ability to help one another, they may feel less sure
whether they can actually work together. Ultimately, it is not enough for students to feel like they can
help each other; to enact peer support, they need to develop trusting relationships and effective
communication skills. Moving forward, I wonder what more I can do to foster positive collaboration and
set students up for success.


I was encouraged to see a positive jump in students attitudes towards diversity. In this study, diversity
refers to students differing strengths and growth areas, as well as how these differences can underpin a
community based on peer support. The percentage of positive responses to questions addressing
diversity jumped from 53% on the pre-project survey to 80% on the post-project survey, an increase of
27 points! The vast majority of students now believe that they have personally unique strengths and
growth areas. Most students also hold the opinion that a classroom community with diverse strengths is
more helpful for learning than a class with the same strengths. Students responses, displayed below,
indicate that they acquired these intended understandings.










84
Table 13: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to Selected Questions Addressing Diversity

There was still relative uncertainty, however, regarding other classmates growth areas. On the pre-
project survey, 9 students agreed that everyone in the community had something they could get better
at, while 11 students expressed uncertainty. On the post-project survey, 13 students agreed while 9
remained unsure. Looking back, the class spent considerably less time discussing growth areas than
strengths and every student may not have publicly shared their growth area. Perhaps I could have been
more intentional in highlighting the growth areas of high-performing students (or teachers, for that
matter) to communicate that even these community members are working to improve. Looking
forward, I might dedicate more time to exploring and sharing students growth areas, while maintaining
the asset-based focus on strengths. In sum, students increasingly affirmative views on their strengths,
growth areas, and our diverse classroom community are a sign of success.

Personal vs. General Interpretations of Community

To gain a more nuanced understanding of students attitudes, I framed questions addressing the same
principles from both a personal and general perspective. The first 8 questions asked students about their
own learning, position, and interactions, while the following 9 questions focused on their classmates
and the community as a whole.







Questions Survey Positive Negative Not Sure No Response
1. I have strengths. There are some
things that I have learned to do really
well. (Strengths)
Pre-Project 12 1 8 0
Post-Project 20 1 1 0

2. I have areas for growth. There are
some things that I am still trying to
learn. (Growth Areas)
Pre-Project 12 4 5 0
Post-Project 17 2 2 1

7. When a class has students with
different strengths, its more helpful
for learning. (Diversity)
Pre-Project 8 2 11 0
Post-Project 19 2 1 0

10. In my class, every student has
something they can get can better at.
(Diversity/Inclusivity)
Pre-Project 9 0 11 1
Post-Project 13 0 9 0
85
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Personal
General
Personal
General
P
o
s
t
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
e
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Post-Project Pre-Project
Personal General Personal General
Positive 75% 81% 69% 58%
Negative 5% 5% 7% 12%
Not Sure 19% 14% 21% 27%
No Response 1% 0% 3% 3%
Figure 17: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to
Personal and General Sets of Questions


In the pre-project survey, students responded more positively to questions regarding their own personal
experience than the community in general. On the post-project survey, this dynamic flipped. Positive
responses to general questions jumped a staggering 23%, compared with a 6% increase to personal
questions. In other words, while students continued to feel positively about their own personal
learning, position, and interactions, they now had an even more positive outlook on their community
overall.

On reflection, this finding seems contradictory. How could students feel more positively about our
community than their experience within it? Do our personal experiences not shape our sense of the
larger whole? Consider questions 5 and 12, which address the principles of participation and
cooperation, first from a personal perspective and then from a general perspective. On question 12,
most students agreed that classmates help each other. On question 5, however, students expressed
greater uncertainty about whether classmates would help them personally.

Table 14: Post-Project Survey Responses to Questions 5 and 12

Question Type Agree Disagree Not Sure
No
Response
5. If I ask someone for help, that person will
help me. (Participation/Cooperation)
Personal 14 1 7 0
12. In my class, everyone helps each other.
(Participation/ Cooperation/Inclusivity)
General 19 0 3 0

There are several possible explanations for this outcome. My main hypothesis is that students
responses to question 5 were shaped by personal experience, while responses to question 12 were
shaped by ideals. On the first question, students may have remembered or envisioned a time when a
86
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
P
o
s
t
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
e
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Post-Project Pre-Project
Girls Boys Girls Boys
Positive 80% 70% 82% 56%
Negative 0% 11% 4% 11%
Not Sure 19% 19% 12% 29%
No Response 1% 0% 2% 4%
Figure 18: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to Personal Questions,
Separated by Gender
classmate would not help them. As they expanded their thinking, however, students may have lost sight
of their own experience and communicated their vision of a more cooperative classroom.

Another possibility is that students general interpretation of the class was shaped by the principles we
stressed as teachers and less by their own evaluation. Perhaps students were simply latching on to our
language in an attempt to select the right answer? A more positive reading of these results might
distinguish between willingness and ability. Responding to question 5, students may have imagined
themselves reaching out to people who, despite their best efforts, might not have been able to help
with a particular task. Taking the class as a whole on question 12, students may have adopted a broader
definition of helping. They may have thought less about their individual needs and more about the
classs team mentality. While we do not know the exact reasons for these results, we can be
encouraged once again by students increasingly positive attitudes towards their classroom
community.

Gender

An unexpected outcome from the pre-project survey data was the difference in boys and girls
responses, particularly in regard to their personal learning, position, and interactions within the
community. On the pre-project survey, the girls responses to the personal set of questions were 82%
positive while the boys responses were only 56% positive. As a result, we resolved to closely follow the
boys progress, as they explored their strengths and growth areas and engaged in peer support
interactions. In the post-project survey, the boys positive responses to these personal questions
increased by 14 percentage points while the girls rate remained the same, resulting in a smaller gap
between the genders.

Analyzing the pre-project survey data, we speculated about the boys higher percentage of Not Sure
responses. If they were able to exercise all of the skills necessary to complete this survey, then their
87
responses probably reflected genuine doubts about themselves and their relationships in our classroom
community. Given that some boys struggled to follow directions, however, we also considered the
possibility that these not sure responses communicated their uncertainty about the process and
content of the survey itself; in other words, they werent sure what they were supposed to do! This
hypothesis was supported by the higher percentage of students who offered No Response on the pre-
project survey, i.e. students who selected more than one choice or none at all. These students clearly
did not understand how to complete the survey; perhaps others communicated their difficulty by
selecting the not sure answer choice? On the post-project survey, however, no girls or boys offered
not sure responses; it seemed that everyone had gotten the hang of taking surveys. Consequently, we
felt more comfortable interpreting students responses as a genuine representation of their thinking.

Reflecting on the post-project data, we were pleased to see that the boys opinions about their own
learning, position, and interactions within the community had improved. Digging into the data, we
discovered a substantial change in boys attitudes towards their personal strengths and growth areas. In
contrast with their pre-project responses, most boys now believe that they have specific personal
strengths and growth areas. We attribute this growth to teacher-led learning activities on these
topics, though we cannot prove this assertion outright.

Table 15: Boys Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to Questions 1 and 2

Question 1. I have strengths.
There are some things that I have learned to do really well.
Survey
Positive Negative Not Sure No Response
Pre-Project
5 0 5 0
Post-Project
9 1 1 0
Question 2. I have areas for growth.
There are some things that I am still trying to learn.
Survey
Positive Negative Not Sure No Response
Pre-Project
4 3 3 0
Post-Project
8 2 1 0

While the girls percentage of positive responses was still higher that the boys, I was perplexed by the
girls limited growth in this area. Although the changes were too slight to be considered statistically
significant, the girls percentage of positive responses dropped while the rate of not sure responses
increased. Looking at the big picture, however, we can say that girls remained positive about their
learning, position, and interactions within our classroom community. In fact, we can celebrate that, over
the course of these eight personal questions, the girls offered not one negative response! Still, we
wonder what we might have done to help girls to feel even more positively about their personal
experience within our community. Zooming in on particular question offers further insight.







88
Table 16: Girls Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to Question 5

Question 5. If I ask someone for help, that person will help me.
(Participation/Inclusivity)
Survey Positive Negative Not Sure No Response
Pre-Project 10 0 1 0
Post-Project 6 0 5 0

A rare example of negative change, these results suggest that girls have growing doubts about their
relationships within our community. What happened here? Why did four girls change their minds? In
answering this question, these four girls may have considered various classmates and concluded they
were either unwilling or unable to help them. If so, I wonder who these classmates might be. To answer
these questions, I need to gather more information by chatting with these girls. If I can figure out the
reasons for their uncertainty, then I can adapt my approach in the aim of improving these girls
personal experience. Ultimately, I hope to strengthen student relationships so that everyone believes
their peers can and will help them.

Turning to students interpretations of the community in general, the girls pre-project survey responses
were also more positive than the boys. On these nine questions, the girls responses were 61% positive
while the boys responses were 54% positive. This less striking difference became even more so on the
post-project data. Mirroring the overall improvement in students attitudes towards the community, the
girls and boys percentage of positive responses increased to similar levels. On the post-project survey,
the boys positive responses actually jumped 3 percentage points ahead of the girls. These slighter
differences in boys and girls responses to general questions indicate that gender became a less
significant factor in students interpretations of the community as a whole. I wonder why the boys
attitude towards our community changed so dramatically. Had our activities and language around
community building made the difference? Did our explicit focus on peer support give them a greater,
more positive sense of our community?
89
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
P
o
s
t
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
e
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Post-Project Pre-Project
Girls Boys Girls Boys
Positive 79% 82% 61% 54%
Negative 4% 7% 9% 14%
Not Sure 17% 11% 28% 27%
No Response 0% 0% 2% 5%
Figure 19: Pre- and Post-Project Survey Responses to
General Questions, Separated by Gender

Room for Growth

While the overarching narrative of our survey data is one of positive change, some students continue to
feel negatively or uncertain about our classroom community. It is vital that we recognize their attitudes.
Combing through the post-project survey data, I found five students three girls and two boys who
registered at least five not sure responses. What, I wonder, is the cause of their uncertainty about our
classroom community? And how can we cultivate a community that everyone regards positively? As I
reflect on the experiences of these five students, who shall remain nameless, I see five very different
children. Consequently, one student may have felt unsure about our communitys degree of
cooperation, for instance, for a completely different reason than another student. As teachers, we must
seek to understand the differing minds of our students, and so I must try to understand more deeply
how these five individuals view our community. While I wish I had been able to identify these students
earlier, it was only through my analysis of the post-project survey data that they stood out. Student
attitudes are always shifting, after all, and the work of engaging all students in community building is
an ongoing challenge. As I continue working with these five students, I can pay special attention to
their experience in our community and provide personalized opportunities for positive interactions
with their classmates.

Post-Project Interviews

To participate fully in a community of helpers, students needed to develop a strong sense of their
strengths and growth areas. As they engaged in peer support interactions, they would also need working
understanding of strategies for learning, helping, and reaching out to their classmates. While the survey
data provided a class-wide snapshot of students attitudes, I hoped to gain deeper insights into students
individual experiences through one-to-one interviews.
90

I conducted two rounds of interviews, one before the project and one after, with five focus students. In
alignment with the projects learning goals, interview questions focused on students strengths, growth
areas, the learning process, and peer support. I organized my analysis in two ways. First, to evaluate
each students thinking, I coded each response according to its level of detail and complexity. (To help
the reader get a better sense of each child, I grouped them by specific social attributes.) Second, to see
larger trends in thinking, I drew out themes emerging from multiple responses. Finally, comparing
students responses on pre- and post-project interviews, I searched for evidence of change. (For more
information about how I selected the focus students, designed the interviews, and analyzed data, please
see Chapter X: Pre-Project Data: Setting a Course for Community.)


Thinking about Students through Detail and Complexity
































The Connectors: Stephan and Sabrina

Stephan (Pre-/Post-Project) Sabrina (Pre-/Post-Project)
- Detail Points: 9/14 - Detail Points: 10/13
- Complexity Points: 2/2 - Complexity Points: 1/3

Reflecting on the roles of Stephan and Sabrina in our classroom community, I concluded they both have
strong relationships with other students and the potential to positively influence class-wide dynamics.
Over the course of this project, I hoped these students active participation in our community would
promote ideas and practices around peer support. As we sat down for the post-project interview, I was
eager to see if their ideas about teaching and learning had developed, whether they count recount more
peer support interactions, and whether they had encouraged others to engage in peer support.

Based on their point tallies, Stephan and Sabrina gave slightly more detailed responses on the post-
project interview, with Sabrina also offering more complex responses. This trend of marginal
improvement was reflected in answers to specific questions. During the pre-project interview, Sabrina
said that she got better at reading simply by practicing and reading for fun. During the post-project
survey, she went into greater depth about her practice, explaining how she challenges herself with
difficult words, and named three specific reading strategies. Sabrinas responses also hinted at growth.
During the pre-project survey, he stated that he had helped others in the past, which had made him feel
good, but he couldnt remember who hed helped or how. During the post-project interview, he was
able to name two classmates hed supported, adding that he felt really needed to help others.

While these modest gains are to be celebrated, I was disappointed that neither Stephan nor Sabrina
described many instances of peer support within the classroom. Although Stephan could identify
students who hed helped with their basketball skills, he highlighted the support of his older brothers
friend, not a classmate, as he worked on his growth area. Sabrina did not offer details about the times
she had sometimes helped others in reading, and she could not remember a single time when others
had supported her with her growth area. If these students, the connectors, were not engaging regularly
in peer support interactions, I doubted the extent to which other students were participating in our
community of helpers.


91












































The Sharer: Emma

(Pre-/Post-Project)
Detail Points: 12/11
Complexity Points: 6/1

In my view, student U is as an enthusiastic sharer. During our pre-project interview, I was
impressed by her elaborate, thoughtful comments, which earned high scores for both detail and
complexity. Allaying my concerns about her spoken language, she eloquently described her
learning process, shared some strategies for helping others, and identified classmates who she
might reach out to for support. After this interview, I was confident that Emma would model
positive peer support interactions and communicate her success with others.

Compared with the pre-project interview, Emmas post-project responses were not as detailed
or complex. While I could clearly understand her thinking on the pre-project survey, her post-
project responses seemed fuzzier, in part due to her fragmented speech habits. During the pre-
project survey, for instance, she offered a simple timeline for how she developed her strength in
hula-hooping: When I first tried it, I had one when I was four, when I lived in another house. I
first tried it, and I didnt do it so well. Then, I tried it the second time, and I did well. During the
post-project interview, however, her explanation of how she improved at coloring is harder to
follow: First, I use the book, a coloring book. And it was about ponies, and there was a tracing,
where you could trace. And I used it. And I traced the hair, and I traced the tail. And then I did it
on the paper, something different. And I tried a rainbow, and I colored in all the spaces. I had a
blank paper I didnt just do a rainbow. I did a rainbow and a sky and stuff. Although Emmas
second response to this question is a little confusing, she does attempt to provide more details
about her learning. I observed this ambitiousness in several other post-project responses, some
of which include hypothetical scenarios with dialogue. In retrospect, I wonder if she had new
insights to share but simply could not find the language to express them.

Like our connectors, Stephan and Sabrina, Emma struggled to recall instances of peer support
within the classroom. When asked if her classmates had asked her for help in her strength,
coloring, she replied, No, theyre really good. (I myself beg to differ!) While Emma named a
couple of students who might be able to support her in her growth area, she also could not recall
a time when she had reached out to others, much like Sabrina. Although Emma may have a
sound understanding of her strengths, growth areas, and strategies for helping others, her
responses are further evidence that a culture of peer support has yet to take root in our
community.



92




















The Outliers: PJ and Gemma

PJ (Pre-/Post-Project Gemma (Pre-/Post-Project)
- Detail Points: 7/11 - Detail Points: 10/12
- Complexity Points: 0/0 - Complexity Points: 1/1

As we began the pre-project interviews, I identified PJ and Gemma as outlier in our classroom
community. Although PJ is by no means isolated, he is often reluctant to engage in conversation
and does not seem to have developed many close friendships. Gemma also struggles to connect
with her peers, though she relishes conversation. An imaginative child, she can get carried away by
her ideas, so much so that she loses the thread of conversation and awareness of her peers. During
the pre-project interviews, I struggled to connect with these students, and their responses
displayed a limited understanding of their strengths, growth areas, and possibilities for peer
support. By the end of the project, I hoped to see these students with a greater awareness of
themselves and more deeply integrated in our community of helpers.

Although the point tallies for detail and complexity do not indicate a dramatic transformation, PJ
and Gemmas post-project responses reflected growth in several key areas. In contrast with the
pre-project survey, Student articulated multiple learning strategies and asserted that he could
teach his strength to others. In particular, he highlighted how his dad had coached him in
basketball and could help him get better at football. In discussing her growth area, the ability to
jump rope fast, Gemma also mentioned that she could ask someone to help her. Moving beyond
the strategy of practice, PJ and Gemma both recognized the value of helpers during their post-
project interview. When I asked which classmates might be able to offer them support, I was met
with the same uncertain expressions that I had seen during the pre-project interview. With minimal
prompting, however, they soon arrived at the answer Id been hoping for: they could check the
strengths chart!

PJs and Gemmas responses suggest that they more deeply understand the learning process and
the value of peer support. Continuing a troubling trend, however, PJ and Gemma could not recall
any interactions where they had supported others or reached out for support. Like Emma, PJ
expressed that others could already perform his strength, implying that they did not need his help.
And although PJ could not have helped her classmates with the strength she chose to talk about
(swimming), she had not reached out to anyone on the playground for support with jump roping
fast. PJ and Gemmas growth suggest that they are better prepared to participate in a community
of helpers. Without opportunities to apply their new knowledge and practice peer support,
however, the may remain as outliers in our community.


93
Themes

During the pre-project interviews, I identified three major themes that emerged from students
responses. Discussing their strengths and growth areas, all students emphasized how practice had
helped them to improve. Rarely did students allude to other learning strategies. In regard to peer
support, students demonstrated room for growth in their understanding of how to help others. As
students considered their own needs, there was also room for growth in their awareness of potential
supporters. After leading lessons about learning strategies, helping strategies, and the peer support
system in our classroom, we hoped to see positive changes in these areas.

While most students re-emphasized the value of practice in the post-project interview, some indicated
different learning strategies, thought they didnt label them explicitly. Reflecting on their strengths, PJ
recounted how his dad helped him get better at basketball, while Sabrina identified various reading
strategies, which might be considered a mental resource. As they speculated about how to improve in
their growth areas, students highlighted the importance of a more knowledgeable other as well as
practice. While PJ again identified his Dad as his teacher, Students F and K implied that they might join
larger learning communities, such as a boxing class and a soccer team. Reflecting on these responses, I
wondered if these students were beginning to grasp the social nature of learning.























Comparing students pre- and post-project responses to these questions, students now describe their
strengths and growth areas in greater detail. While I did not expect this three-month project to
completely transform my students thinking, I am pleased to observe growth in a positive direction.

Figure 20: Post-Project Interview Responses to Question 7:
How do you think you might get better at (your growth area)?

Student F: Well, Im going in a boxing class this year and I might be doing it in the summer, so that
might be my way of doing boxing.
PJ: Practicing and playing with my dad. Catching the ball.
Sabrina: Learning more tricks because my sister used to be on a team. (And were those tricks, did
they help her because she was on the team?) Yeah. (Does your sister know how to do
tricks?) Yes. (What kind of tricks can she do?) Like, bouncing the ball on her knee. (So you
might practice tricks? Any other ways you might get better?) Going on a team practicing.
(How do you think being on a team would help you get better?) Because the coaches help
us learn how to do more tricks and stuff. (Hmm, sounds like it could be helpful to have some
coaches, people to help you get better.)
Gemma: I have a jump rope at home its a Hello Kitty one. (How do you think you might get better
at jump roping fast?) By getting someone to teach me. (Anything else?) No.
Emma: Like, if there was a word that was hard. Like, if you were in kindergarten, and you were
having trouble, you had a book that had exploration in it, it would be hard for them.
(Yeah, and how would they get better at reading that word?) They would try to find it out,
like, explor-ation.

94
Did students knowledge of helping strategies grow in a similar measure? When asked how they would
teach their strength to others, most pre-project responses were brief and vague. Returning to this
question during the post-project interview, students responded with much greater detail.































In contrast with the pre-project round of interviews, students described many more strategies for
helping. In fact, in one way or another, students referred to all four helping strategies that we had
explored as a class: ask questions, show how to do a little bit, use resources (materials and your smart
brain), and celebrate and use encouraging words. Through practice drills, Stephan and PJ implied that
they would show other students how to master particular skills, while Sabrina stated that she would
demonstrate reading difficult words. Responding to the same question, Emma modelled the strategy of
asking questions by imagining a dialogic exchange with a peer. Lastly, Gemma incorporated the strategy
of using resources, naming physical supports to scaffold the learning of her prospective swimming
students. As for our fourth helping strategy, celebrating and using encouraging words, no student
offered the later. Gemmas vision of an underwater dance party, however, is certainly a memorable way
to celebrate!
Figure 21: Post-Project Interview Responses to Question 3:
Can you teach (your strength) to others? If so, how do you teach it to others?

Stephan: Yes. (How do you do that?) By teaching them the basics. (What are the basics?) Mostly running
and shooting and shooting from close-up and possibly shooting from the backboard and making it
go in. (So a couple of different ways to shoot.)
PJ: Yes. (How can you help others get better at basketball?) By making them keep practicing and shooting
the ball and dribbling. (What might you tell them to help them get better?) Not sure.
Sabrina: Sometimes. (How can you sometimes teach it to others?) Because, like, my cousin, she likes
reading, like, really hard books, and sometimes I cant read those books. (Ah, so, sometimes its
hard for her to teach you. Is that what you mean?) No, like, when she wants me to read her a book,
and she likes hard books, with a lot of pictures though, she wants me to read it to her, but its too
hard for me. (Got it. So youre still trying to get better at reading. Can you teach reading to others?)
Yes. (How would you teach it to others?) Show them some words that they dont know that I know.
(And what would you say them?) Use skippy frog. Use the strategies.
Gemma: By getting my own class, in case someone doesnt want their swimming class anymore, I could
take it. (If you were to run swimming lessons, how would you teach other kids to swim?) First, I
would tell them to go on a chair. (What next?) Then, I would teach them to use a floatie, you know,
like those little rafts. And then Im going to teach them how to use a noodle. Then, Im going to
teach them how to breathe in water, and then Im going to teach them how to use a snorkel. And
dance underwater! Theres even going to be water dresses. Waterproof!
Emma: Yep. (How would you help others with coloring?) Like, lets say, if Gemma needed help coloring, and
it was hard to color, lets say, a rainbow. She would look on the strengths chart and see who is good
at coloring. Then, lets say the first one that she saw is me, and she wants me. And she said, I need
help with coloring. And then I say, What things do you need help with? And then she would say,
Drawing a rainbow. And then, its like a rainbow in the sky light, or a rainbow just colored dark.
(And then what would you say next to her?) I would say, What parts do you need help with? Lets
say, if she had problems tracing . . . (So you could help her get that part right.) Yeah.

95

With a greater knowledge of helping strategies, students were better prepared to support their peers.
Few instances of peer support would take place, however, unless kids actually reached out for help. Did
students know who might be able to help them in their growth areas? During the pre-project interviews,
two students identified the same classmate as a potential supporter, another threw out names
haphazardly, and the final two students could not name anyone. We looked for evidence of change by
re-asking students if any classmates had helped them with their growth area. Disappointingly, only
Stephan could recall a peer support interaction, and the person who helped him was not a member of
our class. When asked if they could think of anyone who might be able to help them, most students
were unsure. Although Emma immediately named two classmates, other students failed to think of
any potential supporters. With prompting, three students remembered that the strengths chart could
help them identify competent helpers. That said, this tool was not at the forefront of their minds,
which leads me to doubt whether students are using it regularly.

A Note About Diversity

During a lesson on diversity, my teaching partner and I had promoted the idea that a class with many
different strengths is more helpful than a class with the same strengths. At the end of this lesson, my
brief check for understanding had left me wanting to know more about students individual thinking. To
determine how students had interpreted and internalized this lesson, I added a question to the post-
project interview: Whats more helpful for learning to have a class with different strengths or a class
with the same strength? Since this question was not on the pre-project interview, I did not evaluate
responses for detail and complexity; adding points for this question would have misleadingly increased
their post-project tallies.

We found that four out of five students remembered the value of a class with diverse strengths, and
three out of four could offer detailed, complex responses to explain their thinking. In their responses,
Stephan, Sabrina, and Emma communicated the social nature of learning by highlighting how classmates
could teach one another. Stephan noted how people can learn different things by going to different
people while Sabrina and Emma gave examples of classmates teaching their strengths to others. Each
of these students further justified their thinking by stressing the disadvantages of a class with the same
strengths. If all the people in our class have a strength in reading, explained Sabrina, and they want
to learn basketball, then we cant ask anybody to teach us basketball because we all have the same
strengths. I was encouraged to discover the depth to which these three students had understood this
key value of our community. At the same time, I was left wondering exactly why our Students I and N,
the outliers among our focus students, had not fully grasped this principle regarding diversity.

In Summary

Similar to our class wide survey data, students interview responses reflect a modest but positive growth
in students attitudes towards their own learning and our community of helpers. Our efforts appear to
have substantially influenced some students, while others remain on the fringes of our community. The
evidence suggests that students deepened their understanding of their personal strengths, growth
areas, and peer support strategies. At the same time, it sheds doubt on whether students are putting
this new knowledge into practice.