Effectiveness of the Use of Restorative Circles for Classroom Post-Activity De-briefing An Action Research Report compiled by LCCS on 23-May-2011

by: Ms Goh Chor Siang Ms Suriyana Rahmat Mr Justin Mui Ms Priscilla Lee

Abstract The objective of the action research was to ascertain the effectiveness of using Circles in 5 areas of learning: (1) Ability to speak up (2) Attentiveness (3) Equal chance of speaking up (4) Understanding of lesson and (5) Being listened to. The results showed significant positive difference before and after Circles format for ability to speak up, having equal chance to speak up and feeling listened to during de-brief.

Introduction Since the inception of Lutheran Community Care Services (LCCS), we have run many programmes, group work and workshops for children and youths in school. Currently, the three main programmes being conducted in Primary and Secondary schools are Time-Out Programme (TOP), Enhanced Step-Up (ESU) and Social Emotional Learning (SEL). The programmes comprise of weekly group work sessions with the youths, and other counselling components. Depending on the needs of the school, LCCS works with groups ranging from 10 to a class of 30 to 40 students. The format of group work typically consists of 1) briefing 2) activity 3) de-briefing and 4) journal writing. The current research aims to document the effectiveness of different ways in engaging students during our SEL classroom interventions, especially during the activity de-briefing where the main learning points for the lesson are delivered. Typically, LCCS trainers will brief the class on the objective of the session and explain the activities as part of experiential
1

learning. The activities are usually conducted out of the classroom. After the activities, they would return to their class to continue with the de-briefing of the session. Normally, the students would take a while to settle down in their seats and were easily distracted. During de-brief, some students would be more restless than others. A portion of students would be more responsive to the trainers questions while the rest remain silent. It was uncertain if the students were being engaged during de-brief. LCCS was introduced to Restorative Practices and the Circles process in 2007, and they were only incorporated more deliberately in the work with students in 2008. Since then, LCCS staff had begun to use Circles in group work and workshops. The use of Circles is believed to be an optimal method in engaging students more proactively in learning. However, there had been no deliberate research effort to find out the effectiveness of Circles in the quantitative and/or qualitative measures. Thus, the team decided to conduct action research to find out the effectiveness of Circles during our SEL de-briefing sessions.

Literature Review Teaching and learning involves different degrees of complexity. Students demonstrate different kinds of understanding of the lesson concepts and it is important to consider different skills and different levels of comprehension. Bloom and colleagues (1956) introduced a taxonomy of educational objectives that categorise teaching objectives from simple to complex or from factual to conceptual. The stages are: 1) Knowledge 2) Comprehension 3) Application 4) Analysis 5) Synthesis and 6) Evaluation. The primary importance of Blooms taxonomy is in its reminder that we want students to have many levels of skills. All too often, teachers focus on measurable knowledge and comprehension objectives and forget that students cannot be considered proficient in a skill until they can apply or synthesise those skills (Iran-Nejad & Steward, 2007). In Circles, the questions can
2

be manipulated to help students state their knowledge acquired and be challenged to synthesise solutions to identified problems. In a similar Circle format, students could also be led to evaluate their own progress based on their solutions generated. The employment of Circles for SEL de-briefing reflects the constructivist instructional approach to teaching and learning (Wilson, Readence, & Konopak, 2002). Results from a study on constructivism in teaching evidenced that opportunities for students to interact with their peers through activities help them to frame learning in the context of their own experiences (Chan & Elliot, 2004). It is further supported by Howard and colleagues (2000), who postulated that it is optimal for learners to construct knowledge for themselves. When students are allowed opportunity to personalise the learning to their own unique contexts, they are better able to draw application to meet their own needs. Circles are a more formal process within the Restorative Practice framework which has structure, purpose and focus. The advantages of using Restorative Circles include: Equality Everyone in the circle has equal seating Safety and trust Everyone can be seen in the circle so there is nothing to hide Responsibility Everyone has a role to play Facilitation Trainers are there to facilitate rather than lecture Ownership Collectively, students feel the circle is theirs Connection Everyone listens to everyones responses (Costello, Wachtel & Wachtel, 2010)

Circles were utilised to resolve problems such as, students being disrespectful to fellow students and teachers, fighting among students, students not following through with expectations and being unfocused during class (Welden, 2010). Some students who are really disengaged will rather sleep through class. Mirsky (2004) established that students are more engaged in the learning process because they are given an opportunity in Circles to speak every day, and through that they know each other better. According to Cook (2010), the children in St Edmunds Primary School loved Circles and have the following comments: I know my classmates better. I have a chance to speak. I know that we can sort problems out with Circles. Circles help me with my learning. From the above research findings, besides helping in students learning process, we learnt that Circles have been used in many areas such as building relationships among peers and problem solving. This action research was focused on how Circles can be used to facilitate learning during de-brief. The areas of effectiveness which this study focused on were: Table 1: Areas of Effectiveness in Classroom Effectiveness 1. Ability to speak up Description To encourage students to speak up and be proactive in constructing their own learning points. 2. Attentiveness To help them to stay focus during lesson and hopefully transfer this to other lessons. 3. Everyone having equal chance to To include and engage every student in the learning speak up 4. Able to understand the lesson process. To gauge if the students have understood the lesson. To find out if students benefited from their peers inputs.
4

5. Felt respected and listened to

To strengthen the relationship among the students in class.

Methodology The action research was conducted with a class of 34 secondary 2 Normal Technical students from a local secondary school, consisting of 9 girls and 25 boys. There were a total of six sessions of 1 hour group work which comprises of briefing, an activity, de-briefing and journal writing. In the first three sessions, formal classroom setting was used, and Restorative Circles was used for the next three sessions. In the traditional formal classroom setting, trainers stood in front of the class while students were seated in their respective seats in the formal classroom setting. Trainers debriefed the activity by asking reflective questions to the students for discussion. As students responded to the questions, pointers were written down on the board so that they have visual cues. In Circles format, trainers sat alongside students in a circle. Trainers de-briefed the activity by asking reflective questions to the students, which the students gave their answers one at a time sequentially. A small rubber ball was passed around. This acted as a talking piece whereby only the person holding the talking piece is allowed to talk, and the rest of the class are made to listen. Trainers also participated in answering each question and only spoke when they had the talking piece. During each session, an average of 3 questions was posed to the class. After three sessions of formal classroom setting, the quantitative questionnaire (Annex 1) was administered to all students. The questionnaire consisted of five questions, each on a scale of 1 (fully disagree) to 4 (fully agree). The next three sessions were conducted

with Circles format, and students completed the same questionnaire on the last session as well. A qualitative interview was also conducted on the last session (6th week). Nine students were selected and the composition of demographics was as follow: three girls 1 Chinese, 1 Malay and 1 Indian, and six boys 3 Chinese, 2 Malay and 1 Indian. All four trainers also completed the qualitative interview for self-reflection in the study. The qualitative interview consisted of the same questions as the quantitative questionnaire but comparison was made between formal classroom and Circles setting in an open-ended manner.

Results/Findings The data collected was analysed with PASW 18 using the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks analysis, as the samples were not normalized and a non-parametric T-test was more appropriate. The scores for 4 students were removed from the sample as they were absent during either of the quantitative interview. Table 2: Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Analysis of Before and After Circle De-brief Understand Attention Speak Up Equal Chance to Speak post3-pre3 post4-pre4 -3.120a -2.696a 0.002 0.007 Listen Not Afraid to Speak post6- pre6 -1.770a 0.077

Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

post1-pre1 -1.000a 0.317

post2-pre2 -.258b 0.796

post5-pre5 -2.837a 0.005

a. Based on negative ranks. b. Based on positive ranks. c. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

As shown on Table 2, there was no significant difference for before and after Circle format for understanding of lesson (Z = -1.00, p = 0.317) and attentiveness during de-brief (Z = -0.258, p = 0.796). There was a statistically significant positive difference before and after Circle format for speaking up during de-brief (Z = -3.12, p<.05). There was also statistical significant positive difference for having equal chance to speak up (Z = -2.696, p<.05), and being listened to during de-brief (Z = -2.837, p<.05). The difference in scores for not afraid to speak up was only statistically significant at p<.10 (Z = -1.77, p = 0.77). The significant Z scores obtained were based on negative ranks as documented in Table 2 and Annex 3. Hence, the differences for before and after Circle format were significantly positive, while the Z-score for Understanding of lesson was not significant and Attententiveness (Z = -0.258) is based on positive ranks. The qualitative interview questions being asked and all the responses from different individuals are documented in Annex 2. Of 9 students, 8 felt that they were more able to speak up in a Circle, because everyone is made to listen when it is someones turn to speak. For attentiveness, 8 students felt they were more attentive in a Circle, citing that the environment is more conducive. All of the 9 students felt that the use of talking piece helped to ensure everyone had equal chance to speak up in a Circle. On being able to understand the lesson, 2 students felt no difference between Circles and classroom debrief while 1 student felt it was easier to understand the lesson in the classroom because the use of whiteboard serves as visual aids. 8 students reported that they felt more respected in a Circle because the seating arrangement enables everyone to have eye contact with the speaker.

Discussion In this action research, we had used the natural groups design because of the ethical and practical constraints that prevent us from directly manipulating individual differences variables, like gender or introversion-extraversion. The results show that there was no significant difference for Understanding and Attentiveness. This may be due to the ceiling effect whereby the researcher cannot measure the effects of an independent variable or a possible interaction because performance has reached a maximum in any condition of the experiment. A majority of students scored themselves high (3 4) on Understanding and Attentiveness on the pre-test and hence reached the ceiling. On post-test, even if students felt they had achieved better Understanding and Attentiveness, they could not choose higher scores because the range is limited. The results for Understanding and Attentiveness were surprising because from past literature, these were areas of positive significant changes in students. One possible factor for this result was students perceived need to rate these scores higher than other scores, as students could have been primed to report that they understood the lesson and were paying attention to appear in a more favourable light to the assessors. The scores for Ability to speak up, Equal chance to speak, Not Afraid to Speak and Felt being listened to had positively significant differences for Circles format as compared to formal classroom setting. This result was similar to previous studies mentioned in the literature review. Students felt that they could participate in discussions and they were being listened to, the process of participating in de-briefing helps to improve their learning processes as students are able to construct their own learning points. The score for Not Afraid to Speak Up was only statistically significant at 90% confidence level. Some possible explanations for this result might be because these students
8

have known each other and were classmates for more than a year. Another possibility is that the question was phrased in a way that suggests negative emotion of being afraid rather than their comfort level of speaking in front of their classmates.

Recommendations Research done in natural group designs are often less controlled as grouping and selection of participants might be biased (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1997). Future studies can include bigger sample sizes for better representation, samples from different local schools, different settings and even different age groups. Also, it would be interesting to find out whether a longer period of exposure to Circles format would contribute to more defined positive changes. Improvements to the design of the questionnaire are necessary to help make questions clearer for students and better defining the effectiveness of learning for research. One way of doing so would be administering the questionnaire to a small group of students before the study was conducted, and gain some feedback to their understanding on the questions being asked. Also, it would be good to increase the scale range from 1 to 4, to 1 to 8 forced-choice scale, to offer respondents a wider range to choose from and minimise a ceiling effect. Individual Reflections 1. Chor Siang It is not the first time that I used circle in school. In the past, circles had been used for checking-in, problem-solving and debriefing. Normally, the students required the first 2-3 sessions to get used to the circle process. Once the students are warm-up, only then they will start to appreciate the circle process and be more participative.

When we planned to conduct this action research to just have three sessions of circle (due to time constraints), I actually felt sceptical about the outcome of the research. However, I had a few surprises from this action research. i. The students only took one session to warm-up. In session two and three, I noticed the students formed the circles in less than 2 minutes after the activity. ii. With the talking piece, each student has chance to speak up instead of the usual outspoken ones (say student A) dominating the discussion in class. I was very pleased to see student A allowing others to speak up although he visibly wanted to talk. iii. One very quiet student began to speak up in session two and three when in session one, the student struggled to contribute in the circle. From the survey, the student wrote I learnt how to cooperate, I learnt how to pay attention, I learnt how to speak well. Personally, I prefer using circle for debrief with the students as they settled down much faster in circle than in the classroom. I like the fact that each student has a say because I hear all their views, thoughts and opinions. 2. Justin Mui This action research project has helped me to learn the importance of ongoing reflection and documentation. Doing Circles with a class, as part of the Restorative Practice Training Ive been sent for by my agency, is a new process for me. Personally, I was sceptical in doing Circles because the traditional classroom debriefing is a process which Ive grown extremely familiar with. On hindsight, Im pleased that we decided to embark on doing Circles as our action research topic because the process of observation and collecting quantitative/qualitative data has convinced me to the benefit of doing Circles with the class. Two major learning points for me:
10

i.

The students and trainers (research team) are key stakeholders and given a voice to contribute and reflect as active participants ourselves on the process/intervention studied.

ii.

I wont know what really works until I make a deliberate intentional effort to reflect on the intervention and give the students themselves opportunity to reflect from their perspective as recipients/participants in the intervention.

3. Priscilla I really enjoyed my time with this class as they are generally a very caring class towards each other. I felt very happy when we did circles as we were met with little resistance from the students; all of them tried their best to participate, even those that were more shy. After every activity, our team met up and discussed how we can improve on our sessions and plan for the next one. This group reflection process has allowed us to share our ideas with each other and help us with our work. The students were also given journals to write at the end of every activity session. The journal writing serves as a reflection tool for them, and sometimes we are very surprised and elated of their ability to reflect on lessons. Through reflecting on the activities and reflecting on our own actions, I believed that we have better insight to our thought process and more awareness of how we impact ourselves and others. This applies to trainers, as well as our students. Just like how we hope reflection becoming a major part of our action research process, we also hope that writing journals and having more self-awareness will help students growth. 4. Suriyana I feel that the reflective process in this action research has helped me better understand my fellow team-mates. It has allowed me to discuss with my team-mates and reflect on what went well, what we can do better and constantly looking for ways to improve
11

our activities for the benefits of our students. The process has assisted me in assessing the needs of the students, analyzing the data that I have gathered from the students feedback, and making important decisions that can lead to achieve the goals that my team has set. I feel encouraged and truly enjoyed myself working with my team-mates and the students. Seeing the students clapped for each other when someone shared a good point, waited patiently for some quieter students to share and observed their smiley and happy faces during the circle, made me realized that circle has somehow or rather build connections and supportive environment for them.

12

References

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, O. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman. Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of epistemological beliefs and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817831. Cook, L. (2010). Beyond All Belief Restorative Practices at St Edmunds Primary School, Norfolk, UK. Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2010). Restorative Circles in schools. Canada: International Institute for Restorative Practices. Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 455-465. Iran-Nejad, A., & Stewart, W. (2007, April). Whats wrong with Blooms cognitive taxonomy of educational objectives? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Mirsky, L. (2004). Transforming School Culture: a SaferSaner Schools Updat. International Institute for Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., (1997). Research Methods in Psychology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Welden, L. M. (2010). Restorative Services: Bringing a Framework for Improved School Culture to Public Schools.

13

Wilson, E. K., Readence, J. E., & Konopak, B. C. (2002). Preservice and inservice secondary social studies teachers beliefs and instructional decisions about learning with text. Journal of Social Studies Research, 26, 12-22.

14

Annex 1

Name:

Date:

Class:

Action Research Questionnaire

Instruction: Please circle the answer that best describes you during debriefing. 1. I understand the lessons behind the game.

1
I did not understand at all

4
I understand completely

2. I am able to pay attention during debrief.

1
I cannot pay attention

4
I pay attention all the time

3. I speak up during debrief.

1
I did not speak up at all

4
I speak up all the time

4. Everyone has a chance to speak up during debrief.

1
No one speaks up

4
Everyone speaks up 15

5. Everyone listens to me when I speak up during debrief.

1
No one listens to me

4
Everyone listens to me

6. I am not afraid to speak up during debrief.

1
I am afraid

4
I am not afraid

7. Write down three things/values I have learnt from the past three lessons: a) _____________________________________________________________________ b) _____________________________________________________________________ c) _____________________________________________________________________

16

Annex 2
Ranks Table of Before and After Circle Debrief Format N post1 - pre1 Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total 2 4b 24c 30 7d 5e f 18 30 2g 15h i 13 30 2j 12k l 16 30 3m 15n o 12 30 3p q 13 r 14 30
a

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 3.00 6.00 3.75 15.00

a. post1 < pre1 b. post1 > pre1 c. post1 = pre1 d. post2 < pre2 e. post2 > pre2 f. post2 = pre2 g. post3 < pre3

post2 - pre2

6.00 7.20

42.00 36.00

post3 - pre3

8.00 9.13

16.00 137.00

post4 - pre4

6.00 7.75

12.00 93.00

post5 - pre5

9.00 9.60

27.00 144.00

h. post3 > pre3 i. post3 = pre3

post6 - pre6

11.83 7.73

35.50 100.50

j. post4 < pre4 k. post4 > pre4 l. post4 = pre4 m. post5 < pre5 n. post5 > pre5 o. post5 = pre5 p. post6 < pre6 q. post6 > pre6 r. post6 = pre6

17