Ben Pendarvis conducted action research to improve student performance in his American History class. He found that previous projects showed declines in work quality and timeliness. To address this, he adapted his project-based learning methods, resources, assessments, and instructional strategies. This included developing a clear driving question, revising rubrics to provide clearer expectations, and incorporating research-based practices like questioning, annotation, and discussion. The results showed improved student confidence, pride in work, and deeper engagement and understanding. Going forward, Pendarvis plans to focus on rigorous documentation of goals and assessments to better develop students' historical skills and knowledge transfer.

1. Ben Pendarvis
Teacher, Tri-County Early College
English III, American History I, Dramatic Literature, and Senior Projects
June 18, 2015
Action Research Report, 2014-15
INQUIRY
My project based materials and instructions were not fully supporting my students’ abilities to
master the knowledge and skills our school consistently expects of them. Previous projects in
the course showed declines in work turned in on time, the quality of work turned in, and the
students’ abilities to demonstrate their knowledge through presentations of their learning.
I took into account both my personal and school’s goals for professional development, then used
instructional resources from my school’s supporting network to adapt my methods of engaging
students in my American History I class.
TERMS
North Carolina New Schools (NCNS, New Schools)
My school belongs to a network of similar schools supported by the North Carolina New
Schools.
Project-Based Learning (PBL)
Method of curriculum, instruction, and assessment used at Tri-County Early College. PBL is a
teaching method in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an extended period
of time to investigate and respond to a complex question, problem, or challenge. Projects at
TCEC typically include an entry event/document, driving questions, artifacts or milestones that
demonstrate progress in learning, and a presentation of learning through use of products and/or
presentations.
OVERVIEW
My school’s 2014-15 goals were defined by the attending staff members of the 2014 summer
conference hosted by NC New Schools. Two of the three goals relate to my research:
1. Increase engagement levels for students by improving classroom management and
increasing amount of time students spend in the classroom.
2. Improve practices of the Project Based Learning model.
Two of my personal Professional Development Plan (PDP) goals corresponded with the school’s
related goals:
1. To use new instructional strategies in core classes so that the students will improve
engagement and learning by the end of the 2014-15 school year as measured by the
quality of project products and the completion of scaffolding activities.

2. 2. To continue building a bank of sources and materials per project and class so that I can
deliver in-depth scaffolding and the students can improve their learning by the end of the
2014-15 school year as evidence within my project planning and materials.
Due to the interdependent nature of PBL and the common practices of teaching, I adapted each
aspect of the teacher’s role in my classroom to improve student performance. Students’ quality
of work, demonstrations of learning, and performances had declined over the second quarter of
the school year. This led me to form research questions to conduct an action research project in
the second semester.
Research Questions
1. How can I better scaffold my students' capabilities to clarify and transfer their
individual and collective knowledge to mastery products on time?
a. How can I hold my students more accountable through the project process?
b. What does research suggest as best practices for project planning, assessment,
and managing the process?
c. Can I identify & use high-quality resources as means for improving
curriculum, instruction, & assessment?
RESOURCES
The Buck Institute’s Project Based Learning Handbook informed my revised planning strategies,
while the Common Instructional Framework employed by all NC New Schools provided ideas
for improved methods and assessments.
PBL Handbook and the Buck Institute’s companion website espouses two graphic organizers to
help clarify the mission, vision, and practices of PBL. The PBL Design Rubric identifies the
necessary aspects of a successful project plan. I used this to improve certain aspects of my
project’s design. The scaffolding planning chart organized a way to anticipate students’ needs
in skills or content instruction to improve delivery.
NC New Schools employs the Common Instructional Framework to support its mission of
having students read, write, think, and talk every day in class. I implemented cooperative
learning strategies from their research, specifically using questioning, annotation, and
discussion strategies in a sequence of scaffolding artifacts, demonstrations, and self- and
peer-assessments.
I accordingly adapted my assessments of their learning to better communicate and facilitate the
history project’s goals, which were listed as thus:
1. Chronological Thinking assessed by rubrics for Timeline and History Events
Chart artifacts
2. Historical Research assessed by rubrics for student portfolios including individual
and group research notes, plans, etc.
3. Product Presentation assessed by rubric outlining expectations of individual and
group learning

3. Buck Institute and PBL Handbook Elements
Using the PBL Design Rubric, I identified features of my project design that could be improved.
 My project goals needed to be focused and clear, tied to targeted standards that were
fully articulated in accompanying assessments and aligned with the specific content
skills.
 I needed a more aligned and effective driving question to anchor the scope of the
project from beginning to end; the groups’ attempts to answer it requires a synthesis
and analysis of their learning throughout the project.
 The students hadn’t displayed the appropriate amount of inquiry sustained over the
course of the project, which informed the amount of voice and choice they had in
project work through self and peer critique and revision.
 Their product presentations didn’t clearly describe the skills needed for success,
including both content and behavioral skills.
This reflection led to the conclusion that my scaffolding strategies and related assessments
weren’t being used effectively. I used a scaffolding planning chart to help sequence and
develop the learning students needed to address the driving question and fully demonstrate
higher-level learning and skills. The chart addressed a specific goal and broke down the skills
and knowledge students needed, while evaluating whether each task was one the students already
knew how to do or one they needed to know and therefore, needed to be taught or facilitated
appropriately.
In this way and through solicited feedback from the students, I developed the following goals to
improve and manage the students’ learning in the project process:
I. Improve the use and development of the driving questions.
II. Improve the articulation of project goals through higher-quality assessments more
clearly describing learning outcomes and processes.
III. Improve the retention of student learning through the use of student voice and choice
in shaping inquiry over the course of the project, by providing more opportunities for
critique, revision, and reflections on work progress, and employing research-based
best practices as protocols for scaffolding student engagement and learning.
ACTION STEPS
I completed one project with the students before implementing a set of changes to consider as
controlling factors for the action research project. In the second-semester introductory project I
attempted to cooperatively define and clarify the steps and processes we were taking in class to
arrive at a quality product presentation and solicited feedback from the students on the best ways
to approach the work and ensure quality learning was taking place.
I made the following changes in relation to my research goals in a project entitled Politics of
Reform. We studied the antebellum era of US history, focusing on reform movements and the
factors that helped a popular movement achieve success or failure.

4. I. I developed a driving question that framed the entire project, was open-ended and could
allow for more than one answer, was understandable and interesting to the students, and
provided the “need to know” for all activities and work done in the project.
a. Previously, I was not consistent with using the driving question to drive the
project. I introduced it at the beginning of the project and may have referenced it
a few random times, rarely at the culminating presentations. The research
stressed the importance of referencing the driving question throughout the project,
using it to spark the initial inquiry as well as culminate the project with a product
or presentation that helped answer it by direct references. So the driving question
covered a general topic of social reform and the multiple human interests involved
as well as provided a need for specific evidence that described any movement’s
performances and/or results: Describe common methods, motivations, and
beliefs behind social reform movements currently & in the past. What factors
can lead to a movement’s success or failure to effect change in individuals &/or
society?
b. We used the driving and student-selected essential questions as prompts
throughout project activities. It was introduced after culminating the entry event,
where we studied political cartoons to uncover attitudes about current and
historical topics/issues. I then allowed students voice and choice by
collaboratively choosing and adapting high-level historical research questions
(deemed “Essential Questions” in project materials) on our historical time
period’s cultural reform movements. The final product presentations required the
students to present their evidence and arguments on the questions related to their
chosen reform movement and its impact on society.
II. I revised the students’ assessments for more rigor and clarity in describing expected
outcomes for students, to engage and sustain students’ interests and inquiry on the topic,
and to create more opportunities for critique and revision. Previously, I had one project
rubric that described expectations for quality work in each and every artifact in the
project, including the presentation.
a. I articulated a set of goals and questions for each artifact, while developing a
separate rubric, with more detail, on each artifact. We used these three factors
(goals, questions, rubric descriptors) to initiate the inquiry and research, to self-
assess our progress in meeting those goals by answering our original questions
and any new ones, and allow time to revise work based on self-assessments. I
then assessed each group artifact with the new rubrics and gave immediate
feedback on their progress in demonstrating quality work and/or learning until
they proved mastery.
b. The project assessments followed the project map. An entry event engaged
inquiry on the general topic, the first artifact was a timeline of events, documents,
and people involved with a specific reform movement in US history, the second
artifact was a history events chart that described in detail a major factor in the
movement’s timeline, and the product presentation synthesized evidence to build
an argument for the driving questions.
i. The entry event culminated in a political cartoon created by groups to
represent attitudes and perspectives on a current topic or issue. This

5. artifact was assessed by a rubric with criteria for its technique and accurate
understanding of the topic/issue.
ii. After choosing and adapting similar but specific high-level research
questions, student groups worked on creating a timeline that displayed a
narrative structure on the movement. The new rubric assessed their ability
to evidence this narrative structure through the development of their
timeline and research notes.
iii. The history events chart called for a specific method of articulating the
key information behind each major factor on the timeline to allow students
to go more in-depth with their research. A new rubric assessed their
ability to synthesize answers to a sequence of questions that demonstrated
a higher depth of knowledge on the movement and driving questions.
iv. I adapted my previous product presentation rubric to include both the
content knowledge and presentation skills needed to successfully present
their arguments, while directly referencing the students’ abilities to answer
the driving questions with strong historical evidence and analysis.
III. In the descriptions for changes made to accommodate Goals I and II, there is evidence of
meeting the initial factors of Goal III, namely sustained inquiry and opportunities for
critique, revision, and reflection. The final factor of Goal III, employing research-based
best practices to scaffold student learning, led me to revise my instructional strategies as
well. These instructional strategies included the following:
a. Questioning
Direct and relevant questions corresponded to each major project activity and
artifact to drive students’ engagement with resources and content. Students had
multiple opportunities in each part of the project to independently research
questions, identify significant research sources, collaboratively identify new
questions and synthesize information as a group based on assessments and
reflections, and build evidence with new knowledge to answer high-level
questions they helped develop. Moreover, students were able to ask and answer
formative questions of themselves, their group members, and the teacher
throughout each step.
b. Annotation
An annotation strategy was specifically used to allow students to see patterns in
the multiple reform movements and research strategies being employed by student
groups. The strategy asked the students to describe a full answer with current
knowledge on a particular question covering project work, then swap answers
with others to review understanding and annotate new questions for each other.
Annotations also occurred at regular intervals as students synthesized work in
other project activities. Both the student group and the teacher would annotate
comments in reviewing their work.
c. Discussion
Discussions framed each set of questioning and annotations associated with the
project scaffolding activities. Discussions allowed students to show mastery
understanding of a particular concept or skill as well as point out gaps in other
students’ or group’s knowledge for more research and revision. More
importantly, at regular intervals, discussions allowed the students and teacher to

6. manipulate the evolving evidence and knowledge acquired through sustained
research with the original driving questions. Students were being given more
responsibility in the discussions as their participation addressed specific questions
and project goals within structured protocols. I used a particular discussion
protocol called “tuning protocol” near the end of the project when students were
developing their product presentation of evidence. I wanted students to compare
knowledge and offer new critiques and inquiry in a mock presentation format as
they readied for their final presentations of learning.
RESULTS
This project ended in a much improved atmosphere of confidence, pride, and understanding. I
answered the target research question and met the goal of improvements I sought, which was
improving the students’ capabilities of exhibiting mastery learning on time, or at the product
presentations. In this measure, more students also completed quality scaffolding assignments on
time, engaged in their performances of learning and their product presentations with deeper
knowledge, broader connections, and more alignment to the expected outcomes, and dealt with
group conflicts in successful ways without damaging relationships or work quality. Students
then were able to show deeper engagement, reflection, and research evidence in their individual
portfolios.
I also credit this project with improving the students’ morale in following projects by improving
their sense of confidence and pride in meeting my expectations for the course. A pervasive
mood of uncertainty that led to low-quality work gave way to focused conversations on quality
that led to more quality. This, in turn, improved my relationships with them on personal and
school levels, led to more creative work output and ideas in other projects, and helped develop a
keener awareness on how to do quality research, create quality products, and exhibit deeper
understanding and interest in their project work.
I used three types of assessment data to evaluate these results, which includes my project rubrics
at various project milestones. The three milestones provided checkpoints for learning on or
before the due date, then any given rubric includes revisions of IP or MA assessments according
to new data or performances along with the new date of proof. I combed through three types of
assessments- those criteria or rubrics used to assess scaffolding work, the product presentation
rubrics, and the students’ portfolio rubrics- on the projects leading up to and including the action
research project, Politics of Reform. This evaluation of data led me to discern the amount of
quality work being done on time versus that of multiple revisions or IP work that never
graduated to mastery. In PBL, a great amount of qualitative data can be discerned as well and
comes in the forms of student-teacher and student-student conversations around the work, as well
as engagement outside of class.
As context, I typically assess scaffolding artifacts and/or performances, group products, and
individual portfolios with rubrics in my American History I projects. Our school organizes
assessments of learning into three categories: mastery (MA), high mastery (HM), and in progress
(IP). I give formative feedback on the rubrics when the assignment is turned in or at the moment
in class the student or group demonstrates the assignment learning goals. I follow up with IP

7. students/groups to clarify what I saw and what I’m looking for until they revise their learning to
mastery-level.
Although the results indicated higher quality work and performances, I did not have any fewer
instances of missing work. Many of my class’ same low-achieving/performing students did not
change their performance assessments in the gradebook. They merely didn’t follow through in
documenting or showing their final works to me for evaluation, although most of them showed
growth in the evidence of their daily engagement, research notes, and understanding as well.
REFLECTION
As a result of this project, my planning, instructional methods, and assessments became more
defined and practical in developing students’ knowledge for a quality product. Both the students
and the teacher were able to have progressive conversations about the quality of their work, both
the profession’s and my expectations for quality work, and the depth of historical knowledge
being demonstrated.
Going into the next school year, I can carry over what I’ve learned to the current project
curriculum and ensure that the following take place to maximize the students’ application and
transfer of knowledge:
1. More rigorous documentation of learning goals and assessments, including more direct
connections to historical content and research as a way to collaboratively practice the
historian’s learning processes
2. Subsequent collaborative practices daily in the classroom in the processes of forming and
answering high-level questions, solving, evaluating, and/or recreating issues, debating
topics, etc.
3. More direct and continuous assessment of work quality in relation to knowledge,
including the assessment of 21st
century and historical skills
I would recommend action research to any new or developing teacher. Not only have I learned a
great deal about my students and myself in the process of learning, but I have a greater
understanding for the relationships between teaching and learning while meeting personal and
school goals in the process. Action research forces the educator to evaluate the factors of
teaching, analyze the tangible and intangible results of student learning, and reflect on specific
ways to improve those results. Coincidentally, this is what all teachers are expected to do,
especially considering the emphasis on gathering and analyzing data. The more educators use
and talk about data in relation to their pedagogy, the more chances I see for improving our
individual and collective professional practices.

8. ADDENDA
Planning Resources
below
 PBL Design Rubric (Buck Institute for
Education)
 Scaffolding Planning Chart Template
Project Materials
Shared in Google Drive folder
 Politics of Reform Master Document
 Politics of Reform Resources & Links
Document
 Politics of Reform Portfolio Rubric
 Politics of Reform Product Presentation
Rubric
Scaffolding Planning Chart Template
Student Tasks Learned Need to
Learn
Teacher Steps
Analyze political
cartoons techniques
X
 Share Herblock resources
 Discussion Questions
Analyze political
cartoons content
X
Same as above
Identify foundational
US documents
X
Provide links, resources to docs
Analyze foundational
US documents
X
Discussion Q’s
Identify current
political issues and
perspectives
X
 Form student groups
 Discussion Q’s
 Criteria for background research
Create political
cartoon to represent
political issues and
perspectives
X
 Gather drawing, visual materials
 Discuss political cartoon rubric

9. PBL Design Rubric