Phase 1: Findings
At the end of phase 1 I started to noticed some overall trends and tendencies with the students development on solving problems on their own.
Finding #1:Students can recognize times when an I-Message should be used and articulate an appropriate I-Message for the conflict
In my very first conflict resolution with my students, I presented them with several social conflict scenarios that could be solved by using an I-Message including someone cutting in line, someone stealing your pencil, someone sitting in your spot on the rug, someone pushing you, someone calling you a name, someone laughing at you, etc. In subsequent conflict resolution lessons, I presented them with these conflicts or conflicts very similar to them. I presented them by having the puppets get into these conflicts or I read stories to the students with these kinds of conflicts. In each of these lessons, after the conflict occurred, I would ask the students how they thought the puppets or the characters should solve it. In unison my students would all say, "I-Message". Then I would ask my students if they could give me an example of an I-Message the puppet or character could say to solve their problem. Immediately, several students hands would go up. Every student I called on to share a response would articulate an appropriate I-Message for the puppet or character to use. For example, during week one, I read my students "The Ugly Duckling" for a conflict resolution lesson and stopped at the conflict to discuss how the duckling character should solve it. Immediately all of my students yelled, "an I-Message" and multiple students gave me examples of appropriate I-Messages the Duckling could use. One student suggested the Duckling say, "I feel sad when you call me ugly. I would like it if you stop". Another student suggested the Duckling say, "I feel sad when you call me names and laugh at me. I would like it if you stop." I noticed the same thing happen again week 2 when I presented the puppets having conflicts in the puppet show, week 3 when I read them a book when I presented them a conflict in a puppet show and in the story, "Franklin and Harriet", and in week 4 when I presented them a conflict in the puppet show. During these lessons, not one student suggested the puppet or character solve the problem in another way beside the I-Message. Also each of the I-Messages my students suggested the character or puppet use was articulated with the I-Message structure I taught them and was appropriate for the conflict the puppet or character had experienced. This told me that my students could successfully recognize appropriate times to use an I-Message and could articulate an I-Message that was relevant to the conflict and in the proper structure "I feel_____ when you_____. I would like it if you_______." The interesting part is that although my students would suggest I-Messages to use to solve other peoples conflicts, my students were not always using the I-Message to solve their own problems.
Finding #2: Many students were still reporting conflicts to me before trying to solve it on their own with an I-Message
Although several students were solving their problems on their own with I-Messages, students were not always choosing this strategy to solve their conflicts in phase 1. I noticed that a significant amount of students were still reporting conflicts to me and my master teacher before attempting to solve it themselves. However, the interesting part is that each time a student would report a conflict to me, I would say, "How do you think you should solve the problem?" and the student would say, "An I-Message" then I would say, "Great why don't you go solve it that way" and the student would go back and solve the problem using an I-Message. The students needed to be redirected to solve the problem themselves and after they were redirected they could successfully solve the problem themselves with an I-Message. In weeks 2-4, I found that the amount of I-Message used was very close in number to the amount of conflicts reported to the teacher. During week 2, 13 I-Messages were used and 10 conflicts were reported to the teacher. During week 3, 10 I-Messages were used and 8 conflicts were reported to the teacher. Lastly, during week 4, 8 I-Messages were used and 4 conflicts were reported to the teacher. This information can be seen in my graph below.
Finding #1:Students can recognize times when an I-Message should be used and articulate an appropriate I-Message for the conflict
In my very first conflict resolution with my students, I presented them with several social conflict scenarios that could be solved by using an I-Message including someone cutting in line, someone stealing your pencil, someone sitting in your spot on the rug, someone pushing you, someone calling you a name, someone laughing at you, etc. In subsequent conflict resolution lessons, I presented them with these conflicts or conflicts very similar to them. I presented them by having the puppets get into these conflicts or I read stories to the students with these kinds of conflicts. In each of these lessons, after the conflict occurred, I would ask the students how they thought the puppets or the characters should solve it. In unison my students would all say, "I-Message". Then I would ask my students if they could give me an example of an I-Message the puppet or character could say to solve their problem. Immediately, several students hands would go up. Every student I called on to share a response would articulate an appropriate I-Message for the puppet or character to use. For example, during week one, I read my students "The Ugly Duckling" for a conflict resolution lesson and stopped at the conflict to discuss how the duckling character should solve it. Immediately all of my students yelled, "an I-Message" and multiple students gave me examples of appropriate I-Messages the Duckling could use. One student suggested the Duckling say, "I feel sad when you call me ugly. I would like it if you stop". Another student suggested the Duckling say, "I feel sad when you call me names and laugh at me. I would like it if you stop." I noticed the same thing happen again week 2 when I presented the puppets having conflicts in the puppet show, week 3 when I read them a book when I presented them a conflict in a puppet show and in the story, "Franklin and Harriet", and in week 4 when I presented them a conflict in the puppet show. During these lessons, not one student suggested the puppet or character solve the problem in another way beside the I-Message. Also each of the I-Messages my students suggested the character or puppet use was articulated with the I-Message structure I taught them and was appropriate for the conflict the puppet or character had experienced. This told me that my students could successfully recognize appropriate times to use an I-Message and could articulate an I-Message that was relevant to the conflict and in the proper structure "I feel_____ when you_____. I would like it if you_______." The interesting part is that although my students would suggest I-Messages to use to solve other peoples conflicts, my students were not always using the I-Message to solve their own problems.
Finding #2: Many students were still reporting conflicts to me before trying to solve it on their own with an I-Message
Although several students were solving their problems on their own with I-Messages, students were not always choosing this strategy to solve their conflicts in phase 1. I noticed that a significant amount of students were still reporting conflicts to me and my master teacher before attempting to solve it themselves. However, the interesting part is that each time a student would report a conflict to me, I would say, "How do you think you should solve the problem?" and the student would say, "An I-Message" then I would say, "Great why don't you go solve it that way" and the student would go back and solve the problem using an I-Message. The students needed to be redirected to solve the problem themselves and after they were redirected they could successfully solve the problem themselves with an I-Message. In weeks 2-4, I found that the amount of I-Message used was very close in number to the amount of conflicts reported to the teacher. During week 2, 13 I-Messages were used and 10 conflicts were reported to the teacher. During week 3, 10 I-Messages were used and 8 conflicts were reported to the teacher. Lastly, during week 4, 8 I-Messages were used and 4 conflicts were reported to the teacher. This information can be seen in my graph below.
In the closing weeks of phase 1, I was finding that although more conflicts were being solved with I-Messages then reported to the teacher to solve, there was still a large number of conflicts being reported to the teacher to solve instead of being solved independently. Reflecting back on my phase 1, I realized that I only did one conflict resolution lesson with the focus of solving a problem with an I-Message before telling a teacher so perhaps that explains why many students were still reporting conflicts to me in this phase. In phase 2 I would have to address this concept again.
Finding #3: The amount of conflicts being solved with violence was far less than the amount of conflicts solved using an I-Message or by telling a teacher
In phase 1 my students used 3 main strategies to solve their social conflicts. The strategies my students used were a Problem Solving I-Message, telling the teacher/adult, and getting physically aggressive. Each week of phase 1 I tracked each time my students chose to use one of these strategies to resolve their social conflicts. Looking over my data for each week, I started to see a trend. Each week, the strategy used to resolve conflicts that occurred most frequently was the I-Message and this was followed closely by the strategy of telling the teacher. Conflicts were hardly solved with physical aggression each week. This trend can be seen in my graphs. The graph to the left shows the amount of times my students used each strategy to solve their social conflicts in phase 1. As seen on the graph, 46 conflicts were solved with I-Messages, 27 conflicts were solved by reporting them to a teacher/adult, and 10 conflicts were solved with an act of violence. Much fewer conflicts were solved with violence then with the other two strategies. The graph to the right compares how conflicts were solved week to week. Again, this shows that the strategy of violence was chosen far less then the other two strategies each week.
In phase 1 my students used 3 main strategies to solve their social conflicts. The strategies my students used were a Problem Solving I-Message, telling the teacher/adult, and getting physically aggressive. Each week of phase 1 I tracked each time my students chose to use one of these strategies to resolve their social conflicts. Looking over my data for each week, I started to see a trend. Each week, the strategy used to resolve conflicts that occurred most frequently was the I-Message and this was followed closely by the strategy of telling the teacher. Conflicts were hardly solved with physical aggression each week. This trend can be seen in my graphs. The graph to the left shows the amount of times my students used each strategy to solve their social conflicts in phase 1. As seen on the graph, 46 conflicts were solved with I-Messages, 27 conflicts were solved by reporting them to a teacher/adult, and 10 conflicts were solved with an act of violence. Much fewer conflicts were solved with violence then with the other two strategies. The graph to the right compares how conflicts were solved week to week. Again, this shows that the strategy of violence was chosen far less then the other two strategies each week.
This lead me to believe that violence was decreasing amongst my students and they were realizing it was not an effective way to solve their social conflicts.
Finding #4: I-Messages were causing students to feel accused
In my first conflict resolution lesson, I taught my students how they can solve conflicts on their own using an I-Message. Not long after this lesson, I observed many of my students using this strategy to solve their own conflicts. However, I also noticed the students who were receiving the I-Messages not responding well to the I-Messages. Several students were not apologizing for the conflict they caused or ignoring the student telling them the I-Message.This made sense because I had not taught the students how to respond to I-Message when it is said to them. I only taught them how and when to say an I-Message to a student bothering them. The following week I addressed this topic in one of my conflict resolution lessons. Shortly after this lesson, I noticed students were beginning to respond better to I-Messages said to them. Students didn't view the I-Message as a negative thing said to them and were more accepting of the I-Message said to them. Then during my last week of phase 1, I noticed a big turn in my action research. On the last week, I held two class meetings for students to present I-Messages they needed to say to friends. The friends who received the I-Messages at these meetings did not respond well to them. Several responded by saying, "I did not do that" or "Your making that up". This led to an even longer dispute between the students in conflict. I had to intervene and stop several of the disputes. These meetings ended with students feeling like they had not successfully solved the conflict and with students being angry with each other. It made the mood of the class tense and unhappy. The strong class community I was starting to build in phase 1 seemed to be broken and I needed to find a way to reunite my students so they felt comfortable around each other. I also realized that me intervening in the arguments during the class meetings was moving away from my objective of wanting my students to solve their conflicts on their own. I felt a change needed to be made in my action research project. This guided my plans for phase 2 of my action research.
In my first conflict resolution lesson, I taught my students how they can solve conflicts on their own using an I-Message. Not long after this lesson, I observed many of my students using this strategy to solve their own conflicts. However, I also noticed the students who were receiving the I-Messages not responding well to the I-Messages. Several students were not apologizing for the conflict they caused or ignoring the student telling them the I-Message.This made sense because I had not taught the students how to respond to I-Message when it is said to them. I only taught them how and when to say an I-Message to a student bothering them. The following week I addressed this topic in one of my conflict resolution lessons. Shortly after this lesson, I noticed students were beginning to respond better to I-Messages said to them. Students didn't view the I-Message as a negative thing said to them and were more accepting of the I-Message said to them. Then during my last week of phase 1, I noticed a big turn in my action research. On the last week, I held two class meetings for students to present I-Messages they needed to say to friends. The friends who received the I-Messages at these meetings did not respond well to them. Several responded by saying, "I did not do that" or "Your making that up". This led to an even longer dispute between the students in conflict. I had to intervene and stop several of the disputes. These meetings ended with students feeling like they had not successfully solved the conflict and with students being angry with each other. It made the mood of the class tense and unhappy. The strong class community I was starting to build in phase 1 seemed to be broken and I needed to find a way to reunite my students so they felt comfortable around each other. I also realized that me intervening in the arguments during the class meetings was moving away from my objective of wanting my students to solve their conflicts on their own. I felt a change needed to be made in my action research project. This guided my plans for phase 2 of my action research.