Action Plan Write Up
​
​
​
​
​
​
What was implemented?
I implemented the We Thinkers! curriculum into my daily instruction. We Thinkers! is a social thinking curriculum intended for preschool through early elementary students. This curriculum uses story books, music, and structured play to teach social concepts, including Thinking Thoughts and Feeling Feelings, The Group Plan, Thinking with your Eyes, Body in the Group, Whole Body Listening, Hidden Rules and Expected and Unexpected Behaviors, Smart Guess, Flexible and Stuck Thinking, Size of the Problem, and Sharing an Imagination. Throughout the stories, students are prompted to Stop and Do, Stop and Notice, or Stop and Discuss various questions and applications. There are four levels of structured activities that can be done with each story, so that each lesson can be taught in a way that best meets each group's instructional and independent levels of play.
​
How was it implemented?
We Thinkers! was implemented with 15 kindergarten students who were divided by ability level into four groups. Each group was met with in 20 minute time blocks. Each story unit was taught over two 20 minute time blocks. Each unit had an opening activity, structured activities, dramatic play, and clean up/closing that was done with students and Teaching Beyond the Unit concepts that were incorporated throughout the rest of the day. The opening activity began by introducing the storybook concept, guided students through a short game or activity to get them thinking about the concept, rephrasing the story concept, and reading a storybook with intermittent Stop and Do, Stop and Notice, or Stop and Discuss activities. There were four levels of structured activities for each lesson to best meet the needs of students' play capabilities. All four activities reinforced the same concepts from the lesson, but had varying depth and intensity. The dramatic play section began by having students help set up while discussing the story concept, participating in a structured, collaborative play activity, and then reinforcing new vocabulary while cleaning up and dismissing students. The Teaching Beyond the Unit concepts provided examples of opportunities and phrases that I could use to reinforce the vocabulary and concepts that had been taught throughout the rest of the students' day.
When was it implemented?
We Thinkers! was taught in 20 minute time frames with three different groups of kindergarten students. Two groups were met with each day during their centers play time. The first group met from 2:10-2:30 and the second group was met with from 2:30-2:50. The groups met in the workroom of the special education learning center.
​
Why were these strategies chosen?
We Thinkers! was implemented with my kindergarten students because these students have demonstrated substantial deficits in self-regulation and executive functioning skills. Some of the executive functioning skills that I specifically addressed were inhibition and impulsivity, task shifting, emotional control and regulation, task initiation, working memory, planning and organization, and self-monitoring. These skills were selected to help these students interact with their peers and adults more appropriately. Executive functioning skills also help to keep these students safe in their environments, with less instances of physical aggression towards themselves and others.
​
How was instruction differentiated?
Instruction was differentiated for students' differing capabilities by ability-grouping students based on their cooperative play proficiency. Each group only had five students so that specific needs could be addressed as they came up. Small groups provided the opportunity to help students rationalize and problem-solve as frustration was reached. The structured activities for each story were available in four different levels. The level of structured activities was varied from group to group to best address each group's capabilities for cooperative play with consideration for how much adult intervention and supervision that they required.
​
Why were these strategies best for this population?
I was the special education teacher assigned to work with kindergarten and 1st grade; 35% of Kindergarten and 19% of 1st grade students received resource instruction. Five kindergarten students were on specific behavior plans or had behavior referrals. Of the 43 students that I interacted with on a regular basis, 65% had experienced personal trauma, which significantly impacted their abilities to self-regulate and interact with their peers appropriately. On 96 data days, between two students, there were 196 instances of physical aggression to self, peers, or adults, 92 instances of physical aggression towards property, 105 instances of inappropriate language or actions towards others, and 528 instances of leaving the designated space without adult permission.
How were diverse learning needs accounted for?
The students who participated in the We Thinkers! intervention were made up of special education and general education students, so there was a diverse range of learning needs and styles within each small group. Each group had a combination of general and special education students in order to make sure that each group had a variety of strengths and deficits. While the groups were ability-leveled by cooperative play capabilities, they were also grouped on the dynamics of their assertiveness and reservations and strengths that they were able to model for their peers.
​
How was this study culturally responsive?
We Thinkers! was taught in an equitable and accessible learning environment through the use of options and choices for response methods and hands-on/movement opportunities. On the wall next to the table where our group met was a giant thought bubble with an outline of the plan for the day. The thought bubble said, "Hi", "Book", "Activity", and "Bye" with a picture of the expectations, story, and game next to the appropriate title so that students could see how far we had progressed through the group and could anticipate what they had left to accomplish before they could return to class.
One participant was a selective mute, so she and all students had the opportunity to participate through writing on a whiteboard, touching pictures, drawing, pointing, and nodding yes or shaking their head no. One participant with autism was uncomfortable with close proximity and physical touch, so he and all students had the opportunity to engage in ways that respected their personal space and did not require them to physically interact with their peers if they were uncomfortable doing so. Several participants had behavior plans or behavioral concerns, so these students had preferential seating and tangible reinforcements for having a safe body in the group and participating in group expectations.