Differentiation of Instruction
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: REDUCING BEHAVIORAL ISSUES
IN THE ART ROOM
A thesis submitted
by
Tiffany Michelle Greene
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
May 11, 2011
i
ii
Abstract
The basis for this research was to incorporate a differentiated curriculum into an
art room and to gather the data by quantitizing the occurrences of previously defined
negative behaviors pre and post differentiation. In the beginning, a Behavior Observation
Form (SJBoces, n.d.) was used to capture behavior instances; however, the outcome was
inconclusive due to a lack of data. A video camera was then utilized to capture the
behaviors of the 28 students in the class during the traditional and differentiated style of
instruction. An independent t-test was employed to calculate the quantitative data. A
reflective journal and student questionnaire was used to calculate the qualitative data.
Through exploring the results of the various data, it was determined that there was a
significant difference in the behaviors pre differentiation and post differentiation in the
class room.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………... iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………. iv
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………... 1
Significance of the Problem………………………………………………... 2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………... 3
Focus Questions……………………………………………………………. 5
Overview of Methodology…………………………………………………. 6
Human as Researcher………………………………………………………. 7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………...9
Differentiated Instruction…………………………………………………. .10
Behaviors in the Classroom.………………………………………………...13
Difficulties and Triumphs in Differentiation.……………………………….15
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………… 18
Research Design……………………………………………………………. 18
Setting……………………………………………………………………… 19
Subjects and Participants…………………………………………………. 19
Procedures and Data Collection Methods………………………………….. 20
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias...……………………………..23
Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………. 24
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………….. 26
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………. 33
Analysis…………………………………………………………………….. 33
Discussion………………………………………………………………….. 37
Implications………………………………………………………………… 39
Impact on Student Learning………………………………………………... 40
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………. 40
References………………………………………………………………………….. 41
Appendixes………………………………………………………………………… 43
iv
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
3.1 Data Shell………………………………………………………………………. 34
4.1 Independent T-Test Results……………………………………………………..40
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
A problem that is often observed in a class of multi-level learners are numerous
and include many disruptions that range from behavior issues that may occur from the
multiple ability students in the class having various activities going on and struggle to
focus on the task at hand . The students who are not challenged enough may become
bored and thus, behavior disruptions may arise such as disruptive talking, getting off-task
and being unable to self-direct free time. Some of the students may not be taught at their
understanding level and, thusly, a lack of motivation occurs causing the students to
become off-task (Sasson, 2010). They become disengaged in the lesson and thus behavior
problems take place. I find that in the art room, in particular, the high/low integrated
classroom is subject to many forms of increased behavior problems as many students can
become off-task because of the nature of the art room. However, throughout this study,
the methods of differentiated instruction will be further explored to aid in the behavioral
modifications that will lead students to improved behaviors in the art room.
Johnson (2009) states that in the classroom we, as instructors, are pushed into
giving the students who have the most need, the most attention, thus causing the higher
level students to go without personal instruction this lack of attention may cause the
students to begin their behavioral issues. Several behaviors that are highlighted as
predictors of off-task behavior include: talking out of turn, not being able to self-direct
free time activities, and lacking enthusiasm for the lessons being presented.
Hence, the purpose of the particular study is to find a way in which to reduce the
behavior problems in the multiple ability class through differentiated instruction.
2
Significance of the Problem
The significance of this particular problem is having behavioral issues that take
place in the multiple ability classroom can cause a multitude of issues in the eventual
acquisition of knowledge and participation in the art room. The numerous behavior
problems cause the high and low level students to spend the majority of their time being
reprimanded or otherwise having their behavior modified than actually garnering the
information from the lesson. The symptoms of a multi-ability class room that is wrought
with behavioral issues, as discussed previously, is often sighted as talking out of turn, not
being able to self-direct themselves into productive free time, rushing through work, a
lack of enthusiasm during lessons. Behavioral issues arise in the art room when there is
not enough structured activity to keep a student’s attention be it a high or low level
learner, the lesson seems to be above a lower student’s readiness level, or there is a
lacking of enthusiasm throughout if it does not engage their mind. Also, there is an issue
of students who rush through their work and are left with free time that leaves them
available to disrupt the class.
I feel that this particular study is beneficial to educators as it will aid in the
understanding of differentiated instruction in the multiple ability classroom as well as
what methods work to improve behavior overall. Having increased positive behavior
allows for acquisition of knowledge and an education that will become much more
worthwhile for the students as they become genuinely engaged. Tomlinson (2001)
describes a worthwhile education as one in which the students of all levels have their
personal limits tested and their minds challenged.
3
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
As the students become part of a differentiated classroom, their behavior can
begin to improve through methods that keep them on track. When the behavioral issues
decrease, it leaves the students more apt to become engaged and involved throughout
their lesson. It seems imperative that the student would need to be in an environment that
would facilitate such learning. The beliefs of the social constructivist theorists touch on
the notion that the student’s learning development is largely related to the environment
that they are placed in. Their exchanges with their surroundings and peers can contribute
considerably to their acquisition of knowledge and intellectual development (Vygotsky,
1986). When the students are in a classroom that is not differentiated, it may become
unruly and therefore the students lose moments that can contribute to a worthwhile
education. McMahon, as cited by Kim (2001), explains that “[…] meaningful learning
occurs when individuals are engaged [….]” (¶ 8). The social constructivists paradigm
explores that the environment in which the learning takes place is just as significant as
the learning itself. Their view emphasizes the importance of the atmosphere in which the
students are gaining their information (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,. 1989).
Along with Vygotsky, the theories of this thesis also align with the LaGrange
College Educational Department’s first and second tenet of the conceptual framework,
enthusiastic engagement of learning and exemplary professional teaching practices. As
stated by LaGrange College Educational Department (2008) Conceptual Framework, the
instructor must have an understanding of their learners in a way in which to differentiate
the instruction. They are able to offer diverse learning opportunities that will speak to the
mixed ability classroom which will enable the behavioral issues to decrease as students
4
are finding themselves being challenged. Found in Competency Cluster 1.3, it is stated
that “candidates understand how to provide diverse learning opportunities that support
students’ intellectual, social, and personal development based on students’ stages of
development, multiple intelligences, learning styles, and areas of exceptionality”
(LaGrange College Education Department, p. 4). Through differentiating instruction for
the high/low classroom, it is imperative to be knowledgeable of where your students are
scholastically so as to be able to teach them in a way that will ultimately decrease the
behavioral issues that can be found in such atmospheres. In the second tenet, exemplary
professional teaching practices, the idea of the instructor utilizing methods such as
differentiated instruction in order to encourage a milieu of creative and dynamic learning
are more extensively explored (LaGrange College Education Department). Kohn (as cited
by LaGrange College Education Department) mentions that through differentiated
instruction, the educator will see an undeniable link between positive behaviors that come
from developing the productive classroom. LaGrange College Education Department’s
Conceptual Framework also goes on to cite Gathercoal and Simpson who believe that
through developing such a classroom, “appropriate behaviors are more likely to occur
when instruction is well planned and delivered in democratic classroom communities
[…]” (p.6). In Competency Cluster 2.1, the differentiated mixed ability classroom is
further explored through the discussion of creating learning atmospheres in which the
students find themselves completely engaged. LaGrange College Education Department
also goes on to state that through creating a space in which the instructors organize and
manage resources, it will provide a way in which the students can become engaged in the
lessons which will cause them to become productive. Throughout the mixed ability class
5
room, especially in the art class room, it becomes imperative for the educator to
understand, differentiate and explore the possibilities of differentiated instruction to
improve behavior.
In the national arena, the Competency Clusters 1.3 and 2.1 align with the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Core Propositions One, Two and
Three. The first proposition, which aligns with Competency Cluster 1.3, identifies further
the idea that the instructor must be fully obligated to their students while also
understanding exactly where the students are academically in order to be able to fully
explore all differentiated options for the mixed ability class (LaGrange Education
Department, 2008). While the instructor becomes obligated to her students, she/he will
also be able to garner an understanding of their students’ stance academically. In
proposition two and three, the NBPTS further explains the idea that if the instructor can
begin to understand his/her students better, they will be better equipped to reach the child
at their readiness level which will aid in the link between a prepared classroom and
positive behavior. Through this acquired knowledge, the educators are then able to
properly differentiate their instruction which will lead in the eventual influx of positive
behavior in the classroom.
Focus Questions
To further direct the overarching theme of this thesis, the focus questions are used
to guide the research throughout the thesis. The questions are approached in separate
subsections such as pedagogical content, student learning outcomes and reflective
practices. The focus questions are as follows: (1.) What differentiated instruction can be
implemented to promote better behavior in mixed ability classes in the art room. (2.)
6
What were the differences in the students behaviors after the instruction was
differentiated? (3.) What were the strengths & difficulties of differentiating the mixed
ability class in the art room? Along the pedagogical stratum, the differentiated instruction
that will, indeed, improve behavior in the mixed ability class in the art room is explored.
Answering this pedagogical question will allow further exploration into the methods in
which to differentiate instruction so as to improve behavior in the art room.
The student learning outcomes are equally as significant as they are supportive in
gathering the measurements, or quantitative data. During this gathering of evidence, the
differences in the students’ behaviors after the instruction was differentiated will be
observed as well as the previous and post number of disturbances through observation
and reflective methods. The data will then be measured and determined whether or not
the differentiated instruction will have created significance in the behavioral patterns of
the mixed ability students in the art room.
Reflective practices will be implemented to record the difficulties, strengths and
supports that were experienced while using differentiated instruction. For the duration of
the research, a reflective journal is kept and notations are made of the activities and
reflections from that particular lesson and behavioral atmosphere. This qualitative data
will be quite useful to assess how this particular approach affected the students’ behavior
as well as myself as an art educator.
Overview of Methodology
An action research design will be implemented using both quantitative and
qualitative methods for the gathering of data. Action research is defined by Stringer
(2007) as a study that is typically found in schools and is utilized to find solutions to
7
everyday issues in the classroom. The subjects will be in the secondary level (9-12) art
room of mixed ability in an introductory visual arts class. The subjects will be
heterogeneous by gender, race and academic achievement. Through observing behavior
pre-differentiation and post-differentiation of curricula, a pre/post t-test method will be
utilized to calculate data. The Behavior Observation Form developed by the SJBoces
Corporation (n.d.) was employed throughout the research period. Through utilizing these
data I will be able to infer as to whether differentiating instruction in the mixed ability
classes in the art room will be considered significant. The use of observations, personal
reflective journal, reflective writing and differentiated instruction lesson plans will be
utilized to gain the data for this thesis. The reflective journaling will be done with the
Reflective Journal Template for Educators (Balancing Leadership, n.d.) so as to maintain
a consistency of information gathered from day to day. For the formal observations, data
will be gathered through the use of a protocol where behavioral issues were counted.
Human as Researcher
In conducting this study, I rely on my years of experience in my undergraduate
classes in the required observations in elementary, middle and high school art rooms.
Having garnered various experiences throughout my college career, where I received my
BFA in Art Education, I find that I will be able to utilize a veritable bank of knowledge.
Also, during my internship at an elementary school, in which I spent four months
teaching and documenting many different learning scenarios, I was able to fully
understand the issues that a teacher may face in the art room. Also having taught children
of all academic levels in the Carrollton Cultural Arts Center and LaGrange Art Museum
has provided me with much familiarity in the realm of having mixed ability children in
8
the art room. I also teach various art courses at Troup County Comprehensive High
School in which I have grades 9-12 in five classes. The various courses are as follows:
drawing/painting I/II, visual arts I, ceramics/pottery I, visual arts IV/AP 2D.
Some biases may include that I am quite certain that the students’ behavior will
improve after the instruction has been differentiated but I also feel that it will be difficult
to implement as I will be borrowing a classroom and it seems to be a practice that would
need to be conditioned in the students from the beginning.
9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Having behavioral issues in the art room is often a result of generous amounts of
time in the class room that is not devoted to the lesson as well as assignments that may be
seen us not challenging enough for the mixed ability students. As stated in Chapter One,
the students may become bored and thus behavioral issues begin to arise. A phrase is said
to numerous teachers who are new to the business of education: “Teach bell to bell.”
However antiquated it may sound, it still holds true for all teachers. Having structured
and differentiated lessons that stimulate the minds of all of the mixed ability students in
the classroom may help to keep the behavioral issues to a minimum. The students who
are not challenged enough may become uninterested and thus, begin to cause behavior
disruptions that may include disruptive talking, getting off-task and being unable to selfdirect free time. At times, the opposite issue can occur when the students are not able to
grasp the subject matter and they form a lack of motivation which can cause the students
to become off-task (Sasson, 2010). The struggling students feel that they will not
understand and can often become disengaged and disinterested in the lesson. One finds
that in the introductory visual arts classes are subject to many forms of increased
behavior problems as many students can become off-task for various reasons. Many
students either do not have an interest in art, are not being taught at their understanding
level, are not challenged enough or they can be uninterested due to a lack of
understanding. However, throughout this study, the methods of differentiated instruction
will be further explored to aid in the behavioral modifications that will lead students to
improved behaviors in introductory visual arts course in the class room. The three focus
10
questions that will be further explored: “1.) What differentiated instruction can be
implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in the art room?
2.) What were the differences in the students’ behaviors after the instruction was
differentiated? 3.) What were the strengths and difficulties of differentiating the mixed
ability class in the art room?”. This study will look further into the various methods in
which differentiated instruction can improve student behavior in the mixed ability
classroom as well as the outcome of the proposed methods. The classes will then be
subject to various lessons and methods that be created with differentiation at the core.
The data on how they perform and the instances of behavior issues that arise will be
calculated. Behavioral issues will be defined as disruptive talking, getting off-task, being
unable to self-direct free time as well as disrupting others purposefully (Sasson, 2010).
Post quantitizing of data, a reflective journal will be utilized to better reflect on the
strengths and difficulties surrounding the differentiation of the mixed ability class in the
art room. The following chapter will further delve into the focus questions and the
undergirding of academic sources that will better develop the questions and the responses
that will follow in Chapter Four.
Differentiated Instruction
This particular discussion, pertaining to the pedagogical content approach to the
first focus question, is quite helpful as it will allow one to fully understand the art of
differentiating instruction through working through the authentic strategies that are
utilized in the art room. The theory of the instruction differentiation pertaining to art
education will be further explored through various academic sources.
11
The strategies and techniques of this particular differentiated instruction are
further developed by Gregory and Chapman (2007) as they state the various methods in
which the teacher (facilitator) can focus on the multiple intelligences in the class room.
However, first the educator must understand the various modalities, thinking and learning
styles as well as which multiple intelligence genre the students fit into before moving
forward into setting up the class room and the lesson for the students to better tap into
their various learning styles. By better understanding their methods in which they are
capable of learning, the teacher will soon see that the students will become more engaged
when they feel that they are able to succeed and understand the subject matter being
taught. Through establishing this foundation of information, the teacher can now move
into the more rigorous task of setting up the class room to be an environment of learning.
In the traditional sense, the desks are in straight lines, facing the teacher in the empty
vessel method of learning and teaching through lecture. Rather than grouping the students
into their learning styles via pods of desks, Gregory and Chapman (2007) state that it
would be more beneficial to have opportunities for each learning style to be considered
throughout the lesson in a more holistic manner. Not to say, however, that to have the
frontal positioned desks is the most beneficial method in which to arrange one’s room.
To have the desks set up into various learning circles, groups for lesson purposes and/or
another “non traditional” setting would be beneficial to break away from the more
conventional method of setting up desks. Also, having the room filled with visual stimuli,
auditory experiences, the ability to move about as well as the possibility of handling
materials will allow for the various learning styles to be introduced and considered
(Moore, 2009).
12
As stated by Moore (2009), there are four methods in which one can consider
when differentiating the lesson in the class room; content, process, products and learning
environment. He touches on the fact that not every student will be made of the same cloth
which will allow teachers to be able to create curricula that will touch on that very fact.
To be able to have lessons in which there are various methods of learning on varying
complexity levels will engage the majority of the learners in the classroom. The content
portion of differentiation emphasizes how the teacher will transfer the content to the
students through using auditory (music and speaking), visuals (PowerPoints and/or
posters, images) or a more tactile demonstration of the subject. Process calls attention to
how the students will master the content. Having the students broken up into “interest
centers” in which they area able to activate their learning style through various methods
of mastering the material. In the products portion, the teacher allows the students to pick
a method in which they would like to show their mastery of the material either through
song, presentation, written paper, demonstration (Moore, 2009). Gregory and Chapman
(2007) also go into detail about how one would utilize the various methods of instruction
through, first, understanding the various multiple intelligences.
They define the eight multiple intelligences and go into detail with suggestions on
how to utilize those various methods of learning. Through utilizing the students’ different
methods of learning, one can easily differentiate their instruction through the table
indicated in Figure 14 of “Differentiated Instructional Strategie.s” Elkwall and Shanker
(1988) also suggest that the percentages of retention are as follows: 10% of what we read,
20% of what we hear, 30% of what we see, 50% of what we see and hear, 70% of what is
discussed with others, 80% of what we experience personally and 95% of what we teach
13
to others. Therefore, having the teacher break free from the traditional methods of
teaching will allow the students to be furthered engaged as well as heightens their
retention capabilities. Gregory and Chapman (2007) state that through having variety in
the classroom, the students will become more engaged in the lesson. Through having the
students interact in the lesson as they are met on their understanding level, they will have
less time and reason for disruptive behaviors.
Tomlinson (2001) refers to “on task behavior” and how it should be valued and
understood in the classroom. By having the students remain on task through the
differentiated classroom, they are able to maintain “on task behavior” which will
eliminate the unnecessary disruptions by students who may be bored, not challenged, not
having the material meet them on their understanding level and/or not engaged in the
lesson. She also addresses the quick finishers and the stray movers: the students who are
quick to finish their work and then prefer to move around the room and cause disruptions
to other classmates. By having alternate assignments or assignments that you know will
keep those kinesthetic learners engaged in the lesson, there will be less of a chance for
those particular students to have undirected free time. Through having the various
differentiation strategies in place, the educator is able to meet everyone on their various
learning level as well as cater to their specific learning style, thus allowing students to
spend their valuable learning time engaged in the lesson rather than participating in
disruptive behaviors.
Behaviors in the Classroom
This particular sub-section will highlight the various occurrences in which having
differentiated instruction in the classroom yielded a significant difference in the students’
14
observed behaviors. The data is also relevant in this particular focus question so as to
measure the effectiveness of the differentiated curriculum in the mixed ability classroom.
In Amy Benjamin’s (2002) Differentiated instruction: a guide for middle and high school
teachers she states that many of the difficulties that arise from beginning a differentiated
curriculum are time constraints in the classroom, students and teachers who are reluctant
to change as well as the ubiquitous high-stakes testing that seems to be at the top of
everyone’s priority list. She does go on to discuss, however, the methods in which
numerous educators incorporate differentiated education into their curriculum and find it
to be a successful addition to their instruction. Benjamin affirms that having a supportive
administration, patience with change as well as maintaining an air of professionalism will
usher the educators through the transition into differentiated curriculum.
William H. Bender (2008) states that in a case study in 1982 students who were
considered to be disruptive and socially maladjusted were often not being met on their
academic levels. They were allowed, rather, to get up and move around, help others and
garner more responsibility in the classroom. As stated in sub-section focus question 1 by
Elwall and Shanker (1998) the percentage of retention is 95% of what you teach to
others. The students’ number of disciplinary problems went down as they found more
acceptance in the classroom, understanding within the curriculum and responsibility for
their actions. This particular study was later conducted in 1984 with similar results. The
students who are mentioned as having “conduct issues” in Differentiating instruction for
students with learning disabilities (Bender, 2008) seem to share the same constant of not
having their academic levels met. Many students learn in various ways as stated
previously by Elwall and Shanker (1998). However, having these students interact within
15
the classroom in a teaching and tutoring method helped these particular maladjusted
students to feel that their needs were being met and thus presented less behavior
disruptions. Many times students are partaking in disruptive behaviors because they
cannot learn the material in the manner that it is being taught. In lay language, they get
bored (Sasson, 2010). Having these particular students interact in ways that vary from the
traditional curriculum will allow them to utilize their various talents and will speak to
them on their different learning levels and styles. Diane Heacox (2002) states that it is
known that having a differentiated curriculum set forth in a classroom with students who
are on varying learning levels (especially those with behavior disorders) is the best
“instructional response” as it addresses the students’ “hyperactivity, distractibility and
impulsivity” (p. 132).
Through having these students with conduct issues interact in various learning
methods, they’re behavioral issues were reported to decrease as previously stated by
Bender (2008). Having these students who are repeat discipline offenders participate in
the differentiated curriculum give them the ability to showcase their various talents as
well as allow them to utilize their various learning styles that may not be touched upon in
a traditional classroom setting. Through giving these students another method in which to
interact within the classroom, it gives them another method in which to feel as if they can
have the ability to achieve and understand rather than causing behavior disturbances
(Kim, 2001).
16
Difficulties and Triumphs in Differentiation
After having made the decision to create a differentiated curriculum in the
classroom, there are some difficulties that some practitioners find themselves faced with.
Like many new implementations in the classroom, there are those who are hesitant to
apply this different method of instruction. Also, teachers with less experience may find it
overwhelming; however, they are encouraged to start with smaller increments of
differentiation as well as a slower pace of instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Also, as is the
nature of a differentiated classroom, there is typically a lot of movement and noise. With
a class that is large, it may become difficult to keep track of all students as well as
keeping up with student progress. With a mixed ability, differentiated classroom the goal
is not to have each child finish at the same time, but to let each child work at their own
pace while utilizing their own learning style. Having an activity planned for those “quick
finishers” as well as keeping a “home base” for the students to return to will keep
disruptive behavior and noise level to a minimum (Tomlinson, 2001).
Also, an issue that may arise for the instructor while beginning a differentiated
curriculum is the various time constraints with the class time, resources in the classroom
and time spent on creating differentiated lesson plans. The best practice for a teacher new
to differentiation is simply to begin small and slow on low prep lessons and then
eventually work their way up to high prep differentiation lessons. Clearly explaining to
the class what is expected of them and teaching them how to move about the classroom,
turn in work and minimize their stray movement will create a foundation for a positive
and cooperative differentiated classroom. The difficulties from beginning a differentiated
17
curriculum are often outweighed by the extreme benefits that are eventually reaped from
creating such a unique and all-encompassing classroom (Tomlinson, 2001).
The students who participate in a differentiated classroom are exposed to a
curriculum that is modified to their specific learning styles which gives them the very
individualized instruction that is often reserved for students who are assigned
Individualized Education Plans (IEP’s). Heacox (2002) states that the “more ways you
can engage students in learning-the better their ability to learn” (p.7). When the students’
unique learning needs are met, their likelihood of success in their schooling is increased
whether they have learning deficiencies or are regular education students. Through the
differentiated curriculum many students will find that they are more engaged in the
lesson, thus giving them the ability to maintain a connection with the lesson. The student
will find more interest and will ultimately get more out of the lesson causing them to be
more successful in the classroom (Heacox, 2002).
18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
An action research design was implemented using both quantitative and
qualitative methods for the gathering of data. Action research is defined by Stringer
(2007) as a study that is typically found in schools and is utilized to find solutions to
everyday issues in the classroom. Mertler (2009) also goes on to mention action research
as being a method in which one must obtain information that is accurate and of high
quality as well as reliable and valid. The subjects were in the secondary level (9-12) art
room of mixed ability in an introductory visual arts class. The subjects were
heterogeneous by gender, race and academic achievement. Through observing behavior
pre-differentiation and post-differentiation of curricula, a pre/post t-test method was
utilized to calculate data. The Behavior Observation Form developed by the SJBoces
corporation was employed throughout the research period. Through utilizing these data I
was able to infer as to whether differentiating instruction in the mixed ability classes in
the art room would be considered significant in relation to the improvement of reduction
of “negative behaviors” as previously defined by Sasson (2010). The use of
observations, personal reflective journal, reflective writing and differentiated instruction
lesson plans was utilized to gain the data for this thesis. The reflective journaling was
done with the Reflective Journal Template for Educators (Balancing Leadership, n.d.) so
as to maintain a consistency of information gathered from day to day. For the formal
observations, data was gathered through the use of a protocol where behavioral issues
were counted and the data was quantitized.
19
Setting
The research setting was based in the Comprehensive High School located in rural
Georgia. I utilized my visual arts 1 class in the Spring semester of the 2010-2011 school
year. This particular location and class was used for my study as it is my current location
of employment and my students that have signed up for this class as well as being easily
accessed for research purposes. Access was gained via the County school district
permission form, permission from the principal of the school as well as acceptance of the
IRB forms by the LaGrange College Education Department.
Subjects and Participants
The population from which the study was gathered was from the visual arts 1
class which is comprised of a 9th-12th grade range. The demographics of the selected class
are as follows: thirty-one students total, fifteen males, sixteen females, eight African
Americans, twenty-three Caucasians, three 9th graders, sixteen 10th graders, four 11th
graders, eight 12th graders, six students that are considered gifted, and two students who
are under an IEP. Their ages range from 14-19 years old and many of them are situated in
the median range for their mental age as well as academic standing. This particular class
was chosen for their range in ages and grades. Having a grouping of both IEP students,
gifted students, students who are situated at the bottom and middle of the academic range,
I feel will allow a greater sampling of students from which to gather data. I will also have
a participant (fellow colleague and mentor) look over my instructional plan.
20
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
The focus questions found in Table 3.1 served to further elucidate the procedures
and methods in which the data were collected during the research process.
Table 3.1. Data Shell
Focus Question
What
differentiated
instruction can be
implemented to
promote better
behavior in the
mixed ability
class in the art
room?
What were the
differences in the
students’
behaviors after
the instruction
was
differentiated?
Literature
Sources
Tomlinson,
C. (2001)
&
Sasson, D.
(2010,
January 2)
&
Gregory and
Chapman
(2007)
Data Sources
LaGrange
College
Education
Department.
(2008)
&
Reflective
journal; Formal
observations
via video
recording;
Quantitizing
data ; Student
Questionnaires;
SJBoces
(n.d.)
&
Tomlinson,
C. (2001)
&
Sasson, D.
(2010,)
What were the
strengths &
difficulties of
differentiating the
mixed ability
class in the art
room?
Tomlinson
C. (2001)
&
Reflective
Journal
Template for
Educators
(n.d.)
Why do these data
answer the question?
Gives lessons that are
qualified to
differentiate
instruction. Will help
with the constructive of
the research through
utilization of these
particular lesson plans
and procedures that
come directly from
review of the literature.
How are data
analyzed?
Coded for themes
aligned with focus
questions.
Material that cites the
perceived differences
in behavior after it has
been differentiated. An
established Behavior
Observation Form will
be employed and the
number of off task
behaviors counted; an
The type of
independent t-test will
data was
quantitative in be used to calculate
nature and the significance.
Coded for themes
aligned with focus
questions;
independent ttests
Written
differentiated
lesson plans;
Reflective
journals;
Rubric; .
Criterion
validity will
be utilized.
The type of
data will be
qualitative.
validity
construct.
Reflective
writing;
Reflective
journal; The
type of data
qualitative.
This focus
question
content
validity.
A reflective journal is
kept to record the
behaviors pre/post
differentiated
instruction; will
qualitatively determine
an outcome. Template
will be used directly
from lit. review
Coded for themes
aligned with focus
questions
21
The Data Shell was instrumental in keeping the research aligned with focus questions
which enabled the procedures and methods with which the data were collected for
reliability and validity. .
The procedures for gathering evidence regarding the outcome of the differentiated
instruction included various methods such as a pre-quantitizing of data as there needs to
be an established base from which the data can be compared to. In accordance with Focus
Question One, an Instructional Plan (see Appendix A) will be utilized to organize the
method in which the information will be gathered as well as serve to garner counsel via
the Instruction Plan Rubric (see Appendix B). Through utilizing the behavior
observational form (see Appendix C) the instances of previously defined off task
behavioral issues that occur prior differentiation of instruction can be calculated and
documented for Focus Question Two. An experienced colleague, as well as an
administrator, will be utilized to review the Instructional Plan Rubric via an interview
concerning the Instructional Plan procedures. Among the various data gathering tools, the
reflective journal (see Appendix D) will also be utilized in conjunction with the reflective
prompts (see Appendix E) for Focus Question One, Two and Three. I will also have an
unbiased third party come into the classroom during the dates of data collection in order
to calculate behavior instances. The form includes a subject notation area, off task codes
(for coding of data as well as defining what each off task action is defined as), the teacher
interaction, what instructional strategies were used as well as an analysis of the
behavioral data. Post differentiation of instruction, data will once about be quantitized as
well as formal observations made. A reflective journal will also kept and will be coded
for themes aligned with the focus questions Two and Three. The reflective journal is kept
22
to record behaviors pre/post differentiated instruction and will qualitatively determine an
outcome. The data that has been collected will be analyzed via descriptive and inferential
statistics. The usage of independent & dependent t-tests will be utilized to determine the
significance between the pre and post test data. Prior to the Post-Test data collection, I
will be having the students participate in an informal learning styles survey in which they
will answer several questions and I will decided which learning style the survey defines
them as which will correlate to Focus Question Two (see Appendix F). During the postdata collection, I will have the student answers several questions that will inquire about
how they felt about the pre and post-differentiation of the material which will align with
both Focus Question Two and Three (see Appendix G). Along with the formal
observations and quantitizing of data, I video record the classes for a week to gather the
pre-differentiated and post-differentiated data.
The Visual Arts I class several instances within several days of instruction in
which the lesson will be differentiated to further reach the various learning styles and
understanding levels. Through employing a technique other than the traditional lecture
method, the students will find themselves engaged within the lesson which gave them
less of an opportunity to engage in disruptive behaviors (Tomlinson, 2001). The content
area will cover introductory art and will specifically be on the principles of design.
Through employing kinesthetic, auditory and visual methods of disseminating
information, the data will be gathered and quantitized for instances of previously defined
off task behaviors. Prior to the differentiation of instruction, the data also be gathered and
quantitized to allow a pre/post independent and dependent t-test to determine significance
between the number of off task behaviors that occurred before and after the instruction
23
was differentiated. The reflective journal that is kept throughout the research timeline
also be another material that cites the perceived differences in behavior after it has been
differentiated.
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias
For Focus Question One which is as follows: “What differentiated instruction can
be implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in the art room?”
The data gathering method be in a pre/post-test manner. The instructional plan and
instructional plan rubric will be used to gather data. Criterion validity will be utilized for
focus question one as I will be predicting a particular outcome. The type of data will be
qualitative as the data will be coded for themes and aligned with the focus question. For
dependability, data accurately recorded with the use of protocols and data collecting
tools, keeping the raw data well organized as well as providing complete and accurate
supporting data. Concerning biasness, I checked all instruments for unfairness,
offensiveness and disparate impact and have found the tools to be free from biasness.
For Focus Question Two which is as follows: “What were the differences in the
students’ behaviors after the instruction was differentiated?” the data gathering method
teacher made differentiated lesson plans. The type of data was quantitative in nature and
the validity construct. The methods of reliability for focus question two was of a testretest nature. A correlation for dependent t-tests calculated. The instruments were
checked for unfairness, offensiveness and disparate impact and have been found to
contain no biasness.
For Focus Question Three which is as follows: “What were the strengths &
difficulties of differentiating the mixed ability class in the art room?” the data gathering
24
method reflective journal using prompts. The type of data qualitative in nature as the data
will be coded for themes and aligned with the focus question. This focus question content
validity as the behaviors and performance will be recorded. The data be accurately
recorded with the use of protocols, the raw data will be organized as well as providing
complete and accurate supporting data in order to maintain dependability. The
instruments were checked for unfairness, offensiveness and disparate impact and have
been found to be free of biasness.
Analysis of Data
Focus question one considered qualitative as it will be coded for recurring,
dominant and emerging themes and aligned with the focus questions. Focus question two
quantitative as it will be dealing with descriptive and inferential statistics in which an
independent t-test will be utilized to calculate the data to determine if there are significant
differences between means from two independent groups as well as the effect size that is
calculated using Cohen’s standard effect size r for a pre-post test. The decision to reject
the null hypothesis was set at p<.05. Focus question three considered qualitative as it will
be coded for recurring, dominant and emerging themes and aligned with the focus
questions.
The validation of the study can be considered both consensual and
epistemological validation as it has been approved by my faculty as well as having the
results compared to the literature. In focus question one; credibility has been taken into
consideration as I have created structural corroboration through utilizing multiple data
sources. Throughout the research, I also brought about fairness through including
opposing points of view. I also great care to ensure precision and accuracy in order to
25
have a research based in strong evidence through triangulation. Concerning
transferability, the study can be replicated by others and easily used for future research.
The study also causes a positive change or transformation for the researcher as well as for
others, causing catalytic validity.
26
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Being aligned and organized via the focus questions, the results are explored and
presented. Through the usage of qualitative and quantitative data, the results were
compiled and calculated to reveal the outcome of the research. The qualitative data from
all sources that were utilized will be explained and presented. Emerging, dominant and
reoccurring themes as well as narratives have been coded and analyzed for the research.
For the quantitative data, the embedded table will be discussed and expounded upon as
well as the results from the independent t-test.
Focus question one, the question “what differentiated instruction can be
implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in the art room?” was
asked and explored. Through utilizing differentiated lesson plans as well as a reflective
journal, the results were gathered and coded for themes aligning with the focus question.
The differentiated lesson plan included portions that focused on each learning style
(auditory, kinesthetic and visual). Through breaking the students up into their specific
learning style group, I then put them into key spots in the classroom that would
emphasize their various learning style. For instance, the auditory learners would be right
next to me, the visuals were directly in front of me while I gave the differentiated
instruction and the tactile learners were close to the materials so as to be within close
reach when the lesson was differentiated from the traditional lecture style. While
transmitting the information through the differentiated lesson plan, a reflective journal
was kept which has been coded for themes. A reoccurring theme that can be noted in the
journal responses is the notation of the traditional style of instruction and how a small
27
amount of students were engaged in the pre-differentiated style of instruction. Some of
the passages are as follows: “I do feel that they were interested in some of the stories, but
when the lesson went back to dates and pure information [. . .]. They would copy down
dates and notes.” Also, noting the traditional instruction: “other students were engaged,
listening and would answer questions when asked. These students were considered
auditory learners. They synthesize material by being spoken to and listening to the
instruction. For these particular learners, this is how they find the most meaning in the
material. Typically I would also have the students copy notes from the screen while I read
the vocabulary to them”. The reflective journal also explored the differentiated lesson: “I
would ask them to tell me back what we had previously done as well as what they think
we would do next. I also had them tell me why they thought a certain procedure would or
would not work”. The differentiated lesson plan that was used incorporated all aspects of
the various learning styles as it was an introduction into ceramics and their cultural uses
during the mid-1800’s in the Underground Railroad. During pre-differentiation they were
copying notes from a projected PowerPoint as well as copying various vocabulary words.
Post-differentiation, the students were actively making the ceramic pieces and going
through the actual process that an individual in the Underground Railroad would have
gone through to create the ceramic pieces.
Focus question two asked, “what were the differences in the students’ behaviors
after the instruction was differentiated?”. Through utilizing a combination of quantitative
and qualitative data gathering methods, the results were computed and compiled for
interpretation. Formerly, a Behavior Observation Form was utilized by an unbiased third
party to generate data. However, not enough data were collected to be able to render an
28
identifiable outcome. Therefore, a videotape was utilized to calculate and quantitize the
data while the instruction was taking place in order to gather information on all 28 of the
students simultaneously. The results were then kept in an Excel Document and coded for
themes. Quantitative information was collected, calculated and defined. Formal
observations were used as the previously mentioned defined negative behavior instances
were calculated and evaluated through the use of statistical means. An independent t-test
was utilized to compute the data:
Table 4.1 Independent T-Test Results
Pre-Differentiated
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized
Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
4.095238095
7.701663798
84
5.283060815
PostDifferentiated
1.75
2.864457831
84
0
166
6.612547128
0.0000000002
1.654084714
4.94585E-10
1.974357726
To determine if there was a significance difference between paired individual
student data, an independent t-test was utilized to calculate the data. Through looking at
the data between the pre-differentiated instances of negative behaviors and postdifferentiated instances of negative behaviors, one can note that the outcome is highly
significant. The effect size was also calculated to measure the degree of the treatment and
produced an output of 1.0203381 which is considered to be a considerably large effect
size with a 55.4% of non-overlap.
29
Qualitatively speaking, several methods were used to gather information. The
usage of a reflective journal and prompts as well as a student questionnaire were utilized
to gather quantitative data. The results were coded for themes and aligned with the focus
question. The reflective journal that was kept throughout the duration of the research
states several of the differences pre and post differentiation of instruction. For instance,
during the pre-differentiated instruction, one notices a dominant theme which can be
notated through an excerpt from the personal reflective journal: “There were multiple
instances of previously defined negative behavior such as talking, causing disruptions to
other students through talking, inactivity, and playing with object (which for this age
group, the “object” will be designated as the cell phone). I would make corrective
remarks to the students, but would notice that the same or neighboring students would
again interact in the same behaviors”. Also, during the last day of pre-differentiated
instruction, there are other notations in the reflective journal that notate a dominant theme
of behavioral issues, “[. . .] when the lesson went back to dates and pure information, the
students would seem disinterested as they would engage in the previously defined
negative behaviors once more”. After the instruction was differentiated and the students
situated into their new positions separated by learning style, the reflective journal reflects
a noted difference in the behavior in the classroom. Some of the passages are as follows:
“the entire class was engaged in the lesson as the auditory, visual and kinesthetic learners
were all engaged. When reviewing the video, I noticed that very few behavior issues were
noted in the previously coded students” as well as “during [. . .] post-differentiation, I
noticed that it enabled the students to remain focused for longer periods of time. Predifferentiation the students would be focused for about five to seven minutes at a time.
30
During the differentiated portion of the lesson, they would be completely engaged for up
to 15 to 17 minutes”.
I also gave a student questionnaire which had prompts such as, “Do you feel that
you are more ‘on task’ when you are listening to a lecture? Why or why not?” and also
“Do you feel that you are more ‘on task’ when you are creating something with your
hands? Why or why not?”. The students were asked to be honest and several students
went back and changed their answers when asked to be completely truthful. I surveyed 28
students and 7 out of the 28 said that they feel that they are “on task” when listening to a
lecture and the traditional style of instruction whereas 21 out of the 28 said that they did
not feel on task when listening to a lecture. A dominant theme that occurred was that
most of the students did not find themselves engaged enough in the lesson and began to
interact in negative behaviors. A response from a student who said that they consider
themselves to not be on task when listening to a lecture is as follows: “No, I am more ‘on
task’ when I am actually creating something. A lecture only grabs my attention for
roughly the first five minutes.” Another dominant theme was that the majority of the
students mentioned being “bored” and “distracted” when participating in the traditional
style of instruction. Student responses are as follows: “No, because they bore me and I
get distracted”, “No, because it’s boring”, “No, because I don’t like to sit and listen and I
get distracted”, as well as “No, they get really tiring over an amount of time”.
Conversely, when asked if they were more “on task” when they were active in the lesson,
26 out of 28 students answered “yes”. Two students were answered “no” stated that they
were more or less always on task, so there was no difference. The majority of the
responses mentioned that they felt less distracted and less prone to engage in negative
31
behaviors when they were creating rather than listening to a lecture. Some of the
responses are as follows: “Yes, I do because when I’m creating something, that’s all I’m
thinking about and the other stuff around me just goes away”, “Yes, because you are
actually engaged in the activity”, “Yes, because I am involved in the activity”, “Yes,
because it [. . .] keeps me occupied and doesn’t make me think about other things I would
rather do” and finally “Yes, there is no longer a temptation to become ‘off task’”.
The third focus question, “what were the strengths & difficulties of differentiating
the mixed ability class in the art room?” was explored through quantitative data. A
reflective journal was kept and coded for themes aligning with the focus question. The
recurring theme noted in the reflective journals was the difficulty in differentiating
instruction on the first day as it was notably different than the traditional style of
instruction. However, Tomlinson (2001) stated that the difficulties from beginning a
differentiated curriculum are often outweighed by the extreme benefits that are eventually
reaped from creating such a unique and all-encompassing classroom. A passage from the
reflective journal that explains this difficulty is as follows: “on the first day of
differentiating the lesson, I found it to be a little difficult as I had to switch between so
many different activities that would hit on all the different learning styles. A colleague
mentioned that this may prove difficult the first few times” as well as “during transitions
from non-differentiated to differentiated, some of the students seemed to find themselves
once more ‘off task’ but soon became engaged when the transition was complete”. An
emerging theme that can be noted in the reflective journal is that I found it to not take
very long to get acquainted with differentiating the lesson. Having to multi-task in the
classroom came to me easily and proved to be much easier when the final days of the
32
research. The reflective journal exhibits this theme: “after having differentiated for the
first few days, I feel much more confidant. I have found that I can successfully create and
instruct a differentiated lesson”. The dominant theme in this portion of the thesis is the
various strengths that I have garnered as an educator. Through the reflective journal, I
noted that although the first few days were trying, I began to feel more confidant as well
as learned in the various methods of instruction.
In précis, the results that were determined from the study were statistically
considered to be highly significant. The responses from both the students and the
reflective journal have also set up the varied difference between the pre-differentiated and
post-differentiated instruction. The various narratives that have been coded for themes as
well as the calculated statistical data have proven very positive results in support of my
research.
33
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Analysis of Results
While discovering the research for Focus Question 1, what differentiated
instruction can be implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in
the art room, the majority of the scholars, such as Gregory and Chapman (2007) noted
that through having variety in the classroom, the students will become more engaged in
the lesson. Through having the students interact in the lesson as they are met on their
understanding level, they will have less time and reason for disruptive behaviors.
Tomlinson (2001) refers to “on task behavior” and how it should be valued and
understood in the classroom. By having the students remain on task through the
differentiated classroom, they are able to maintain “on task behavior” which will
eliminate the unnecessary disruptions by students who may be bored, not challenged, not
having the material meet them on their understanding level and/or not engaged in the
lesson. The scholarly research from Chapter 2 seems to have been congruent with the
results from my data collection. My research did prove what the literature states,
however, Gregory and Chapman (2007) stated that rather than grouping the students into
their learning styles via pods of desks, it would be more beneficial to have opportunities
for each learning style to be considered throughout the lesson in a more holistic manner. I
did group the students into their learning styles and I found that to be more helpful to
have them separated rather to than to have them sitting in their normal area. It was easier
to see each group of specific learning styles and how they were participating in the lesson
in light of their particular learning manner.
34
In focus question one, I utilized a reflective journal and the differentiated lesson
plans to gather the information needed for this particular portion of the research. I
analyzed the data by coding the various themes that aligned with the focus question. This
focus question had a basis in qualitative data through the usage of the reflective journal
prompts and responses. A recurring theme that can be noted in the journal responses is
the notation of the traditional style of instruction and how a small amount of students
were engaged in the pre-differentiated style of instruction. Those particular students were
considered as auditory learners when they took part in the learning styles survey ,
therefore the lecture style appealed to them at times.
Focus question two, what were the differences in the students’ behaviors after the
instruction was differentiated, both qualitative and quantitative data were employed to
gather results. Initially a Behavior Observation Form was used to gather information;
however, a substantial amount of data was not gathered through this particular avenue. I
then utilized a video camera to gather information during the delivery of the traditional
style and differentiated style of instruction. The data were able to be quantitized through
documenting the instances of previously defined negative behaviors. An independent ttest was then employed to calculate the results of the quantitative data. The results were
considered to be highly significant. The effect size of 1.0203381 was considered to be a
large effect size with a 55.4 percentage of non-overlap. For the qualitative data, I used a
reflective journal as well as a student questionnaire to gather the information. The results
were coded for themes that aligned with the focus question. Through analyzing the
outcome of the various narratives, I was able to understand the themes and results. A
dominant theme that occurred was that most of the students did not find themselves
35
engaged enough in the lesson and began to interact in negative behaviors. This theme is
in line with the research from the literature.
The scholarly literature stated that through having these students with conduct
issues interact in various learning methods, they’re behavioral issues were reported to
decrease as previously stated by Bender (2008). Having these students who are repeat
discipline offenders participate in the differentiated curriculum gave them the ability to
showcase their various talents as well as allow them to utilize their various learning styles
that may not be touched upon in a traditional classroom setting. Tomlinson (2001) also
referred to “on task behavior” and how it should be valued and understood in the
classroom. By having the students remain on task through the differentiated classroom,
they are able to maintain “on task behavior” which will eliminate the unnecessary
disruptions by students who may be bored, not challenged, not having the material meet
them on their understanding level and/or not engaged in the lesson. I believe that the
information I garnered during the literature review proved to line up with my own
research.
The third focus question, what were the strengths & difficulties of differentiating
the mixed ability class in the art room, a reflective journal was kept to record the
behaviors pre/post differentiated instruction; it qualitatively determined an outcome. The
narratives were coded and aligned with the focus question. The data results showcased
several themes that were uncovered in the text. The recurring theme noted in the
reflective journals was the difficulty in differentiating instruction on the first day as it was
notably different than the traditional style of instruction The dominant theme in this
portion of the thesis is the various strengths that I have garnered as an educator. Through
36
the reflective journal, I noted that, although the first few days were trying; I began to feel
more confident as well as learned in the various methods of instruction.
The literature review noted several scholars stating that differentiation would be
difficult at first, but that eventually the benefits would overshadow the initial difficulties.
Tomlinson (2001) stated that the difficulties from beginning a differentiated curriculum
are often outweighed by the extreme benefits that are eventually reaped from creating
such a unique and all-encompassing classroom. Also, teachers with less experience may
find it overwhelming; however, they are encouraged to start with smaller increments of
differentiation as well as a slower pace of instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Also, as is the
nature of a differentiated classroom, there is typically a lot of movement and noise. With
a class that is large, it may become difficult to keep track of all students as well as
keeping up with student progress. With a mixed ability, differentiated classroom the goal
is not to have each child finish at the same time, but to let each child work at their own
pace while utilizing their own learning style. Having an activity planned for those “quick
finishers” as well as keeping a “home base” for the students to return to will keep
disruptive behavior and noise level to a minimum (Tomlinson, 2001). Tomlinson’s
research was exactly congruent with my research and the narrative that developed in my
reflective journal. I did find that multiple times I would find the differentiation to be
overwhelming, but that eventually I found myself to be much more confident and
eventually had a classroom that was differentiated with very little disruptive issues.
Discussion
The research produced these specific results, I believe, because of the nature of
the differentiation. The students responded well to the differentiation of the instruction
37
and found themselves to be engaged in the lesson and thus had less motivation and
opportunity to engage in disruptive behaviors. Through having their various learning
styles incorporated into the lesson, all the students were able to reach a level of
understanding within the instruction which allowed them to spend the majority of the
instruction time engaged within the lesson.
The findings of this research will be beneficial to both knowledge and practice for
other instructors insofar as to further their understanding of behavior issues, learning
styles and differentiation in the classroom. I believe that this particular study can be
implemented in a variety of learning environments and will yield similar results for each
instructor. One will be able to fully grasp the reasoning behind students’ inattentiveness
and disruptiveness and will be able to remedy these issues with a differentiated
instruction plan.
I believe that this study has much relevance in the realm of education. Many
instructors can utilize this information for their own classrooms as well as for specific
student populations that may have learning difficulties in the traditional classroom
setting. The conclusions and results are quite meaningful in the fact that it proves that the
traditional style of instruction may not necessarily be the “best” form of instruction. It
seems to be antiquated and without much substance. Every student is different and we
must speak to their differences rather than implementing a “one size fits all” instruction
plan.
Through using various sources to collect data, credibility was ensured in this
research. I wanted to emphasize the qualitative data through coding the various narratives
that I collected as well as the quantitative statistical data and how it showcased the
38
significant results. To further ensure credibility, I used a reflective journal prompts and
responses, a behavior observation form, a videotape to capture the instances of negative
behavior, a student questionnaire as well as an independent t-test to calculate the
statistical data. Through these various methods, one is able to ensure the credibility of
this research process and results.
Although very many studies have opposing points of view, this particular research
had very few strongly opposing points from scholars. However, there were instances in
which several scholars disagreed with how a differentiated classroom should look like. I
did include those points of view in Chapter Two for fairness.
This research has a tight argument as several data gathering methods were used as
well as having an extensive literature review to build up the study. There are several
scholars who help to construct the foundation of the research. The results also help to
back up the study through the qualitative and quantitative data that was gathered. The
case for differentiated instruction is quite coherent as well as strongly corroborated. A
reader will be able to assert judgments and explore extensively the results, literature
review and methods of gathering data and will find a strong argument and a well-rounded
study.
Implications
Concerning quantitative results, the change in student behavior was significant. If
an instructor were to do this particular study again, I believe that the results would be
similar, if not better. With a larger group, one may be able to have even more significant
results statistically. The qualitative data had several themes that were emerging, recurring
and dominant are mentioned in Chapters Four and Five. These findings are transferable to
39
other situations including students with learning difficulties as well as classes that may
have difficulty working together to create an ample learning environment. With this
study, one will understand the benefit of creating a differentiated classroom and the
positive results that can emerge from doing so. Other instructors will be able to
understand and emphasize with the themes that were uncovered as I believe that many
instructors will find themselves in a similar place when they begin to differentiate their
instruction.
This study has shaped and changed the subjects insofar as they feel that they are
being considered when it comes to planning the instruction. Their voices were heard and
I think that they appreciated that. The participants were shaped, in that, when asked
questions about my Instructional Plan it helped them to begin to think about their own
instruction and thoughts about differentiation. For myself, this study has transformed me
greatly. I feel that I have a completely different outlook on how students act in the
classroom and why. Having completed this study has helped me to become and much
more confident and competent educator. Now being able to understand and ascertain a
reason as to student negative behaviors has enabled me to completely change my
teaching strategy.
Impact on Student Learning
Student learning has definitely been impacted by this study. Through the literature
review and my own research, I was able to understand why the students felt and acted the
way they did in the classroom. Through the student completing the student questionnaire,
I know now how they honestly feel about traditional style of instruction and
differentiated style of instruction. They noted that they felt that not only did they feel
40
more “on task” but that they also felt that they learned more about the subject when
participating in a differentiated lesson plan. Through understanding how different
learning styles work, I was able to incorporate all of them in the lesson and touch on each
which gave each student a chance to feel as if they understood and grasped the material.
Through this study, the students found the material better to grasp, they became more
engaged and had less of an opportunity or motivation to interact in negative behaviors:
which I believe gave them more time to focus on ascertaining the information. Having
the students decrease their behavior disturbances gave them multiple opportunities to
increase their learning.
Recommendations for Future Research
By doing this study, I have gained a vast amount of knowledge; however, there
are portions that I would have done differently; which might have given me even better
results. I would most likely have spent much more time getting comfortable with
implementing a differentiated instruction plan rather than launching right into it on the
first day. I would also make the study longitudinal as well as with more classes. Had the
study been implemented on multiple types of classes (gifted, IEP, ESOL, etc.), I believe
that would have had a broader spectrum of results.
41
REFERENCES
SJBoces Corporation (n.d.) Behavior observation form. Retrieved June 28th, 2010, from
http://sjboces.org/pdf/Procedural%20Manual/Attachments/Behavior_Observation
_Form.pdf.
Bender, W.H. (2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities:
best practices for general and special educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Benjamin, A. (2002). Differentiated instruction: a guide for middle and high school
teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition. Artificial Intelligence
and Education.
Elkwall, E.E, & Shanker, J.L. (1988). Teaching reading in the elementary school.
Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Gregory, G.H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instruction strategies: one size
doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: how to reach
and teach all learners. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Johnson, B. (2009, March 2). Differentiated instruction allows students to succeed.
Message posted to http://www.edutopia.org/differentiated-instruction-studentsuccess
Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. M. Orey, (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on
learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
42
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,
GA: LaGrange College.
Mertler, C. (2009). Action research: teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Moore, K.D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies: from theory to practice .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Reflective Journal Template for Educators. (n.d.) Retrieved June 28th, 2010, from
http://balancingleadership.com/documents/PERFECTDIARYTEACHERS5.pdf
Sasson, D. (2010, January 2). Tricks of the trade for dealing with discipline problems of
mixed ability classes. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from
http://ezinearticles.com/?Tricks- of- the- Trade- For- Dealing- With- DisciplineProblems- of- Mixed- Ability- Classes&id=3510009
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kozulin, (Ed.).Boston, MA,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
43
Appendix A
Instructional Plan
Criteria
Description
Participants Involved (age)
The participants’ age will range from 15 to 18 years of age.
Content Area
The content area will cover introductory art and will
specifically be on the principles of design.
Time Frame
Two weeks of differentiating instruction and calculating data.
Rationale
The research will facilitate various methods of teaching that
will integrate behavior modifications within the lesson.
Through differentiation of instruction, the instances of
behavioral disruptions will, hopefully, be lowered.
Facilitator
Role of the Teacher
Materials
Student interview, teacher journal, rubric for categorizing
“negative behaviors”
Procedures
The class will be broken up into groups and allowed to
participate in various sorts of activities. The lesson will be
differentiated for the students rather than participate in the
traditional lecture format.
Journals, behavior list, quantitizing of data
Assessments
Modifications
Grade level/Lesson Plan
There are several mods. for 3 students in my introductory
class. They need to have everything read to them and I will
typically send them to their study skills room, or I will read it
for them if time allows.
Grades will vary from 9th through 12th grade. The lesson will
be on of the introductory art nature specifically on the
principles of design.
44
Appendix B
Instructional Plan Rubric
Criteria
Content Area
Time frame
Rationale
Role of the Teacher
Materials
Procedures
Assessments
Modifications
Grade level/Lesson Plan
Description
The content area will cover
introductory art and will
specifically be on the principles
of design.
Two weeks of differentiating
instruction and calculating data.
The research will facilitate
various methods of teaching that
will integrate behavior
modifications within the lesson.
Through differentiation of
instruction, the instances of
behavioral disruptions will,
hopefully, be lowered.
Facilitator
Student interview, teacher
journal, rubric for categorizing
“negative behaviors”
The class will be broken up into
groups and allowed to participate
in various sorts of activities. The
lesson will be differentiated for
the students rather than
participate in the traditional
lecture format.
Journals, behavior list,
quantitizing of data
There are several mods. for 3
students in my introductory class.
They need to have everything
read to them and I will typically
send them to their study skills
room, or I will read it for them if
time allows.
Grades will vary from 9th through
12th grade. The lesson will be on
of the introductory art nature
specifically on the principles of
design.
Open Ended Responses
Do you think that the content area
will cover the introductory art
that will specifically cover the
principles of design?
Do you think that two weeks is
adequate time?
Do you think that the behavior
modifications and differentiation
will decrease the number of
behavior disruptions?
How are my materials being
presented as the facilitator?
Do you think the instruments and
tools that will be used will be a
good method to organize data?
Do you think the procedures align
with the original plan of
differentiation of instruction?
Do you think that the instruments
used for assessing the data are
adequate?
Will the modifications interfere
with my research?
Do you think that this is a good
sampling of students for the
research design?
45
Appendix C
Behavior Observation Form
46
Source: SJBoces Corporation (n.d.) Behavior observation form. Retrieved from
http://sjboces.org/pdf/Procedural%20Manual/Attachments/Behavior_Observation
_Form.pdf.
47
Appendix D
Reflective Journal
WEEK 1
Reflective Moment:
STUDENT/PARENT_____COLLEAGUE_____PERSONAL_____
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
WEEK 2
Reflective Moment:
STUDENT/PARENT_____COLLEAGUE_____PERSONAL_____
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
WEEK 3
Reflective Moment:
STUDENT/PARENT_____COLLEAGUE_____PERSONAL_____
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
48
Appendix E
Reflective Prompts
How many instances of previously defined negative behavior are noticed prior to
differentiation of the curriculum?
How long should I teach the curriculum before I begin the differentiated
curriculum?
How has the differentiated instruction increased attention span and decreased
negative behaviors?
How many instances of previously defined negative behavior are noticed post
differentiation of the curriculum?
Has the new instruction enabled the students to remain focused for longer periods of
time?
Do the students seem more involved in the lesson than in the prior days to
differentiation?
49
Appendix F
LEARNING STYLES ASSESSMENT
I Like Your Style!
LEARNING STYLES INVENTORY
(Honolulu Community College – Faculty Development Teaching Guidebook)
DIRECTIONS: To gain a better understanding of yourself as a learner, you need to evaluate the
way you prefer to learn or process information. By doing so, you will be able to develop
strategies which will enhance your learning potential. The following evaluation is a short, quick
way of assessing your learning style(s). This 24-item survey is not timed. Answer each question
as honestly as you can.
Often
1
I can remember more about a subject through the
lecture method with information, explanation, and
discussion.
2
I prefer information to be written on the chalkboard,
with the use of visual aids and assignment
readings.
3
I like to write things down or to take notes for visual
review.
4
I prefer to use posters, models, or actual practice
and some activities in class.
5
I require explanations of diagrams, graphs, or
visual directions.
6
I enjoy working with my hands or making things.
7
I am skillful with and enjoy developing and making
graphs and charts.
8
I can tell if sounds match when presented with
pairs of sounds.
9
I remember best by writing things down several
times.
10
I can understand and follow directions on maps.
11
I do better at academic subjects by listening to
lectures and tapes.
12
I play with coins or keys in pockets.
13
I learn to spell better by repeating the words out
loud than by writing the words on paper.
14
I can better understand a news article by reading
about it in the paper than by listening to the radio.
15
I chew gum or snack during studies.
16
I feel the best way to remember is to picture it in
Sometimes
Seldom
50
your head.
17
I learn spelling by “finger spelling,” (drawing the
letters with a finger).
18
I would rather listen to a good lecture or speech
than read about it.
19
I am good at working and solving jigsaw puzzles
and mazes.
20
I grip objects in my hands during learning periods.
21
I prefer listening to the news on the radio rather
than reading about it in the newspaper.
22
I obtain information on an interesting subject by
reading relevant materials.
23
I feel very comfortable touching others, hugging,
handshaking, etc.
24
I follow spoken directions better than written ones.
51
I Like Your Style!
LEARNING STYLES INVENTORY
SCORING PROCEDURES
Place the point value on the line next to the corresponding item.
OFTEN = 5
NUMBER
POINTS
/
SOMETIMES = 3
NUMBER
/
POINTS
SELDOM = 1
NUMBER
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
13
15
16
18
17
19
21
20
22
24
23
Total
Visual
Total
Auditory
Total
Tactile
POINTS
VISUAL LEARNINGS: Visual learners relate most effectively to written information, notes,
diagrams and pictures. Typically they will be unhappy with a presentation where they are unable
to take detailed notes – to an extent, information does not exist for a visual learner unless it has
been seen written down. This is why some visual learners take notes even when they have
printed course notes on the desk in front of them. Visual learners will tend to be most effective in
written communication, symbol manipulation, etc. Visual learners should look at all study
materials. They should use charts, maps, filmstrips, notes, and flashcards. Visual learners
should practice visualizing or picturing words / concepts in their heads. Visual learners should
write down everything for frequent and quick visual reference. Visual learners make up around
65% of the population.
AUDITORY LEARNERS: Auditory learners relate most effectively to the spoken word. They will
tend to listen to a lecture, and then take notes afterwards, or rely on printed notes. Often
information written down will have little meaning until it has been heard – it may help auditory
learners to read written information aloud. Auditory learners may be sophisticated speakers, and
may specialize effectively in subjects like law or politics. Auditory learners may want to use
tapes. Taped lectures may help fill in the gaps in the student’s notes. Auditory learners should
sit in front of the classroom where they can hear well. Auditory learners should do reading
assignments out loud, or recite summaries of written materials. Auditory learners make up
about 30% of the population.
52
TACTILE LEARNERS: Tactile learners learn effectively through touch, movement and space.
They learn skills by imitation and practice. Tactile learners often work slowly because information
is normally not presented in a style that suits their learning methods. Tactile learners may also
benefit from typing notes, and/or acting out (role playing) different situations. For example, tactile
learners might pretend they are different parts of the cell and actually move about the classroom
when studying cell structure. Tactile learners make up about 5% of the population.
Learning Styles – Group Summary
Name of Group: ____________________________________________________________________________
To help the counselors advise students, please list the members of your advisory group below
and write each student’s total score for each learning style as determined by the “I Like Your
Style” assessment. This information will be used when helping students develop learning
strategies and with academic planning (course selection).
STUDENT NAME
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
VISUAL
AUDITORY
TACTILE
53
Appendix G
Learning Styles Questionnaire
Name:_________________________
Date:__________________________
1.) Do you feel that you have learned better about the history of face jugs, the
dates and cultural information by creating the actual face jugs? Why or why
not?
:_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________
2.) Do you feel that you have learned better by listening to the Powerpoint
presentation about the information behind the face jugs rather than actually
making them? Why or why
not?:_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3.) Do you feel that you are more “on task” when you are listening to a lecture?
Why or why
not?:_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4.) Do you feel that you are more “on task” when you are creating something
with your hands? Why or why not?:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________