Home.lagrange.edu
Student-Centered Instruction vs. Teacher-Directed instruction:
Which is most effective?
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.
Crystal E. Jones
Certificate of Approval:
_____________________________ ______________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Co-Thesis Chair Co-Thesis Chair
Education Department Education Department
Student-Centered Instruction vs. Direct-teacher instruction: Which is Most Effective?
A working thesis submitted
by
Crystal Elaine Jones
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
5/4/2011
Abstract
Although many studies have shown the effectiveness of student-centered instruction in a variety of educational settings, relatively few have focused on exceptional education, specifically in the area of severe emotional behavioral disorders. This study compared student-centered instruction and teacher-directed instruction using students at the secondary level within the exceptional education continuum. Comparisons between the two instructional methods assessed any differences in student achievement and socio-emotional skills. In addition, the participants completed a survey that assessed their attitude toward student-centered instruction. Although no significant differences were observed in achievement, the participants exhibited some gains in socio-emotional skills. By the end of the study, the participants indicated a high confidence level for academic and socio-emotional improvement in all classes.
Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………..………………………iii
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………...iv
List of Tables and Figures …………………………………………………………….…..v
Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………...1
Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………………1
Significance of the Problem ………………………………………………………1
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ……………..………………………….2
Focus Questions …………………………………………………………………..5
Overview of Methodology ………………………………………………………..6
Human as Researcher ……………………………………………………………..7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ………………………………………………………8
Implementing Instruction …………………………………………………………9
Student Outcome ………………………………………………………………...12
Self Reflection and Student Affect ……………………………………………...14
Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………...………17
Research Design ………………………………………….……………………..17
Setting ……………………………………………………………………...……18
Subjects and Participants ……………………………………….…………….....18
Procedures and Data Collection Methods ……………………………………….19
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias Measures………………………...23
Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………………26
Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………………….28
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results …………………………………………43
Analysis …………………………………………………………………………43
Discussion ……………………………………………………………………….48
Implications ……………………………………………………………………...51
Impact on Student Learning ……………………………………………………..52
Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………53
References ……………………………………………………………………………….54
Appendixes …………... ………………………………………………………………...57
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1. Data Shell ………………………………………………………………..20
Table 4.1 Dependent T test Teacher-directed Instruction…………………….…….32
Table 4.2 Dependent T test Student-centered Instruction Activity One.….………..33
Table 4.3 Dependent T test Student-centered Instruction Activity Two……..…….34
Table 4.4 Chi-Square - Learning Implications..……………………………………37
Table 4.5 Chi-Square - Literacy Implications……………..……………………….38
Table 4.6 Chi-Square - Personal Academic and Communications Implication……39
Table 4.7 Chi-Square - Cultural Implication……………………………………….40
Figures
Figure 4.1. Instructional Plan Rubric Opened Ended Questions…………………......29
Figure 4.2 Instructional Plan Student Survey Rating Scale………………………....36
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Today’s teachers are overwhelmed with the need to raises test scores. Whether being driven by “No Child Left Behind” or “The Race to the Top” high-stakes testing has stifled the creativity of many teachers. Many, who have made small changes to create an atmosphere with the student needs in mind, have resorted back to traditional teacher-directed instruction geared towards teaching to the test. Teacher-directed instruction tends to prevent students from making a connection between school content and real life hence the student become passive and disengaged.
This study will explore and test the effectiveness of using student-centered methodology in the secondary classroom to optimize student abilities. Student-centered classrooms are defined as “places that are responsive to the needs of a particular group of learners (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 10).” Student-centered classrooms recognize that a student transitions through stages and are designed to nurture true interests. Teachers should create an atmosphere conducive to learning and encouraging in the development of students’ personal learning experiences. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) have found that “without new approaches to instruction that connect to the needs and learning styles of students, many will continue to fail and are likely to drop out of school.”
Significance of the Problem
Students who receive teacher-directed instruction are expected to listen to lectures, wait, take tests, and do seatwork. They are also divided according to various measures of ability which increases inequalities over time. There is no personalization centered on the needs of the student. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab (2001) at Brown University of Providence states that “We will not get all students to achieve high standards until we personalize the learning experience for all our young adults” (p. 12). Teachers are faced with the pressures of high-stakes testing and that has become the driving force behind what students are expected to learn. Author Ron Passman (2000) concludes that “… high-stakes assessment based on standardized scores assumes that everyone must be exactly like me in order to be successful. We are moving toward an era of everyone looking exactly like me, where the me consists of those who define the standards” (p. 14). We want students to embrace learning and not become passive or resistant, apathetic learners. And that will happen “as long as we make all the instructional decisions, learning remains ours and not our students” (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 15).
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study focuses on the effectiveness of using student-centered instruction to increase the achievement of students within exceptional education. Teachers must have a clear understanding how students learn and provide an environment that is conducive to learning. From a cognitive perspective, teachers must be able to make meaningful connection between content areas and everyday life.
This thesis about student-centered instruction relates to LaGrange College Department of Education (2008) Conceptual Framework’s First Tenet of enthusiastic engagement in learning. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) believes that [teachers] want students to embrace learning and not become passive, apathetic or resistant learners. The authors also state that when teachers establish “a need to know the information” (p. 15) students are then motivated to achieve the task set before them. Students need to be able to connect classroom learning to the outside world in which they live; therefore, “providing students with a range of choices—in activities, reading material, and subject matter” (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 14) is the key to developing a more personally meaningful learning experience.
In addressing Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Department of Education (2008) Conceptual Framework exemplary professional teaching practices, teachers are consciously focused on what motivates students. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) researched and found that “as long as we make all of the instructional decisions, learning remains ours—not our student (p. 14).” Educators are recognizing the importance of students taking responsibility for their learning. Many teachers are changing the way they are planning, instructing, and assessing students’ abilities. Student-centered instruction has been around since the 1960s, but it has taken until now for educators to see that students learn best when the subject matter means something to them. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) refer to focusing on individual student learning as a way to connect cooperative learning, performance assessment, multiple intelligences, and constructivism, all of which positions the student in the center. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross also speak of added benefits to student-centered instruction; such as, minimizing competition between the students, encouraging students to work together, and building classroom communities.
This study also supports LaGrange College Department of Education (2008) Conceptual Framework’s Tenet Three which addresses caring and supportive classroom and learning communities. Building classroom communities offers the opportunity for learning how to work with others who are different from you. It promotes problem-solving and decision making skills that are essential if students are to succeed in the professional workforce of today. The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab at Brown University Providence, RI (2001) quoted McLeod as saying “the school is communally rather than bureaucratically organized” (p. 8). The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab at Brown University Providence, RI (2001) also state “We will not get all students to achieve high standards until we personalize the learning experience of all our young adults” (p. 12).
The Five National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers states five propositions which affect all teachers at some time during their professional career. Proposition one states “Teachers are committed to students and learning” and proposition three states “Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning” (as cited by LaGrange College Department of Education, 2008, p.12). This thesis aligns with both propositions. Aligning with Proposition One demonstrates the belief that all students can learn and by researching various instructional strategies it shows dedication to making learning accessible to all students. When aligning to Proposition Three, teachers are responsible for student learning, which means they are to continuously search for what works best to increase student success. Teachers should increase their knowledge of various instructional techniques or strategies to keep students engaged, motivated, and focus. They should also know how to engage students to ensure a disciplined learning environment, and how to organize instruction to meet instructional goals.
Students perform academically and socially at various learning stages and not the same way in all subject content areas. There are many approaches teachers can utilize when deciding which instructional strategy will work best. The main focus is to get students involved and engaged in learning in order to optimize their abilities which would result in decrease behavior problems. Teachers can continue to think systematically about their practice and learn from experience, as encouraged by the LaGrange College Education Department (2008), by trying different strategies to see what works best for optimizing abilities in all students.
Focus Questions
The overall research question for this study is “How can student-centered instruction increase achievement of students within exceptional education?” As the research literature supports, when students can see the connection between school content and real life, they are more passionate and engaged in what they are learning. Students began to set higher expectations for them and are less likely to drop out of school. As an educator, it is important to gain as much knowledge as possible about how best to optimize academic and appropriate behavioral abilities in all students.
In exploring Focus question 1) “How can teachers implement student-centered instruction in the classroom”, incorporating different activities to engage and challenge students can help teachers when implementing this type of instruction. Reading the literature to see what worked for others can let teachers know they are not alone in this journey. Also, teachers should keep a running log or journal to reflect on techniques and strategies used in their classrooms. Focus question 2) “What effects does student-centered instruction have on increasing achievement of students within exceptional education and also in decreasing behavior problems?” Various activities can be used to see what kind of effect the activity has on a student academics and behavior. Also, time and effort are essential when changing to any new instructional method. In a research study by Michael L. Rutledge (2008), students perceived that the student-centered approach was most effective at making the course relevant and interesting, and that it engaged the students in their own learning.
When addressing Focus question 3) “What are teacher and student attitudes about student-centered instruction in the classroom environment?” Hammerman (2008) presented research that the student-centered approach enables teachers to identify and address misconceptions students may have developed and assess the effectiveness of the instructional process. Hammerman (2008) also reported that student-centered instruction is high-quality instruction with a 21st century approach.
Overview of Methodology
This study was conducted using action research to determine the effectiveness of using student-centered methodology to optimize student abilities. This action research was completed in an exceptional education self-contained classroom setting in a high school located in rural Georgia. The students were on a seven period class schedule and the program adheres to the school system calendar and curriculum.
This research consisted of 22 subjects ranging from grades 9 through 12 in a heterogeneous grouping using both quantitative and qualitative methods to measure the effectiveness of student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education classroom. Two physical science classrooms of 11 students with mixed abilities were given a pretest to measure academics standing before implementation of teaching instruction. A posttest was given to measure improvement in academics at the end of each teaching instruction implemented. Students were taught for a period of two weeks first using the traditional teaching method. A posttest was given and then the students were taught another two weeks using the student-centered method. At the end of the research, students were given surveys to reflect their feelings about methods used for both two-week sessions. Additionally, students were observed for behavior and engagement during entire four week period.
Human as Researcher
As an educator in the field of special education for 13 years, I have experienced working with a diverse group of students. When I began my teaching career in a program for students with severe emotional behavior problems, I was introduced to students who dealt with disabilities that were emotionally-based. When their emotional needs were not meet, they had no interest or motivation to participate in classroom activities. The more that this would happen, the further behind they would become academically. They exhibited a number of behavior issues that stemmed from frustration, poor confidence, and lack of self-esteem. In completing this action research on brain-based learning, my hopes are to find that in creating an atmosphere which is conducive to learning and encouraging in the development of student’s emotions and feelings, that I will be optimizing their learning abilities and decrease discipline problems.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will review the literature of scholars who have studied the connection between student-centered instruction and student achievement and provided evidence that the student-centered instructional approach is the most effective in increasing student achievement and also improving student behavior. The scholars provided background information, strategies, and techniques to help educators implement this type of instructional approach within their classrooms.
Student-centered instruction, by definition, is placing the student at the center of the learning process, but today education continues to function like a business operating on the efficiency model grounded in the Industrial Revolution which resembles a factory, assembly-line, and production model created back in 1892-93 used to produce functional members of society. The instructional model in which education of today implements continues to operate on a system handed down by The Committee of Ten 1892-93 (Johnson, 2003). This system operates on the teacher-centered instructional model which is designed to teach the four major curriculum subjects: math, English, science, and social studies, with no emphasis on including any involvement in the arts. The original education schedule, which is considered to be teacher-centered because it places all the emphasis on the teacher and not the student, still dominates the education scene. This teacher-centered instructional model was not designed for educating all but only a small percentage of students who adapted to it (Johnson, 2003). Is there any reason why a vast number of students continue to fail at an increasing rate? Bil Johnson considers teacher-centered education to be “thoughtlessly unphilosophical” (p. 3) and one that is dictated by bus schedules, track classes, and policy makers which lead one to believe that it is not about the student but about the adults. Yet, according to Johnson, the main purpose of public schools is to create active, democratic citizens.
As we struggle to create twenty-first century classrooms, we are faced with the devastating reports that, as a nation, we are lagging behind and that our students are failing at an alarming rate. There is great evidence that the students we are educating lack the ability to be productive members of society because they lack critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and they have little or no knowledge of how to be responsible members of society. Evidence of this failing rate is based on the only nationally acceptable measure of student achievement, multiple-choice and five-paragraph testing, which does not truly determine whether the students have truly learned the content. Facts have shown that with multiple-choice testing; only two out of seven of Gardner’s multiple intelligences are being met so the much publicized results only reveal that students can or cannot regurgitate the information the teacher has trained them to learn. Yet, educators are pressed to increase test scores; therefore many educators opt to teach the test and the students are pressured to pass the test which causes many students and educators to harbor negative feelings about education and its process.
Implementing Instruction
A movement to reform education was developed but was met with many changes that were not beneficial to the learner, only to the adults. Many educators say they want change, but many are afraid or are not equipped to make the change. Educators or Administrators may implement changes, but when the change does not work out, they are ready to move on to the next method. Creditability is then lost and this affects not only the students but the society as a whole. Nobody likes change, but when you are making change a period of time should be expected before you see the desired result. Just because it looks like it may not be working, does not mean it won’t work. Johnson (2003) said it best, “…dissonance is essential for change. Until we accept that, and put the learners at the center of the debate (not the adult and their interests), we may well see numerous changes without making any significant progress” (p. 4). As previously mentioned, student-centered instruction is such a model that places the student as the center of the learning process. Student-centered instruction allows the student to make the connection between what goes on in the classroom and their “real” life. According to McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996), a need to know the information must be established in order to motivate students to achieve.
Felder describes several methods of implementing student-centered into the classroom. These methods include active learning, in which students solve problems, answer questions, formulate questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or brainstorm during class; cooperative learning, in which students work in teams on problems and projects under conditions that assure both positive interdependence and individual accountability; and inductive teaching and learning, in which students are first presented with challenges (questions or problems) and learn the course material in the context of addressing the challenges. Inductive methods include inquiry-based learning, case-based instruction, problem-based learning, project-based learning, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching.
Johnson gives some practical steps when implementing student-centered instruction in classrooms. First, plan backwards from the outcome and the evidence. Begin with the end in mind. Second, teachers should start small. Use graphic organizers (mind maps/webs, T-charts, etc.) when implementing the lesson. Third, use groups, jigsaws, Socratic seminars. Fourth, the use of role-plays, simulations, and debates are very effective. And fifth, the authentic assessment should be in the form of projects and portfolios. Howard Gardner (2006) claims that based on his theory of multiple intelligences:
…that almost any topic which is worth spending time on can be approached from at least six different “windows” into the same room: 1 Narrational: the story mode. 2 A quantitative, logical rational way of dealing with numbers, principles, causality. 3 A foundational way, asking basic kinds of questions such as: Why is this important? How does it relate to what came before? How is it related to our lives today? 4 Aesthetic: What does it look like? What does it sound like? What appearance does it make? What patterns and configurations? How does it impress you? 5 Hands on: What is it actually like to be this thing, to do this thing? If you’re studying evolution, what is it like to breed Drosophila? If you’re studying democracy, what’s it like to be in a group that decides by consensus as opposed to one that decides by autocracy, oligarchy or some other political principle?
6 Personal: Can you integrate this topic through debate, role play, projects, jigsaw participation and other joint interactions? (p. 142)
Scholars Schumacher and Kennedy (2008) list several pros and cons, or drawbacks to student-centered teaching. The authors conducted a study that revealed teachers who implemented student-centered found that this type of instruction involved a lot of preparation work. The teachers had questions of how to divide time between lecture and group work and what to do with at-risk student that retreated and postponed learning, in which, the teacher suspected may or may not happen at a later time. The drawbacks are that student-centered takes a lot of classroom time and teachers felt compelled to cover all the concepts outlined in the standards. When choosing to implement student-centered instruction most teachers will find they have embarked on a journey which has life changing implications for both the teacher and the student but mainly for the students.
Student Outcome
Evidence has shown that many teachers have found with student-centered learning, students are learning the skills necessary for critical thinking, problem-solving, and becoming responsible citizens. Student-centered classrooms empower students and give them a voice, making them responsible for their work and actions (Johnson, 2001). McWhorter et al. (1996) research shows that focusing on individual student learning connects cooperative learning, performance assessment, multiple intelligences, and constructivism, in which, all of the concepts mentioned positions the students in the center. Johnson also contends these concepts are the inevitable product of constructivist thinking.
As cited by Rutledge (2008), Klionsky, Lawson, and Lord reported on studies that revealed the effectiveness of student-centered, active learning strategies in promoting meaningful learning, retention of content, improved student attitude and the development of critical thinking skills. The use of Howard Gardner’s six approaches appears to support the implementation of student-centered instruction by offering two advantages. One advantage is more likely to reach all students and the second advantage is gives the opportunity to model what it’s like to be an expert. With all of the positive research and evidence of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching, still very few teachers are implementing this type of instruction within classrooms. Research has claimed many benefits to using student-centered instruction at the secondary level. According to McWhorter and Hudson-Ross student-centered reduces competition, encourages students to work together, builds classroom communities, and allows students to become partners in the classroom in which the teacher operates as facilitator, collaborating with students on decisions that are to be made.
While these benefits serve to offer many benefits of building life-long skills necessary for students to function in the real world, Chall (2000) found that student-centered failed to produce increased academic achievement for all students. Chall found that traditional teacher-centered approach yield higher academic achievement within all social classes and race, for students with disabilities, and with at-risk students. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds were found to show greater achievement when taught with traditional methods. These students lacked the readiness skills necessary to move forward academically at a young age. As the students moved up in grade level, it became more apparent that the students were not performing at grade level. The low functioning students and students from low-income families were found to thrive better in a more traditional setting due to lack of knowledge content. Students from middle-class or higher-class distinction proved to perform at a higher achievement level with the progressive (student-centered) approach, possible due to home factors and exposures. Chall (2000) reported on teachers’ experiences with student-centered instruction. The teachers had implemented methods that are favored by student-centered but the results lead to sleepless nights for one teacher and lower reading achievement scores. Another teacher experienced disruptive behaviors in classes which were only managed by returning to traditional teacher-approach instruction.
Self-Reflection and Student Affect
Scholar Passman (2000) discovered that when teachers were faced with the pressure of high-stakes assessments, they felt compelled to stick with a traditional classroom setting and teacher-directed instruction. Teachers often are afraid to take risks and try something new. Teachers are afraid to do the very thing students are asked to do daily—to take a risk. On the other hand the scholar, Aaronsohn (1996), found that the problem does not always lie with the teacher feeling pressured and resorting back to traditional instruction but the main reason was the lack of support. Many teachers have reported that they have tried it and when it didn’t work out they went back to the only teaching method they were most familiar with which was traditional instruction. Aaronsohn (1996) completed a case study to prove that with support and effort, student-centered instruction works for the both the student and the teacher. In this case study, Aaronsohn documented her experience with a teacher who taught high school English in a teacher-centered manner felt she was not fully meeting students’ needs. The teacher in the case study began to implement methods that would allow the students to construct their own meaning.
The scholar, Aaronsohn reported on the frustrations and isolation from colleagues felt by the teacher and also on the resistance of the students when more responsibility of learning was placed onto the students. The teacher in the study reported that at times she struggle to stay back when the students complained about the responsibility given to them but she continued to try despite how hard it was. Also the teacher in the case study felt without the support of her mentor, Aaronsohn, she would have resorted back to traditional instruction. The conclusion of the case study proved success for both the teacher and the students. The longer the teacher committed to student-centered, the less pressure she felt and she actually liked it and enjoyed her work. And more importantly the students no longer resisted but instead moved in the groups cooperatively and began working without having to be told what to do. The case-study teacher went on to supervise more student teachers and hold workshops for others who believed that student student-centered methods could work in high schools.
Chall’s (2000) research study that focused on what really works in classrooms, found that when looking at non-academic attitudes; there was little difference in how teachers and students felt when comparing traditional and student-centered instruction. In fact, Chall (2000) came across “descriptive reports of the education of low-socioeconomics-status children, from early 1900’s to the present, notes that parents of these children voiced serious objections to having their children educated in schools that followed an informal, student-centered approach” (p. 172). Chall also included facts on how the two instructional approaches affected the educational policy. During the years 1995-1996, five out of seven books on education and educational policy were reviewed and were found to all favor the greater effectiveness of the traditional approach. Scholars Stevenson and Stigler (1992) found that Japanese children who were taught using a traditional instructional approach liked school better than U.S. children who were taught using a progressive (student-centered) instructional approach. While there were many, including parents and students, who favor the traditional teaching approach, there were many who were highly committed “that a progressive (student-centered) approach is best—for a democracy and for the social and emotional well-being of the child, as well as for academic progress” (Chall, 2000, p. 178). As concluded in her book, Chall reported on an eight-year study of high school students, which found no significant difference between a progressive or traditional approach, but the small differences that were found seemed to favor the progressive, student-centered approach.
In conclusion, there will be new and veteran teachers opposed to student-centered instructions, there are teachers who are willing to take the risk and try something different. Student-centered instructors should know they are not alone in what they are feeling. It will take some time to undo all the years of traditional instruction taught. The key is to gradually introduce the new method and reflect on any issues that may arise. Teachers should also seek out other teachers who feel the same way they do, who are willing to take a risk on implementing student-centered instruction, as a support system to ensure success of the transition. Evidence has shown teachers who decided to make the transition, with the help of a support system or mentor, ended successfully.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This action research focused on the effectiveness of using student-centered instruction at the secondary level in a science class within the exceptional education setting. Of the four types of action research described by Cher Hendricks (2009), classroom action research is the research that was employed for the focus of this study. Hendricks defines classroom action research as “a form of action research that is conducted by teachers in their classrooms with the purpose of improving practice. It values the interpretations that teachers make based on data collected with their students (p. 10).” Hendricks elaborates on the systematic process which involves ongoing reflection and a series of steps that continuous spiral beginning with reflect, act, evaluate, reflect, act, evaluate. According to Hendricks, action research uses both data collecting methods, quantitative and qualitative, to identify and study a problem being tested by an investigator.
Eileen Ferrance (2000) defines action research as a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systemically and carefully, using the techniques of research. Ferrance describes the steps in the action research process as identify the problem, gather data, interpret data, act on evidence, evaluate results, and next steps (p. 9) which involves identifying additional questions raised by the data and plan and plan for additional improvements, revision, and next steps (p. 13). Ferrance lists the benefits to action research as a 1) focus on school issue, problem, or area of collective interest, 2) form of teacher professional development, 3) collegial interactions, 4) potential to impact school change, 5) reflect on own practice, and 6) improved communication (pp.13-15).
Setting
This action research took place in a Georgia high school located in Troup County. At the time of the study, I taught in Exceptional Education working with students who have Severe Emotional Behavior Disorders. I chose to complete my study within my science classroom to improve my educational practice. A request for permission to complete this action research was submitted to the coordinator of the program and to the superintendent of the school system. Both parties approved the action research study.
Subjects and Participants
The subjects were students enrolled in behavior modification program which services students with severe emotional behaviors disorders located in a rural county in Georgia. The behavior modification program services students from grades P-12, enrolled in the public school system in surrounding counties. All subjects meet and qualify for exceptional education with severe emotional behavior disorder eligibility. The population within the program is majority African American and Caucasian boys ranging in age from fifteen through twenty-two. All subjects in the program were scheduled for classes based on the classes needed to satisfy graduation requirements, available space, and preferential scheduling. The subjects who are participating in this action research were registered for the class I teach by the program’s lead teacher.
The participants in this action research consisted of one mixed-race girl age fifteen, one African-American girl age sixteen, and two Caucasian girls one age nineteen, the other sixteen. The remaining eighteen participants are five African-American males—three age fifteen and the remaining two age sixteen, twelve Caucasian males one age fifteen, four age sixteen, three age seventeen, two age eighteen, and one age twenty, and one mixed-race male age seventeen.
All participants currently function below grade in reading and math with the exception of one sixteen year old male student who is functioning near grade level in math and above grade level in reading. Although participants scored in the low to low average range on administered achievement tests, they are able to function successfully on various classroom assignments with and with accommodations and modifications. The participants will be divided into subgroups based on mixed-ability grouping based on teacher observation, teacher-made tests, and achievement test scores from most currently achievement testing.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) express that a need to know the information must be established before students become motivated to learning the material taught. So, choosing concepts that are relevant to students’ real life would seem the logical first step in implementing the focus of this research—student-centered instruction or any type of instruction. When students can answer the questions: “What does this have to do with me?” or “How can I apply this to my real life?” only then will they become highly interested in what they are doing. A sense of purpose is then created. Once the appropriate motivating activities are chosen, the investigator can began to concentrate on the method needed to carry out the instruction of choice, which in this action research will be student-centered instruction.
After choosing the research topic and researching the literature, a method of organizing the data should be created. A data shell (see Table 3.1 below), allows the researcher to list any data to be used to support research findings. The data shell also serves as a graphic organizer categorizing the collected data to its key focus question.
Table 3.1 Data Shell
|Focus Question |Literature |Type of Method, Data,|How these data are |Rationale |
| |Sources |Validity |analyzed | |
|How can teachers implement |McWhorter & |Type of Method: |Qualitative: Coded |Qualitative: Looking for |
|student-centered instruction |Hudson-Ross |Instructional plan, |for themes aligned |categorical and repeating data|
|in a secondary exceptional |(1996), Johnson,|Rubric, and interview |with focus questions|that form patterns of |
|education classroom? |B. (2003), | | |behaviors |
| |Felder, |Type of Data: | | |
| |R.M.(n.d.) |qualitative | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Type of Validity: | | |
| | |Content, | | |
|What effects does |Rutledge, M. |Type of Method: |Quantitative: |Quantitative: To determine if |
|student-centered instruction |(2008), Chall, |Behavior chart, |Descriptive and |there are significant |
|have on students’ learning |Jeanne S. |Teacher –made tests |inferential |differences between means from|
|within exceptional education |(2000), |(pre/posttest), |Statistics, |two independent groups. |
|classroom? |Hargrove, T.Y. |science notebook |independent t-test | |
| |and Nesbit, C. | | | |
| |(2003) |Type of Data: interval| | |
| | | | | |
| | |Type of Validity: | | |
| | |Content, | | |
|What are teacher and student |Passman, R. |Type of Method: |Quantitative: Chi |Quantitative: To determine if |
|attitudes about |(2000)., Chall, |Surveys, Reflective |Square |there are significant |
|student-centered instruction |Jeanne S. |Journal, focus group | |differences between means from|
|in the secondary exceptional |(2000), |journal questions | |two independent groups. |
|education classroom |Aaronsohn, E. | |Qualitative: Coded | |
|environment? |(1996), |Data: |for themes aligned |Desire to find what questions |
| | |Nominal |with focus questions|(items) are significant (and |
| | | | |which ones are not). |
| | |Type of Validity: | | |
| | |Construct | |Qualitative: Looking for |
| | | | |categorical and repeating data|
| | | | |that form patterns of |
| | | | |behaviors |
An instructional plan (see Appendix A) was then created which includes everything that is relevant to the activities which will be implementing during the action research. After the completion of the instructional plan, an experienced colleague evaluated the content of the instructional plan for validity using a rubric (see Appendix B) and offered written feedback. The initial feedback received was not as in-depth and did not offer specific information which could be important to the success of the research. Hence, I sought another colleague experienced in the field of the content I chose to implement. I used the same instructional plan and rubric and completed a taped interview which provided specific key information and ideas which validated that the chosen activities were good activities that apply real-world concepts.
Richard Felder (n.d.) describes three methods used to implement student-centered instruction. The three methods are active learning, cooperative learning, and inductive teaching and learning which is also known as inquiry-based learning, case-based instruction, problem-based learning, project-based learning, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching. Cooperative learning is the method chosen to implement student-centered instruction for this action research. The practical steps provided by Johnson (2003) corroborate the method of implementation of student-centered instruction described by Felder. Johnson informs investigators that implementation should begin with planning with the end in mind (plan backwards). Next, he suggests starting small and using groups. Assessment should be authentic and carried out in the form of projects and portfolios. Cooperative learning is also discussed by McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) as being an effective method for connecting the focus on individual students’ learning. As mentioned by the previously mentioned authors, cooperative learning will be used and the participants will be assessed on their final projects, which fall into the category of inquiry-based and discovery learning (project-based learning). The students will also science notebooks as communicative devices related to final assessment on the cooperative learning project.
The action research was implemented by first administering a pretest (see Appendix C) to set a basal level of performance for each participant. The pretest was designed based on the state standards for the coverage of the curriculum unit. The control group was administered traditional instruction. The traditional lesson was administered for approximately seven days followed by the same posttest (see Appendix C). As conducted with the control group, a pretest for Activity One (see Appendix D) was administered based on state standards for the curriculum unit. Also on day one, an overview of the research was given along with instructions on the use of the science notebooks (Hargrove & Nesbit, 2003) (see Appendix E). Day two, students were given a copy of cooperative learning assignment and instructions. The assignment and instructions were reviewed before placing students in their pre-assigned cooperative groups. The cooperative groups were facilitated from that point on. This initial part of the action research lasted for approximately three days. On the fifth day, students were administered the same Activity One post test on the coverage of the curriculum implemented.
The second week of the research, participants will be introduced to another cooperative learning project which will follow the same implementation pattern as the previous week. Students were given a pretest for Activity Two followed by the same posttest (see Appendix F). Rutledge describes research studies in which student-centered instruction was very effective in improving student attitudes along with developing critical-thinking skills. Johnson (2000) describes student-centered instruction as an effective tool for empowering students and making them responsible for their work and actions; therefore, a chart documenting cooperative and participatory behaviors (see Appendix G) was used to determine whether the instruction had any effect on student behavior. This chart was used throughout the research.
The final day of research, participants were administered a survey (see Appendix H) to assess participants attitudes about the student-centered instructional method implemented. Scholar Chall describes research in which students and parents favored the progressive instructional method over traditional instruction. Hence, additional data were gathered using focus group journal questions (Morton, 2008) (see Appendix I) to determine level of engagement of participants. I also completed a daily reflective journal (see Appendix J) to assess attitude about instructional methods implemented. Aaronsohn (1996) found that reflecting on daily experiences gave her insight on the effectiveness of her practice.
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias
When determining the effectiveness of any instruction, W. James Popham (2008) states that we must first have a clear understanding to what the terms mean even if we do not apply them on a day to day basis. Validity is defined as meaningfulness and trustworthiness of your data influenced by design and methods of research (three measures –content, construct, criterion). Validity, stressed by Popham (2008), “is the most significant concept in assessment” (p. 48). Popham reiterates that “the more evidence of validity we have, the better we’ll know how much confidence to place in our score-based inferences” (p. 53). Reliability is when research can be repeated with consistency. The goal is to minimize errors and biases so that study (not results) can be replicated. Reliability influences validity. Dependability is closely related to the concepts of accuracy and consistency. Assessment bias refers to qualities of an assessment instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students because of students’ gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such group-defining characteristics (Popham, 2008, p. 73). Although no one can be fully objective, research should be free of unfair, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias.
This study, using participants selected to control for confounding variables, shows dependability in the researcher’s ability to maintain well organized data. It establishes a chain of evidence which connects the research question to theory to all focus questions to conclusions. The study also provides complete and accurate supporting data. Dependability was also shown in writing a detailed method section located in this section of the thesis. The first focus of this action research was to test how to implement student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education classroom. Therefore, an instructional plan was developed to ensure that all instructional components were included that would cover both aspects of meeting the needs of students with disabilities and as well as incorporating student-centered instruction. A rubric was designed to assess the instructional plan which was analyzed by a colleague to ensure content validity was present. Qualitative data were gathered through an in-depth recorded interview based on the answers constructed on the instructional plan rubric.
The second focus question was to look at student outcome. Teacher-made pretest and posttest, science notebooks, and behavior charts to were used to collect data. The teacher-made pretest and posttest were analyzed for reliability using a dependent t-test to determine if there were significant differences between the groups tested. I analyzed this at a significant level of p ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.