DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: REDUCING BEHAVIORAL ISSUES



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

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.

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

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

3.1 Data Shell………………………………………………………………………. 34

4.1 Independent T-Test Results……………………………………………………..40

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.

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.

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 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 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.) 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 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 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.

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 self-direct 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 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.

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).

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 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’ 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 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).

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 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).

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.

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.

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 |Literature Sources |Data Sources |Why do these data answer the |How are data analyzed? |

| | | |question? | |

|What differentiated |Tomlinson, C. (2001)|Written differentiated |Gives lessons that are qualified |Coded for themes aligned with|

|instruction can be |& |lesson plans; |to differentiate instruction. Will|focus questions. |

|implemented to promote |Sasson, D. (2010, |Reflective journals; |help with the constructive of the | |

|better behavior in the |January 2) |Rubric; . Criterion |research through utilization of | |

|mixed ability class in the|& |validity will be |these particular lesson plans and | |

|art room? |Gregory and Chapman |utilized. The type of |procedures that come directly from| |

| |(2007) |data will be |review of the literature. | |

| | |qualitative. | | |

|What were the differences |LaGrange College |Reflective journal; |Material that cites the perceived |Coded for themes aligned with|

|in the students’ behaviors|Education |Formal observations via|differences in behavior after it |focus questions; independent |

|after the instruction was |Department. (2008) |video recording; |has been differentiated. An |t-tests |

|differentiated? |& |Quantitizing data ; |established Behavior Observation | |

| |SJBoces (n.d.) |Student Questionnaires;|Form will be employed and the | |

| |& |The type of data was |number of off task behaviors | |

| |Tomlinson, C. (2001)|quantitative in nature |counted; an independent t-test | |

| |& |and the validity |will be used to calculate | |

| |Sasson, D. (2010,) |construct. |significance. | |

|What were the strengths & |Tomlinson |Reflective writing; |A reflective journal is kept to |Coded for themes aligned with|

|difficulties of |C. (2001) |Reflective journal; The|record the behaviors pre/post |focus questions |

|differentiating the mixed |& |type of data |differentiated instruction; will | |

|ability class in the art |Reflective Journal |qualitative. This focus|qualitatively determine an | |

|room? |Template for |question content |outcome. Template will be used | |

| |Educators (n.d.) |validity. |directly from lit. review | |

| | | | | |

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 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 post-data 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 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 test-retest 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 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 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download