Differentiation of Instruction

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: REDUCING BEHAVIORAL ISSUES IN THE ART ROOM

A thesis submitted

by

Tiffany Michelle Greene

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May 11, 2011

i

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.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………...iii

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………. iv

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………..1Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………... 1Significance of the Problem………………………………………………... 2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………...3Focus Questions……………………………………………………………. 5Overview of Methodology…………………………………………………. 6Human 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…………………………………………………………… 18Research Design…………………………………………………………….18Setting……………………………………………………………………… 19Subjects and Participants…………………………………………………. 19Procedures and Data Collection Methods………………………………….. 20Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias...……………………………..23Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………….24

Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..26

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………. 33Analysis……………………………………………………………………..33Discussion………………………………………………………………….. 37Implications…………………………………………………………………39Impact on Student Learning………………………………………………... 40Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………. 40

References…………………………………………………………………………..41

iii

Appendixes………………………………………………………………………… 43

List of Tables and FiguresTables

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

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

iv

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.

1

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.

2

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

3

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

4

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.)

5

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

6

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

7

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.

8

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

9

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.

10

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).

11

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

12

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’

13

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

14

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).

15

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

16

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).

17

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.

18

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.

19

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 ShellFocus Question Literature

SourcesData Sources Why do these data

answer the question?How are data analyzed?

What differentiated instruction can be implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in the art room?

Tomlinson, C. (2001)&Sasson, D. (2010, January 2)&Gregory and Chapman (2007)

Written differentiated lesson plans; Reflective journals; Rubric; . Criterion validity will be utilized. The type of data will be qualitative.

Gives lessons that are qualified to differentiate instruction. Will help with the constructive of the research through utilization of these particular lesson plans and procedures that come directly from review of the literature.

Coded for themes aligned with focus questions.

What were the differences in the students’ behaviors after the instruction was differentiated?

LaGrange College Education Department. (2008)&SJBoces (n.d.)&Tomlinson, C. (2001)&Sasson, D. (2010,)

Reflective journal; Formal observations via video recording; Quantitizing data ; Student Questionnaires;The type of data was quantitative in nature and the validity construct.

Material that cites the perceived differences in behavior after it has been differentiated. An established Behavior Observation Form will be employed and the number of off task behaviors counted; an independent t-test will be used to calculate significance.

Coded for themes aligned with focus questions; independent t-tests

What were the strengths & difficulties of differentiating the mixed ability class in the art room?

TomlinsonC. (2001)&Reflective Journal Template for Educators (n.d.)

Reflective writing; Reflective journal; The type of data qualitative. This focus question content validity.

A reflective journal is kept to record the behaviors pre/post differentiated instruction; will qualitatively determine an outcome. Template will be used directly from lit. review

Coded for themes aligned with focus questions

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

method reflective journal using prompts. The type of data qualitative in nature as the data

will be coded for themes and aligned with the focus question. This focus question content

validity as the behaviors and performance will be recorded. The data be accurately

recorded with the use of protocols, the raw data will be organized as well as providing

complete and accurate supporting data in order to maintain dependability. The

instruments were checked for unfairness, offensiveness and disparate impact and have

been found to be free of biasness.

Analysis of Data

Focus question one considered qualitative as it will be coded for recurring,

dominant and emerging themes and aligned with the focus questions. Focus question two

quantitative as it will be dealing with descriptive and inferential statistics in which an

independent t-test will be utilized to calculate the data to determine if there are significant

differences between means from two independent groups as well as the effect size that is

calculated using Cohen’s standard effect size r for a pre-post test. The decision to reject

the null hypothesis was set at p<.05. Focus question three considered qualitative as it will

be coded for recurring, dominant and emerging themes and aligned with the focus

questions.

The validation of the study can be considered both consensual and

epistemological validation as it has been approved by my faculty as well as having the

results compared to the literature. In focus question one; credibility has been taken into

consideration as I have created structural corroboration through utilizing multiple data

sources. Throughout the research, I also brought about fairness through including

opposing points of view. I also great care to ensure precision and accuracy in order to

24

have a research based in strong evidence through triangulation. Concerning

transferability, the study can be replicated by others and easily used for future research.

The study also causes a positive change or transformation for the researcher as well as for

others, causing catalytic validity.

25

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Being aligned and organized via the focus questions, the results are explored and

presented. Through the usage of qualitative and quantitative data, the results were

compiled and calculated to reveal the outcome of the research. The qualitative data from

all sources that were utilized will be explained and presented. Emerging, dominant and

reoccurring themes as well as narratives have been coded and analyzed for the research.

For the quantitative data, the embedded table will be discussed and expounded upon as

well as the results from the independent t-test.

Focus question one, the question “what differentiated instruction can be

implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in the art room?” was

asked and explored. Through utilizing differentiated lesson plans as well as a reflective

journal, the results were gathered and coded for themes aligning with the focus question.

The differentiated lesson plan included portions that focused on each learning style

(auditory, kinesthetic and visual). Through breaking the students up into their specific

learning style group, I then put them into key spots in the classroom that would

emphasize their various learning style. For instance, the auditory learners would be right

next to me, the visuals were directly in front of me while I gave the differentiated

instruction and the tactile learners were close to the materials so as to be within close

reach when the lesson was differentiated from the traditional lecture style. While

transmitting the information through the differentiated lesson plan, a reflective journal

was kept which has been coded for themes. A reoccurring theme that can be noted in the

journal responses is the notation of the traditional style of instruction and how a small

26

amount of students were engaged in the pre-differentiated style of instruction. Some of

the passages are as follows: “I do feel that they were interested in some of the stories, but

when the lesson went back to dates and pure information [. . .]. They would copy down

dates and notes.” Also, noting the traditional instruction: “other students were engaged,

listening and would answer questions when asked. These students were considered

auditory learners. They synthesize material by being spoken to and listening to the

instruction. For these particular learners, this is how they find the most meaning in the

material. Typically I would also have the students copy notes from the screen while I read

the vocabulary to them”. The reflective journal also explored the differentiated lesson: “I

would ask them to tell me back what we had previously done as well as what they think

we would do next. I also had them tell me why they thought a certain procedure would or

would not work”. The differentiated lesson plan that was used incorporated all aspects of

the various learning styles as it was an introduction into ceramics and their cultural uses

during the mid-1800’s in the Underground Railroad. During pre-differentiation they were

copying notes from a projected PowerPoint as well as copying various vocabulary words.

Post-differentiation, the students were actively making the ceramic pieces and going

through the actual process that an individual in the Underground Railroad would have

gone through to create the ceramic pieces.

Focus question two asked, “what were the differences in the students’ behaviors

after the instruction was differentiated?”. Through utilizing a combination of quantitative

and qualitative data gathering methods, the results were computed and compiled for

interpretation. Formerly, a Behavior Observation Form was utilized by an unbiased third

party to generate data. However, not enough data were collected to be able to render an

27

identifiable outcome. Therefore, a videotape was utilized to calculate and quantitize the

data while the instruction was taking place in order to gather information on all 28 of the

students simultaneously. The results were then kept in an Excel Document and coded for

themes. Quantitative information was collected, calculated and defined. Formal

observations were used as the previously mentioned defined negative behavior instances

were calculated and evaluated through the use of statistical means. An independent t-test

was utilized to compute the data:

Table 4.1 Independent T-Test Results

  Pre-DifferentiatedPost-

DifferentiatedMean 4.095238095 1.75Variance 7.701663798 2.864457831Observations 84 84Pooled Variance 5.283060815Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 166t Stat 6.612547128P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000000002t Critical one-tail 1.654084714P(T<=t) two-tail 4.94585E-10t Critical two-tail 1.974357726  

To determine if there was a significance difference between paired individual

student data, an independent t-test was utilized to calculate the data. Through looking at

the data between the pre-differentiated instances of negative behaviors and post-

differentiated instances of negative behaviors, one can note that the outcome is highly

significant. The effect size was also calculated to measure the degree of the treatment and

produced an output of 1.0203381 which is considered to be a considerably large effect

size with a 55.4% of non-overlap.

28

Qualitatively speaking, several methods were used to gather information. The

usage of a reflective journal and prompts as well as a student questionnaire were utilized

to gather quantitative data. The results were coded for themes and aligned with the focus

question. The reflective journal that was kept throughout the duration of the research

states several of the differences pre and post differentiation of instruction. For instance,

during the pre-differentiated instruction, one notices a dominant theme which can be

notated through an excerpt from the personal reflective journal: “There were multiple

instances of previously defined negative behavior such as talking, causing disruptions to

other students through talking, inactivity, and playing with object (which for this age

group, the “object” will be designated as the cell phone). I would make corrective

remarks to the students, but would notice that the same or neighboring students would

again interact in the same behaviors”. Also, during the last day of pre-differentiated

instruction, there are other notations in the reflective journal that notate a dominant theme

of behavioral issues, “[. . .] when the lesson went back to dates and pure information, the

students would seem disinterested as they would engage in the previously defined

negative behaviors once more”. After the instruction was differentiated and the students

situated into their new positions separated by learning style, the reflective journal reflects

a noted difference in the behavior in the classroom. Some of the passages are as follows:

“the entire class was engaged in the lesson as the auditory, visual and kinesthetic learners

were all engaged. When reviewing the video, I noticed that very few behavior issues were

noted in the previously coded students” as well as “during [. . .] post-differentiation, I

noticed that it enabled the students to remain focused for longer periods of time. Pre-

differentiation the students would be focused for about five to seven minutes at a time.

29

During the differentiated portion of the lesson, they would be completely engaged for up

to 15 to 17 minutes”.

I also gave a student questionnaire which had prompts such as, “Do you feel that

you are more ‘on task’ when you are listening to a lecture? Why or why not?” and also

“Do you feel that you are more ‘on task’ when you are creating something with your

hands? Why or why not?”. The students were asked to be honest and several students

went back and changed their answers when asked to be completely truthful. I surveyed 28

students and 7 out of the 28 said that they feel that they are “on task” when listening to a

lecture and the traditional style of instruction whereas 21 out of the 28 said that they did

not feel on task when listening to a lecture. A dominant theme that occurred was that

most of the students did not find themselves engaged enough in the lesson and began to

interact in negative behaviors. A response from a student who said that they consider

themselves to not be on task when listening to a lecture is as follows: “No, I am more ‘on

task’ when I am actually creating something. A lecture only grabs my attention for

roughly the first five minutes.” Another dominant theme was that the majority of the

students mentioned being “bored” and “distracted” when participating in the traditional

style of instruction. Student responses are as follows: “No, because they bore me and I

get distracted”, “No, because it’s boring”, “No, because I don’t like to sit and listen and I

get distracted”, as well as “No, they get really tiring over an amount of time”.

Conversely, when asked if they were more “on task” when they were active in the lesson,

26 out of 28 students answered “yes”. Two students were answered “no” stated that they

were more or less always on task, so there was no difference. The majority of the

responses mentioned that they felt less distracted and less prone to engage in negative

30

behaviors when they were creating rather than listening to a lecture. Some of the

responses are as follows: “Yes, I do because when I’m creating something, that’s all I’m

thinking about and the other stuff around me just goes away”, “Yes, because you are

actually engaged in the activity”, “Yes, because I am involved in the activity”, “Yes,

because it [. . .] keeps me occupied and doesn’t make me think about other things I would

rather do” and finally “Yes, there is no longer a temptation to become ‘off task’”.

The third focus question, “what were the strengths & difficulties of differentiating

the mixed ability class in the art room?” was explored through quantitative data. A

reflective journal was kept and coded for themes aligning with the focus question. The

recurring theme noted in the reflective journals was the difficulty in differentiating

instruction on the first day as it was notably different than the traditional style of

instruction. However, Tomlinson (2001) stated that the difficulties from beginning a

differentiated curriculum are often outweighed by the extreme benefits that are eventually

reaped from creating such a unique and all-encompassing classroom. A passage from the

reflective journal that explains this difficulty is as follows: “on the first day of

differentiating the lesson, I found it to be a little difficult as I had to switch between so

many different activities that would hit on all the different learning styles. A colleague

mentioned that this may prove difficult the first few times” as well as “during transitions

from non-differentiated to differentiated, some of the students seemed to find themselves

once more ‘off task’ but soon became engaged when the transition was complete”. An

emerging theme that can be noted in the reflective journal is that I found it to not take

very long to get acquainted with differentiating the lesson. Having to multi-task in the

classroom came to me easily and proved to be much easier when the final days of the

31

research. The reflective journal exhibits this theme: “after having differentiated for the

first few days, I feel much more confidant. I have found that I can successfully create and

instruct a differentiated lesson”. The dominant theme in this portion of the thesis is the

various strengths that I have garnered as an educator. Through the reflective journal, I

noted that although the first few days were trying, I began to feel more confidant as well

as learned in the various methods of instruction.

In précis, the results that were determined from the study were statistically

considered to be highly significant. The responses from both the students and the

reflective journal have also set up the varied difference between the pre-differentiated and

post-differentiated instruction. The various narratives that have been coded for themes as

well as the calculated statistical data have proven very positive results in support of my

research.

32

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis of Results

While discovering the research for Focus Question 1, what differentiated

instruction can be implemented to promote better behavior in the mixed ability class in

the art room, the majority of the scholars, such as Gregory and Chapman (2007) noted

that through having variety in the classroom, the students will become more engaged in

the lesson. Through having the students interact in the lesson as they are met on their

understanding level, they will have less time and reason for disruptive behaviors.

Tomlinson (2001) refers to “on task behavior” and how it should be valued and

understood in the classroom. By having the students remain on task through the

differentiated classroom, they are able to maintain “on task behavior” which will

eliminate the unnecessary disruptions by students who may be bored, not challenged, not

having the material meet them on their understanding level and/or not engaged in the

lesson. The scholarly research from Chapter 2 seems to have been congruent with the

results from my data collection. My research did prove what the literature states,

however, Gregory and Chapman (2007) stated that rather than grouping the students into

their learning styles via pods of desks, it would be more beneficial to have opportunities

for each learning style to be considered throughout the lesson in a more holistic manner. I

did group the students into their learning styles and I found that to be more helpful to

have them separated rather to than to have them sitting in their normal area. It was easier

to see each group of specific learning styles and how they were participating in the lesson

in light of their particular learning manner.

33

In focus question one, I utilized a reflective journal and the differentiated lesson

plans to gather the information needed for this particular portion of the research. I

analyzed the data by coding the various themes that aligned with the focus question. This

focus question had a basis in qualitative data through the usage of the reflective journal

prompts and responses. A recurring theme that can be noted in the journal responses is

the notation of the traditional style of instruction and how a small amount of students

were engaged in the pre-differentiated style of instruction. Those particular students were

considered as auditory learners when they took part in the learning styles survey ,

therefore the lecture style appealed to them at times.

Focus question two, what were the differences in the students’ behaviors after the

instruction was differentiated, both qualitative and quantitative data were employed to

gather results. Initially a Behavior Observation Form was used to gather information;

however, a substantial amount of data was not gathered through this particular avenue. I

then utilized a video camera to gather information during the delivery of the traditional

style and differentiated style of instruction. The data were able to be quantitized through

documenting the instances of previously defined negative behaviors. An independent t-

test was then employed to calculate the results of the quantitative data. The results were

considered to be highly significant. The effect size of 1.0203381 was considered to be a

large effect size with a 55.4 percentage of non-overlap. For the qualitative data, I used a

reflective journal as well as a student questionnaire to gather the information. The results

were coded for themes that aligned with the focus question. Through analyzing the

outcome of the various narratives, I was able to understand the themes and results. A

dominant theme that occurred was that most of the students did not find themselves

34

engaged enough in the lesson and began to interact in negative behaviors. This theme is

in line with the research from the literature.

The scholarly literature stated that through having these students with conduct

issues interact in various learning methods, they’re behavioral issues were reported to

decrease as previously stated by Bender (2008). Having these students who are repeat

discipline offenders participate in the differentiated curriculum gave them the ability to

showcase their various talents as well as allow them to utilize their various learning styles

that may not be touched upon in a traditional classroom setting. Tomlinson (2001) also

referred to “on task behavior” and how it should be valued and understood in the

classroom. By having the students remain on task through the differentiated classroom,

they are able to maintain “on task behavior” which will eliminate the unnecessary

disruptions by students who may be bored, not challenged, not having the material meet

them on their understanding level and/or not engaged in the lesson. I believe that the

information I garnered during the literature review proved to line up with my own

research.

The third focus question, what were the strengths & difficulties of differentiating

the mixed ability class in the art room, a reflective journal was kept to record the

behaviors pre/post differentiated instruction; it qualitatively determined an outcome. The

narratives were coded and aligned with the focus question. The data results showcased

several themes that were uncovered in the text. The recurring theme noted in the

reflective journals was the difficulty in differentiating instruction on the first day as it was

notably different than the traditional style of instruction The dominant theme in this

portion of the thesis is the various strengths that I have garnered as an educator. Through

35

the reflective journal, I noted that, although the first few days were trying; I began to feel

more confident as well as learned in the various methods of instruction.

The literature review noted several scholars stating that differentiation would be

difficult at first, but that eventually the benefits would overshadow the initial difficulties.

Tomlinson (2001) stated that the difficulties from beginning a differentiated curriculum

are often outweighed by the extreme benefits that are eventually reaped from creating

such a unique and all-encompassing classroom. Also, teachers with less experience may

find it overwhelming; however, they are encouraged to start with smaller increments of

differentiation as well as a slower pace of instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Also, as is the

nature of a differentiated classroom, there is typically a lot of movement and noise. With

a class that is large, it may become difficult to keep track of all students as well as

keeping up with student progress. With a mixed ability, differentiated classroom the goal

is not to have each child finish at the same time, but to let each child work at their own

pace while utilizing their own learning style. Having an activity planned for those “quick

finishers” as well as keeping a “home base” for the students to return to will keep

disruptive behavior and noise level to a minimum (Tomlinson, 2001). Tomlinson’s

research was exactly congruent with my research and the narrative that developed in my

reflective journal. I did find that multiple times I would find the differentiation to be

overwhelming, but that eventually I found myself to be much more confident and

eventually had a classroom that was differentiated with very little disruptive issues.

Discussion

The research produced these specific results, I believe, because of the nature of

the differentiation. The students responded well to the differentiation of the instruction

36

and found themselves to be engaged in the lesson and thus had less motivation and

opportunity to engage in disruptive behaviors. Through having their various learning

styles incorporated into the lesson, all the students were able to reach a level of

understanding within the instruction which allowed them to spend the majority of the

instruction time engaged within the lesson.

The findings of this research will be beneficial to both knowledge and practice for

other instructors insofar as to further their understanding of behavior issues, learning

styles and differentiation in the classroom. I believe that this particular study can be

implemented in a variety of learning environments and will yield similar results for each

instructor. One will be able to fully grasp the reasoning behind students’ inattentiveness

and disruptiveness and will be able to remedy these issues with a differentiated

instruction plan.

I believe that this study has much relevance in the realm of education. Many

instructors can utilize this information for their own classrooms as well as for specific

student populations that may have learning difficulties in the traditional classroom

setting. The conclusions and results are quite meaningful in the fact that it proves that the

traditional style of instruction may not necessarily be the “best” form of instruction. It

seems to be antiquated and without much substance. Every student is different and we

must speak to their differences rather than implementing a “one size fits all” instruction

plan.

Through using various sources to collect data, credibility was ensured in this

research. I wanted to emphasize the qualitative data through coding the various narratives

that I collected as well as the quantitative statistical data and how it showcased the

37

significant results. To further ensure credibility, I used a reflective journal prompts and

responses, a behavior observation form, a videotape to capture the instances of negative

behavior, a student questionnaire as well as an independent t-test to calculate the

statistical data. Through these various methods, one is able to ensure the credibility of

this research process and results.

Although very many studies have opposing points of view, this particular research

had very few strongly opposing points from scholars. However, there were instances in

which several scholars disagreed with how a differentiated classroom should look like. I

did include those points of view in Chapter Two for fairness.

This research has a tight argument as several data gathering methods were used as

well as having an extensive literature review to build up the study. There are several

scholars who help to construct the foundation of the research. The results also help to

back up the study through the qualitative and quantitative data that was gathered. The

case for differentiated instruction is quite coherent as well as strongly corroborated. A

reader will be able to assert judgments and explore extensively the results, literature

review and methods of gathering data and will find a strong argument and a well-rounded

study.

Implications

Concerning quantitative results, the change in student behavior was significant. If

an instructor were to do this particular study again, I believe that the results would be

similar, if not better. With a larger group, one may be able to have even more significant

results statistically. The qualitative data had several themes that were emerging, recurring

and dominant are mentioned in Chapters Four and Five. These findings are transferable to

38

other situations including students with learning difficulties as well as classes that may

have difficulty working together to create an ample learning environment. With this

study, one will understand the benefit of creating a differentiated classroom and the

positive results that can emerge from doing so. Other instructors will be able to

understand and emphasize with the themes that were uncovered as I believe that many

instructors will find themselves in a similar place when they begin to differentiate their

instruction.

This study has shaped and changed the subjects insofar as they feel that they are

being considered when it comes to planning the instruction. Their voices were heard and

I think that they appreciated that. The participants were shaped, in that, when asked

questions about my Instructional Plan it helped them to begin to think about their own

instruction and thoughts about differentiation. For myself, this study has transformed me

greatly. I feel that I have a completely different outlook on how students act in the

classroom and why. Having completed this study has helped me to become and much

more confident and competent educator. Now being able to understand and ascertain a

reason as to student negative behaviors has enabled me to completely change my

teaching strategy.

Impact on Student Learning

Student learning has definitely been impacted by this study. Through the literature

review and my own research, I was able to understand why the students felt and acted the

way they did in the classroom. Through the student completing the student questionnaire,

I know now how they honestly feel about traditional style of instruction and

differentiated style of instruction. They noted that they felt that not only did they feel

39

more “on task” but that they also felt that they learned more about the subject when

participating in a differentiated lesson plan. Through understanding how different

learning styles work, I was able to incorporate all of them in the lesson and touch on each

which gave each student a chance to feel as if they understood and grasped the material.

Through this study, the students found the material better to grasp, they became more

engaged and had less of an opportunity or motivation to interact in negative behaviors:

which I believe gave them more time to focus on ascertaining the information. Having

the students decrease their behavior disturbances gave them multiple opportunities to

increase their learning.

Recommendations for Future Research

By doing this study, I have gained a vast amount of knowledge; however, there

are portions that I would have done differently; which might have given me even better

results. I would most likely have spent much more time getting comfortable with

implementing a differentiated instruction plan rather than launching right into it on the

first day. I would also make the study longitudinal as well as with more classes. Had the

study been implemented on multiple types of classes (gifted, IEP, ESOL, etc.), I believe

that would have had a broader spectrum of results.

40

REFERENCES

SJBoces Corporation (n.d.) Behavior observation form. Retrieved June 28th, 2010, from

http://sjboces.org/pdf/Procedural%20Manual/Attachments/Behavior_Observation

_Form.pdf.

Bender, W.H. (2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities:

best practices for general and special educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Benjamin, A. (2002). Differentiated instruction: a guide for middle and high school

teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition. Artificial Intelligence

and Education.

Elkwall, E.E, & Shanker, J.L. (1988). Teaching reading in the elementary school.

Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Gregory, G.H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instruction strategies: one size

doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: how to reach

and teach all learners. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Johnson, B. (2009, March 2). Differentiated instruction allows students to succeed.

Message posted to http://www.edutopia.org/differentiated-instruction-student-

success

Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. M. Orey, (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on

learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

41

LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,

GA: LaGrange College.

Mertler, C. (2009). Action research: teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Moore, K.D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies: from theory to practice .

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Reflective Journal Template for Educators. (n.d.) Retrieved June 28th, 2010, from

http://balancingleadership.com/documents/PERFECTDIARYTEACHERS5.pdf

Sasson, D. (2010, January 2). Tricks of the trade for dealing with discipline problems of

mixed ability classes. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?

Tricks- of- the- Trade- For- Dealing- With- Discipline- Problems- of- Mixed-

Ability- Classes&id=3510009

Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kozulin, (Ed.).Boston, MA,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

42

Appendix A

Instructional PlanCriteria Description

Participants Involved (age) The participants’ age will range from 15 to 18 years of age.

Content Area The content area will cover introductory art and will specifically be on the principles of design.

Time Frame Two weeks of differentiating instruction and calculating data.

Rationale The research will facilitate various methods of teaching that will integrate behavior modifications within the lesson. Through differentiation of instruction, the instances of behavioral disruptions will, hopefully, be lowered.

Role of the Teacher Facilitator

Materials Student interview, teacher journal, rubric for categorizing “negative behaviors”

Procedures The class will be broken up into groups and allowed to participate in various sorts of activities. The lesson will be differentiated for the students rather than participate in the traditional lecture format.

Assessments Journals, behavior list, quantitizing of data

Modifications There are several mods. for 3 students in my introductory class. They need to have everything read to them and I will typically send them to their study skills room, or I will read it for them if time allows.

Grade level/Lesson Plan Grades will vary from 9th through 12th grade. The lesson will be on of the introductory art nature specifically on the principles of design.

43

Appendix B

Instructional Plan RubricCriteria Description Open Ended Responses

Content Area The content area will cover introductory art and will specifically be on the principles of design.

Do you think that the content area will cover the introductory art that will specifically cover the principles of design?

Time frame Two weeks of differentiating instruction and calculating data.

Do you think that two weeks is adequate time?

Rationale The research will facilitate various methods of teaching that will integrate behavior modifications within the lesson. Through differentiation of instruction, the instances of behavioral disruptions will, hopefully, be lowered.

Do you think that the behavior modifications and differentiation will decrease the number of behavior disruptions?

Role of the Teacher Facilitator How are my materials being presented as the facilitator?

Materials Student interview, teacher journal, rubric for categorizing “negative behaviors”

Do you think the instruments and tools that will be used will be a good method to organize data?

Procedures The class will be broken up into groups and allowed to participate in various sorts of activities. The lesson will be differentiated for the students rather than participate in the traditional lecture format.

Do you think the procedures align with the original plan of differentiation of instruction?

Assessments Journals, behavior list, quantitizing of data

Do you think that the instruments used for assessing the data are adequate?

Modifications There are several mods. for 3 students in my introductory class. They need to have everything read to them and I will typically send them to their study skills room, or I will read it for them if time allows.

Will the modifications interfere with my research?

Grade level/Lesson Plan Grades will vary from 9th through 12th grade. The lesson will be on of the introductory art nature specifically on the principles of design.

Do you think that this is a good sampling of students for the research design?

44

Appendix C

Behavior Observation Form

45

Source: SJBoces Corporation (n.d.) Behavior observation form. Retrieved from

http://sjboces.org/pdf/Procedural%20Manual/Attachments/Behavior_Observation

_Form.pdf.

46

Appendix D

Reflective Journal

WEEK 1Reflective Moment: STUDENT/PARENT_____COLLEAGUE_____PERSONAL_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WEEK 2Reflective Moment: STUDENT/PARENT_____COLLEAGUE_____PERSONAL_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WEEK 3Reflective Moment: STUDENT/PARENT_____COLLEAGUE_____PERSONAL_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

47

Appendix E

Reflective Prompts

How many instances of previously defined negative behavior are noticed prior to differentiation of the curriculum?

How long should I teach the curriculum before I begin the differentiated curriculum?

How has the differentiated instruction increased attention span and decreased negative behaviors?

How many instances of previously defined negative behavior are noticed post differentiation of the curriculum?

Has the new instruction enabled the students to remain focused for longer periods of time?

Do the students seem more involved in the lesson than in the prior days to differentiation?

48

Appendix F

LEARNING STYLES ASSESSMENTI Like Your Style!

LEARNING STYLES INVENTORY

(Honolulu Community College – Faculty Development Teaching Guidebook)

DIRECTIONS: To gain a better understanding of yourself as a learner, you need to evaluate the way you prefer to learn or process information. By doing so, you will be able to develop strategies which will enhance your learning potential. The following evaluation is a short, quick way of assessing your learning style(s). This 24-item survey is not timed. Answer each question as honestly as you can.

Often Sometimes Seldom

1 I can remember more about a subject through the lecture method with information, explanation, and discussion.

2 I prefer information to be written on the chalkboard, with the use of visual aids and assignment readings.

3 I like to write things down or to take notes for visual review.

4 I prefer to use posters, models, or actual practice and some activities in class.

5 I require explanations of diagrams, graphs, or visual directions.

6 I enjoy working with my hands or making things.

7 I am skillful with and enjoy developing and making graphs and charts.

8 I can tell if sounds match when presented with pairs of sounds.

9 I remember best by writing things down several times.

10 I can understand and follow directions on maps.

11 I do better at academic subjects by listening to lectures and tapes.

12 I play with coins or keys in pockets.

13 I learn to spell better by repeating the words out loud than by writing the words on paper.

14 I can better understand a news article by reading about it in the paper than by listening to the radio.

15 I chew gum or snack during studies.

16 I feel the best way to remember is to picture it in

49

your head.

17 I learn spelling by “finger spelling,” (drawing the letters with a finger).

18 I would rather listen to a good lecture or speech than read about it.

19 I am good at working and solving jigsaw puzzles and mazes.

20 I grip objects in my hands during learning periods.

21 I prefer listening to the news on the radio rather than reading about it in the newspaper.

22 I obtain information on an interesting subject by reading relevant materials.

23 I feel very comfortable touching others, hugging, handshaking, etc.

24 I follow spoken directions better than written ones.

50

I Like Your Style!LEARNING STYLES INVENTORY

SCORING PROCEDURES

Place the point value on the line next to the corresponding item.

OFTEN = 5 / SOMETIMES = 3 / SELDOM = 1

NUMBER POINTS NUMBER POINTS NUMBER POINTS

2 1 4

3 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

14 13 15

16 18 17

19 21 20

22 24 23

TotalVisual

Total Auditory

Total Tactile

VISUAL LEARNINGS: Visual learners relate most effectively to written information, notes, diagrams and pictures. Typically they will be unhappy with a presentation where they are unable to take detailed notes – to an extent, information does not exist for a visual learner unless it has been seen written down. This is why some visual learners take notes even when they have printed course notes on the desk in front of them. Visual learners will tend to be most effective in written communication, symbol manipulation, etc. Visual learners should look at all study materials. They should use charts, maps, filmstrips, notes, and flashcards. Visual learners should practice visualizing or picturing words / concepts in their heads. Visual learners should write down everything for frequent and quick visual reference. Visual learners make up around 65% of the population.

AUDITORY LEARNERS: Auditory learners relate most effectively to the spoken word. They will tend to listen to a lecture, and then take notes afterwards, or rely on printed notes. Often information written down will have little meaning until it has been heard – it may help auditory learners to read written information aloud. Auditory learners may be sophisticated speakers, and may specialize effectively in subjects like law or politics. Auditory learners may want to use tapes. Taped lectures may help fill in the gaps in the student’s notes. Auditory learners should sit in front of the classroom where they can hear well. Auditory learners should do reading assignments out loud, or recite summaries of written materials. Auditory learners make up about 30% of the population.

TACTILE LEARNERS: Tactile learners learn effectively through touch, movement and space. They learn skills by imitation and practice. Tactile learners often work slowly because information

51

is normally not presented in a style that suits their learning methods. Tactile learners may also benefit from typing notes, and/or acting out (role playing) different situations. For example, tactile learners might pretend they are different parts of the cell and actually move about the classroom when studying cell structure. Tactile learners make up about 5% of the population.

Learning Styles – Group Summary

Name of Group: ____________________________________________________________________________

To help the counselors advise students, please list the members of your advisory group below and write each student’s total score for each learning style as determined by the “I Like Your Style” assessment. This information will be used when helping students develop learning strategies and with academic planning (course selection).

STUDENT NAME VISUAL AUDITORY TACTILE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Appendix G

Learning Styles Questionnaire

52

Name:_________________________Date:__________________________

1.) Do you feel that you have learned better about the history of face jugs, the dates and cultural information by creating the actual face jugs? Why or why not? :_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.) Do you feel that you have learned better by listening to the Powerpoint presentation about the information behind the face jugs rather than actually making them? Why or why not?:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.) Do you feel that you are more “on task” when you are listening to a lecture? Why or why not?:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.) Do you feel that you are more “on task” when you are creating something with your hands? Why or why not?: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

53